OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2005 tion was shifted to that arena. Reformers called upon the FCC to require three hours of CCD per week, even more than called for in the senate bill. The proposals had the strong support of the two Democratic commissioners, but its future remained uncertain at the time (Evensen 2004). On Feb 10, 2005, the FCC ruled on the other major issue in the digital transition, the multicasting must-carry rights for broadcasters, without any ruling on public interest obligations. The five-year old notice of inquiry on the subject remains open, and it is unknown when and if any action will be taken on it (Campaign Legal Center 2005.) Conclusion Whether any of these attempts at governmental reform of political broadcasting will be implemented is difficult to say. Even more difficult to tell is whether once implemented these reforms would have significant impact. As we have seen, past attempts at reform have had mixed success, and a complex array of factors have reduced political broadcasting, making it difficult to alleviate the problem with any one solution. The situation of the special relationship between politics and television that this report set out to explore is at present a melancholy one. The current amount of political information on broadcast television is low. The effects of this calamity are disastrous, the causes murky, and the chances for reform appear suspect at best. No simple solution offers itself. Yet, in order to avoid a "subscription democracy" in which the political information necessary to participate is limited only to those who can afford to access it on cable, the Internet, or newspapers and magazines, it is necessary that efforts at reform continue and that the issue remains one of deep and active public concern. The grand potential of television as a tool for democratization is currently unfulfilled, but it is not too late to rescue the promised future, even though for the moment it seems to have been betrayed. References Alliance for Better Campaigns. 2000. "Networks, Parties Trade Charges Over Plunge in Convention Coverage." The Political Standard, 3. <http://www.bettercampaigns.org/standard/display. php?IssueID=18> (25 June 2004). -. 2002. The Case for Free Air Time. Washington, D.C: Alliance for Better Campaigns. . n.d. Case Studies, <http://www.bettercampaigns.org/cases/> April 2004). (3 Annenberg Public Policy Center. 1997. "Free Air Time and Campaign Reform." <http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/03_ political_communication/freetime/REP15.PDF> (4 March 2004). Baum, M.A., and S. Kemell. 1999. "Has Cable Ended the Golden Age of Presidential Television?" American Political Science Review, 93: 99-114. Campaign Legal Center. 2004. Unpublished data researched by interns. -. 2005. Statement of Meredith McGeehee on FCC's Must-Carry Vote. <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press'!505.html> (1 April 2005). Cappella, J.N. and M. Brewin. 1998. Minnesota Compact and the Election of 1996. Annenberg Public Policy Center. Cappella, J.N. and K.H. Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of Cynicism : The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press. Center for Media and Public Affairs. 2000. "Campaign 2000 Final." Media Monitor, 14: 6. -. 2004a. Network News Focus: Flubs, Fluff-Not Functional. <http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworkNewsFocus.htm> (11 February 2004). -. 2004b. Study: Dean Trails in Race for Positive Press Network Election Coverage Down 62% from 1996. <http://www.cmpa.com/ pressReleases/DeanTrails.htm> (11 February 2004). Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. 2001. If a Tree Falls in the Woods: A Report on Television Coverage of Debates. Consumers Union. 2004. New Survey Finds Americans Rely on Newspapers Much More Than Other Media For Local News And Information: FCC Media Ownership Rules Based On Flawed Data. <http://www.consumersunion.org/pdf/0129%201ocal%20media% 20survey%20report.PDF> (4 February 2004). Denton, F. and E. Thorson. 1994. Civic Journalism: Does It Work? <http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/research/r_doesit.html> (26 June 2004). Evensen, J. 2004. "Meaningful Political Info On TV Would Be Helpful." Deseret Morning News, 6 June, All. Falk, E. and S. Aday. 2000. Are Voluntary Standards Working? Candidate Discourse on Network Evening News Programs. <http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/03_political_com-munication/freettme/2000-voluntary%20standards%20report. pdf> (3 February 2004). Federal Communications Commission. 1949. Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees. Report. 13 FCC. 1256, 1249. Fetto, J. 2003. "Your Questions Answered - Letter to the Editor: I Want My MTV." American Demographics, 1 March. Hearst'Argyle Television, Inc. 2004. Hearst-Arg;yle Television Announces Results For The Fourth Quarter and Full Year. http://www.corporate.ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=HTV&scri pt=410&layout='6&item_id=499195 (12 April 2004). Jamieson, K. 1996. Assessing the Quality of Campaign Discourse: 1960, 1980, 1988, 1992. Annenberg Public Policy Center. Kaplan, M. & M. Hale. 2001. Local TV Coverage of the 2000 General Election. A report for the Norman Lear Center of the USC Annenberg School of Communication. <http://www.lear center.org/pdf/campaignnews.PDF> (28 January 2004). Lear Center. 2002. Local TV News Coverage of the 2002 General Election. <http://www.localnewsarchive.org/pdf/LocalTV2002. pdf> (27 January 2004). Library of Congress. 2005. S.1497, Bill Summary and Status for the 108th Congress. <http://thomas.loc. gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?dl08:s. 01497:> (1 April 2005). McAvoy, K. 2004."This Station Group Takes Politics Seriously." Broadcasting & Cable. 12 April. Media InfoCenter. 2004. Audience Penetration. <http://www.mediain-focenter.org/compare/penetration/> (14 April 2005). 81 |