Viewpoint Diversity and Media Consolidation: An Empirical Study

IF 4.9 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Stanford Law Review Pub Date : 2008-03-11 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1121229
Daniel E. Ho, K. Quinn
{"title":"Viewpoint Diversity and Media Consolidation: An Empirical Study","authors":"Daniel E. Ho, K. Quinn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1121229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the central predicates of legal regulation of media ownership is that ownership consolidation reduces substantive viewpoint diversity. Appellate courts and in turn the Federal Communications Commission have increasingly demanded evidence for this convergence hypothesis, but extant empirical measures of viewpoint diversity sidestep the problem, ignoring diversity, viewpoints, or both. Our article develops and offers a finely-tuned, time-varying statistical measure of editorial viewpoint diversity, based on a new database of over 1600 editorials in 25 top papers from 1988-2004. Using this new measure, we assess the validity of the convergence hypothesis by examining the evolution of editorial viewpoints over the course of five major mergers and acquisitions. Our data reveals complex patterns that defy extant accounts, showing stability, convergence and divergence of viewpoints in the face of - and depending on the circumstances of - consolidation. These findings fundamentally challenge extant empirical regulatory assumptions - pointing to the crucial role of editorial policies - and deeply inform the viability of the ownership regulations and the interpretation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"61 1","pages":"781"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2008-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1121229","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

One of the central predicates of legal regulation of media ownership is that ownership consolidation reduces substantive viewpoint diversity. Appellate courts and in turn the Federal Communications Commission have increasingly demanded evidence for this convergence hypothesis, but extant empirical measures of viewpoint diversity sidestep the problem, ignoring diversity, viewpoints, or both. Our article develops and offers a finely-tuned, time-varying statistical measure of editorial viewpoint diversity, based on a new database of over 1600 editorials in 25 top papers from 1988-2004. Using this new measure, we assess the validity of the convergence hypothesis by examining the evolution of editorial viewpoints over the course of five major mergers and acquisitions. Our data reveals complex patterns that defy extant accounts, showing stability, convergence and divergence of viewpoints in the face of - and depending on the circumstances of - consolidation. These findings fundamentally challenge extant empirical regulatory assumptions - pointing to the crucial role of editorial policies - and deeply inform the viability of the ownership regulations and the interpretation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
观点多样性与媒体整合的实证研究
媒体所有权法律规制的中心命题之一是所有权整合减少了实体观点的多样性。上诉法院和联邦通信委员会也越来越多地要求为这种趋同假设提供证据,但现有的观点多样性实证措施回避了这个问题,忽视了多样性、观点或两者兼而有之。我们的文章开发并提供了一种微调的、随时间变化的编辑观点多样性统计方法,该方法基于一个新的数据库,该数据库包含1988-2004年间25篇顶级论文的1600多篇社论。使用这种新的措施,我们评估的有效性趋同假设通过检查的演变编辑的观点在五个主要的并购过程中。我们的数据揭示了复杂的模式,挑战现有的说法,显示稳定性,趋同和分歧的观点,面对-并取决于情况-整合。这些发现从根本上挑战了现有的经验监管假设——指出了编辑政策的关键作用——并深刻地说明了所有权法规和1996年《电信法》解释的可行性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Does nationality affect nurses' information security participation? A comparative study in Iran and Poland. "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. What Is Federalism in Healthcare For? "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1