Whose Airwaves are They Anyway?

W. Kenneth Ferree
{"title":"Whose Airwaves are They Anyway?","authors":"W. Kenneth Ferree","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1124002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Whatever happened to: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? In the context of broadcasting, representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA 14th) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI 2nd) are the latest to transgress, offering this year their \"Broadcast Licensing in the Public Interest Act\" (HR 4882). Congressional critics of broadcasting often begin their attacks by asserting that the airways belong to the public. The Eshoo/Baldwin bill is no exception. But one must ask why these selfsame critics deem themselves better qualified to determine how \"the public\" would like its airwaves used than are broadcasters whose livelihoods depend on their ability to deliver content with broad appeal. Broadcast licensees, after all, compete with an increasingly diverse variety of other media for a share of a highly fragmented market. As such they have an economic imperative to deliver that programming which will most interest \"the public.\" Broadcasters no more need the government to tell them what that programming is than Macy's needs bureaucratic direction on the styles of women's shoes to sell. Divining what the public wants carried on its airwaves is therefore no more difficult than switching on your television. If broadcasters really are to serve the public, they cannot be held hostage to the individual programming tastes of any one person or group of people - even if that group is known as Congress.","PeriodicalId":413544,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice (Topic)","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1124002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Whatever happened to: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? In the context of broadcasting, representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA 14th) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI 2nd) are the latest to transgress, offering this year their "Broadcast Licensing in the Public Interest Act" (HR 4882). Congressional critics of broadcasting often begin their attacks by asserting that the airways belong to the public. The Eshoo/Baldwin bill is no exception. But one must ask why these selfsame critics deem themselves better qualified to determine how "the public" would like its airwaves used than are broadcasters whose livelihoods depend on their ability to deliver content with broad appeal. Broadcast licensees, after all, compete with an increasingly diverse variety of other media for a share of a highly fragmented market. As such they have an economic imperative to deliver that programming which will most interest "the public." Broadcasters no more need the government to tell them what that programming is than Macy's needs bureaucratic direction on the styles of women's shoes to sell. Divining what the public wants carried on its airwaves is therefore no more difficult than switching on your television. If broadcasters really are to serve the public, they cannot be held hostage to the individual programming tastes of any one person or group of people - even if that group is known as Congress.
它们到底是谁的电波?
不管发生了什么:国会不得制定限制言论自由的法律?在广播方面,众议员安娜·艾肖(加利福尼亚州第14位民主党人)和塔米·鲍德温(加利福尼亚州第2位民主党人)是最新的违规者,他们今年提出了“公共利益广播许可法案”(HR 4882)。国会对广播的批评常常以断言航空公司属于公众为开始。Eshoo/Baldwin法案也不例外。但是人们必须要问,为什么这些批评者认为自己比广播公司更有资格决定“公众”对其电波的使用方式,而广播公司的生计依赖于他们提供具有广泛吸引力的内容的能力。毕竟,在这个高度分散的市场中,获得广播执照的媒体要与越来越多样化的其他媒体竞争。因此,出于经济考虑,他们必须提供最能让“公众”感兴趣的节目。广播公司不需要政府来告诉他们节目是什么,就像梅西百货(Macy’s)不需要政府来指导女鞋的销售风格一样。因此,预测公众想要在电视上播放什么并不比打开电视更难。如果广播公司真的要为公众服务,他们就不能受制于任何一个人或一群人的个人节目品味——即使这个群体被称为国会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信