Folks: I'll be going over this assignment after your exam on Monday, but here is a
detailed outline of the guidelines, requirements and grading rubric for your term paper. This assignment is worth 35% of your overall grade, and it is due on December 6th. The earlier you start your research and writing, the better you will do. Also, I'm here to help, so if you have questions, schedule to meet with me during my office hours (10a-1p Th).
UPDATE: Link is broken. Still fussing with DropBox. I've copied and pasted the assignment below and will bring printed copies to class. Link to the assignment will be fixed soon.
JOUR 3060: Communication Law & Policy
Dr. Powers
Fall 2012
Writing
Assignment: Media Ownership Review
Background: Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 requires the Federal Communications Commission to review its ownership
rules every four years and determine whether they are in the public interest. Under Section 202(h), the Commission shall
repeal or modify any regulation it determines is no longer in the public
interest.
Summary
of assignment: Each student
is asked to write a public comment arguing for the reform of the FCC’s 2010 Media Ownership Rules.
Each brief must include the following
sections: (1) What legal authority does the FCC have to regulate media
ownership?; (2) The problem(s) with the current media ownership rules; (3) The
proposed change in media ownership rules; (4) The likely consequences of the
proposed change in media ownership rules and (5) a rebuttal to possible
criticisms of a change in media ownership rules.
·
Section I: What legal authority does the FCC have to
regulate media ownership? In this
section, you should (a) outline the statutory origins of FCC media ownership
regulations; (b) provide historical context explaining why Congress provided
the FCC the authority to regulate media ownership; (c) the constitutional basis
for Congressional regulation (which was delegated to the FCC) of media
ownership and (No more than 1000 words; 20 points)
·
Section II: The problem(s) with the current media ownership
rules. This section should include: (a)
why media ownership matters, (b) the evolution of its regulation; (c) how new
and emerging technologies require additional reform of media ownership
policies; and (d) the specific problem or problems with the current regulatory
regime requiring reform. (No more than
1000 words; 20 points).
·
Section
III: The proposed change in media
ownership rules. This section should include (a) a specific policy proposal (and
language) that would alter the FCC’s current media ownership regulations; (b) key
differences between existing regulations and your proposed changes should be
highlighted, and (c) specific citations of either Congressional legislation or
legal precedent that demonstrates the FCC’s legal authority to enact the
proposed changes. (No more than 500 words; 10 points)
·
Section IV: The likely consequences of the proposed change
in media ownership rules. (a) How does
the proposed change remedy the problems you outlined regarding the current
regulatory regime? (b) What is the
primary benefit of the reform? (c) What
industries are affected, and who are the key players in those industries? (d) What other consequences would the change
have? (e) How would the proposed change
impact consumer access to diverse programming?
(f) Make a comprehensive and persuasive argument for the reform you’ve
proposed. (e): Extra credit (up to five
points, depending on quality of argument and evidence): connect the reform
to media policy outside the United States, using its similarity to another country’s
media laws as evidence of its likely effect. (No more than 1000 words, or 1200 words if you
attempt the extra credit; 20 points)
·
Section V: A rebuttal to possible criticisms of a change in
media ownership rules. (a) Who loses out
in the proposed change in policy? (b) What
are their best arguments against the reform?
(c) Why are those arguments wrong? (No more than 500 words; 10 points)
Where do I start?
a.
The FCC
has a webpage
dedicated to all things related to media ownership
b.
It has
extensive research and resources for you to draw from.
2.
Do
background research on (1) why media ownership matters, (2) the history of its
regulation, and (3) how new and emerging technologies are impacting media
ownership policies.
3.
Approach
the assignment step by step. Start with section 1, proceed to section 2, and on
and on. Set deadlines for yourself: Section one done by Spring Break, etc.
4.
To help you
get started, I’ve gathered some resources that you may consider using. See attached bibliography.
5.
Use me as a
resource as much as you need. This is challenging assignment, and by the end of
it I want you to be proud of the brief you have produced.
6.
Keep in mind
that you can propose any media ownership reform you like as long as it can
constitutionally defended. You could
argue for further restrictions on media ownership or less; different types of restrictions,
etc. All legally grounded perspectives
are welcome!
Grading:
1.
Section 1: 20
points; Section 2: 20 points; Section 3: 10 points; Section 4: 20 points;
Section 5: 10 points.
a.
As you write
each section, make sure that you are addressing on each of the sub-points
clearly and sufficiently. Feel free to note which question, using the letter
associated with the sub point, you are addressing.
b.
Example: “The
proposed changes would certainly disadvantage media conglomerates like News
Corporation and Turner Broadcasting, among others, who benefit from the current
hand-off approach to regulating cable television (5a).”
2.
Treat this
like a document you would submit to the FCC for review in the lead up to its 2014
review of media ownership regulations. It is a legal document. Writing
should be formal and clear. Grammar, punctuation, precision and accuracy all
matter (10 points)
3.
The word
limits are strictly enforced. Do not go
over the noted word limit for each section. Brevity is an asset in legal
arguments. (Excess words will result points lost in the particular section in
question; see above for point distribution between sections).
4.
Arguments
need to be grounded in legal precedent and well-researched scholarship, not
one’s one perspective. (10 points)
6.
All work must
be your own. If you copy text or ideas without proper citation, I will know,
and you will receive an F for this assignment.
7.
Due by 11:59p
on December 6th. You have ten weeks to complete this assignment.
Start early. Late papers will be deducted 10% a day. Email final papers to smp@gsu.edu.
8.
Professor
will return the paper to students with specific comments by request.
9.
Professor
will review drafts up until November 22. If you would like me to review your
work before you turn in a final paper, then start early.
Bibliography
D. Linda Garcia and Ellen Surles, “Media Ownership
and Communications: Enriching the Research Agenda,” Telecommunications
Policy 31, no. 8–9 (October 2007): 473-492.
Robert W. McChesney, Rich Media, Poor
Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times (New Press, The, 2000).
Lee C. Jr Bollinger, “Freedom of the Press and
Public Access: Toward a Theory of Partial Regulation of the Mass Media,” Michigan
Law Review 75 (1977 1976): 1.
Lee C. Bollinger, The Tolerant Society
(Oxford University Press, 1989)
George Glider, The
Freedom Model of Telecommunications (The Progress and Freedom Foundation,
1995).
Robert W. McChesney, The Problem of the Media:
U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty-First Century, 1st Printing.
(Monthly Review Press, 2004).
Michael Wolff, The Man Who Owns the News:
Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch (Broadway, 2008).
C. Edwin Baker, Media Concentration and
Democracy: Why Ownership Matters, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press,
2006).
Ben H. Bagdikian, The New Media Monopoly: A
Completely Revised and Updated Edition With Seven New Chapters (Beacon
Press, 2004).
Henry Jenkins, “The Cultural Logic of Media
Convergence,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 7, no. 1 (March
1, 2004): 33 -43.
Lee C. Bollinger, Uninhibited, Robust, and
Wide-open: a Free Press for a New Century (Oxford University Press, 2010).
Eli M. Noam, Media Ownership and Concentration
in America (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Ben Scott, “Politics and Policy of Media
Ownership, The,” American University Law Review 53 (2004 2003): 645.
Scott Cleland and Ira Brodsky, Search &
Destroy: Why You Can’t Trust Google Inc., 1st ed. (Telescope Books, 2011).
Bruce M Owen, “Regulatory Reform: The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the FCC Media Ownership Rules,” Law
Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law 2003 (2003):
671.
L. P Hitchens, “Media Ownership and Control: A
European Approach,” The Modern Law Review 57, no. 4 (July 1, 1994):
585-601.
