Table of contents for Media concentration and democracy : why ownership matters / C. Edwin Baker.

Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.

Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.


Counter
Contents
Preface 13
Introduction 18
Chapter 1: Democracy at the Crossroads: Why Ownership Matters
Develops three main reasons why ownership concentration should
be opposed: a democratic distributive principle, a political safeguard
principle, and a goal of getting ownership into the hands of peo-
ple most likely to avoid an undesirable focus on the bottom line.
Considers various supplementary points. 25
Chapter 2: Not A Real Problem: Many Owners, Many Sources
Evaluates claims that there are plenty of owners and that standard an-
titrust law provides an remedy for any undue concentration. Offers a
preferable, alternative consumer choice model of antitrust law but, in
end, argues that it too is inadequate because it is too commodity ori-
ented to take account of the democratic, process, non-commodified
values developed in Chapter One. Critically evaluates the FCC's Di-
versity Index and an argument that might make sense of the DI. 119
Chapter 3: Not A Real Problem: The Market or the Net Will Provide
Rejects the view that, given adequate enforcement of antitrust laws,
any worry about concentration is unwarranted because the market
will provide whatever content and diversity people want or need.
Critiques suggestion that any possible problems of media concentra-
tion are now eliminated due to the Internet. 183
Chapter 4: First Amendment Guarantee of Free Press -- An Objection
to Regulation?
Ringing language in Supreme Court decisions implies that the First
Amendment would be served by limiting media concentration. Nev-
ertheless, recent debates invoke the First Amendment as a purported
limit on government power to limit concentration. This viewrequires
one or more of three assumptions -- relating to the grounding of press
rights, the aims of the First Amendment, and the proper level of
judicial activism. Both Supreme Court precedent and sound theory
reject each assumption. Thus, this use of the First Amendment seems
purely obfuscatory. The First Amendment should be understood as
endorsing government power to engage in structural regulation. 250
Chapter 5: Solutions and Responses
Describes 7 possible policies responses to the problem of media con-
centration, with some cursory examination of European approaches,
and strongly recommends strict restrictions on mergers. Also con-
siders independent responses to each of three reasons for opposing
media concentration. 324
Notes 398

Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication:

Mass media -- Ownership -- United States.
Freedom of the press -- United States.