front cover of Fact and Fancy in Television Regulation
Fact and Fancy in Television Regulation
An Economic Study of Policy Alternatives
Harvey J. Levin
Russell Sage Foundation, 1980
How diverse can, and should, TV programming be? And especially, in what precise ways does governmental regulation of TV affect (or fail to affect) the programs station owners produce—programs which, in the final analysis, shape in such large measure the values of Americans? It is to these timely and beguiling questions that Harvey Levin addresses his dispassionate assessment of the complex relationship between government and the TV industry. Analyzing data drawn from the history of the FCC's regulatory decisions, as well as from interviews with numerous government and industry officials, Professor Levin shows how the present form of restrictive governmental regulation almost always results in higher profits and rents for TV stations, with no concomitant increase in programming diversity. In addition, Professor Levin investigates various other aspects of the media market, from the particular kinds of crucial decisions that are made when, for example, a newspaper owns a TV station, to the kinds of problems that arise when commercial rents are taxed to fund public TV; from the brand of programming we are offered when a monopoly controls a given TV market to the nature of programming in a situation of steady and fair competition. Following a comprehensive assessment, the author makes a compelling case for diversification of station ownership, in order to be "safe rather than sorry." He also argues for the entry of new stations, more extensive support of public TV, and some form of quantitative program requirements—all of which will help bring about greater program diversity. Professor Levin's volume provides us with a fully documented and sharply focused analysis of the theories, policies, and problems of one of the most powerful and misunderstood of contemporary institutions.
[more]

front cover of Investigated Reporting
Investigated Reporting
Muckrakers, Regulators, and the Struggle over Television Documentary
Chad Raphael
University of Illinois Press, 2005
Triple Award Winner: 
2006 History Division Book Award of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
2006 Frank Luther Mott/Kappa Tau Alpha Communications Award, and
2005 Donald McGannon Award for Social and Ethical Relevance in Communications Policy Research 

The public often views television investigative reporting as a watchdog on the government. In fact, some of the centerpiece moments of TV muckraking relied heavily on official sources for inspiration, information, and regulatory protection from critics. At the same time, criticism by government officials and overt threats to regulate the television industry influenced the decision-making and content that went into some of broadcast news's iconic moments.

Chad Raphael's looks at the relationship between journalism and regulation during the celebrated period of muckraking that took place on American television between 1960 and 1975. Raphael offers new insights into the economic, political, and industrial forces that shaped documentaries like Harvest of Shame, Hunger in America, and Banks and the Poor while placing the investigative television documentary into its institutional, regulatory, and cultural context. Throughout, Raphael exposes the complex strands of influence used by government officials to shape--and attack--investigative reporting, and highlights how these tactics created a troubling legacy for the regulation of television news today.

[more]

logo for Pluto Press
On Television
Stuart Hood and Thalia Tabary-Peterssen
Pluto Press, 1997

front cover of The Television Code
The Television Code
Regulating the Screen to Safeguard the Industry
By Deborah L. Jaramillo
University of Texas Press, 2018

The broadcasting industry’s trade association, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), sought to sanitize television content via its self-regulatory document, the Television Code. The Code covered everything from the stories, images, and sounds of TV programs (no profanity, illicit sex and drinking, negative portrayals of family life and law enforcement officials, or irreverence for God and religion) to the allowable number of commercial minutes per hour of programming. It mandated that broadcasters make time for religious programming and discouraged them from charging for it. And it called for tasteful and accurate coverage of news, public events, and controversial issues.

Using archival documents from the Federal Communications Commission, NBC, the NAB, and a television reformer, Senator William Benton, this book explores the run-up to the adoption of the 1952 Television Code from the perspectives of the government, TV viewers, local broadcasters, national networks, and the industry’s trade association. Deborah L. Jaramillo analyzes the competing motives and agendas of each of these groups as she builds a convincing case that the NAB actually developed the Television Code to protect commercial television from reformers who wanted more educational programming, as well as from advocates of subscription television, an alternative distribution model to the commercial system. By agreeing to self-censor content that viewers, local stations, and politicians found objectionable, Jaramillo concludes, the NAB helped to ensure that commercial broadcast television would remain the dominant model for decades to come.

[more]

front cover of Television, Nation, and Culture in Indonesia
Television, Nation, and Culture in Indonesia
Ris Sea#104
Philip Kitley
Ohio University Press, 2000
The culture of television in Indonesia began with its establishment in 1962 as a public broadcasting service. From that time, through the deregulation of television broadcasting in 1990 and the establishment of commercial channels, television can be understood, Philip Kitley argues, as a part of the New Order's national culture project, designed to legitimate an idealized Indonesian national cultural identity. But Professor Kitley suggests that it also has become a site for the contestation of elements of the New Order's cultural policies. Based on his studies, he further speculates on the increasingly significant role that television is destined to play as a site of cultural and political struggle.
[more]

front cover of Television Violence and Public Policy
Television Violence and Public Policy
James T. Hamilton, Editor
University of Michigan Press, 2000
Since 1954, violence in television programming has been the subject of legislative debate, congressional hearings, agency pronouncements, and presidential commentary. Most recently, ratings of television programs have been discussed and implemented while other means of controlling the access to certain kinds of television programs have been discussed. The debate over the age-based program rating system recently implemented by the television industry has generated many questions about television violence.
The essays in the volume provide answers to many of these questions on specific policy issues surrounding media violence. The contributors suggest that the research on television violence can serve as the basis for a framework that categorizes programs based on the context in which the violence is presented. The manner in which information is conveyed about violent content affects how viewers react to such warnings. Program warnings with MPAA-style ratings have the potential to confuse parents (since they do not provide detailed content information) and attract some viewers such as teenage males.
The contributors include some of the top researchers in the field of communications, several of whom participated in the National Television Violence Study. Contributors are Eva Blumenthal, Joanne Cantor, Wayne Danielson, Ed Donnerstein, Tim Gray, Kristen Harrison, Cynthia Hoffner, Marlies Klijn, Marina Krcmar, Dale Kunkel, Dominic Lasorsa, Rafael Lopez, Dan Linz, Adriana Olivarez, James Potter, Stacy Smith, Matthew L. Spitzer, Ellen Wartella, D. Charles Whitney, and Barbara Wilson.
This volume will be of interest to communications researchers, media policy experts, legal scholars, government and industry officials, and social scientists interested in media and television.
James Hamilton is Director of the Program on Violence and the Media, Duke University.
[more]


Send via email Share on Facebook Share on Twitter