Toward an Expanded Localism Principle in Communications Policymaking and Policy Analysis
Philip M. Napoli
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Business Administration
Fordham University
113 W. 60th St.
New York, NY 10023
212-636-6196
Presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Associaton
Acapulco, Mexico, June, 2000
Abstract
Recent developments in media technology have led some within the communications policy field to question traditional approaches localism and its continued viability as a meaningful policy principle. In response to this potential turning point in the history of the localism principle, this paper reexamines the underlying rationales for localism, as well as the means by which it has been applied, assessed, and conceptualized. This analysis concludes that when localism policies are approached in terms of their underlying rationales, it becomes clear that the localism principle need not be completely reconfigured or entirely abandoned. Rather, the localism principle should be expanded in directions that account for alternative definitions of community and for more robust definitions of what constitutes local programming. These expansions of the localism principle should enable it to remain an important and useful guidepost for communications policymakers and policy analysts.
Introduction
Principles are a central component of the policymaking process. As Charles Anderson (1992) states, "In order to make a policy decision, one must invoke some criteria of evaluation. We cannot decide whether a proposal for public action is desirable or undesirable, whether the results of a public program are to be adjudged a success or a failure, except in light of a standard" (p. 387). This standard is usually defined in terms of "a finite and bounded set of classic principles" (Anderson, 1992, p. 390).
These principles can vary considerably across policy areas. However, regardless of the specific field at issue, for these principles to be useful to policymakers and policy analysts, they must have clear, agreed-upon interpretations, so that they contain within them substantive and reasonably stable evaluative standards. Otherwise, "political argument can fasten arbitrarily on one or a few of these concepts and . . . they can be arranged in different patterns in ideological thinking, invested with a variety of meanings and given different degrees of emphasis" (Anderson, 1992, p. 395).
This pitfall has been particularly acute in communications policymaking, where the central guiding principles have suffered from years of ambiguity, inconsistency, and manipulation (Napoli, in press). However, the convergence of communications technologies and the consequent decline of traditional regulatory categories has led communications policymakers to reemphasize the importance of "developing regulatory principles that cut across traditional industry boundaries" (Federal Communications Commission, 1999, p. 4). Consequently, it is necessary to reexamine the central principles in communications policymaking to determine their relevance and their appropriate use in the communications environment of the future (see generally, Napoli, in press).
Localism has long been considered one of the central guiding principles in communications policymaking. Localism has been described as a "touchstone value of the FCC" (Duggan, 1991b, p. 18) and has been a fundamental principle of broadcast regulation since the Radio Act of 1927 (Federal Communications Commission, 1998a, p. 4; see also Duggan, 1992). In that Act, Congress stated:
In considering applications for licenses and renewals of licenses, when and in so far as there is a demand for the same, the licensing authority [the Federal Radio Commission] shall make such a distribution of licenses, bands of frequency of wave lengths, periods of time for operation, and of power among different States and communities as to give fair, efficient, and equitable radio service to each of the same. (Radio Act of 1927, Section 9).
From this language, and similar language in the Communications Act of 1934 (which replaced the Radio Act of 1927), emerged an ongoing policy imperative to design communications services that are oriented around local communities that remains prominent to this day.
It is important to recognize that, despite the broadcast-specific language in the Communications Act, the localism principle has been central to the regulation of other communications technologies as well. Localism was central to the FCC's extension of its regulatory authority over cable television (see Carter Mountain Transmission Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, 1963) and also has been prominent in policy issues pertaining to Direct Broadcast Satellite (Federal Communications Commission, 1998b), Microwave Multipoint Distribution Services (MMDS) (Federal Communications Commission, 1993d), and Personal Communication Services (PCS) (Federal Communications Commission, 1993c, pp. 7731-7732). (1)
Despite its longevity and breadth of application, debates over the specific meaning, and even the relevance, of localism have been commonplace in communications policy circles (e.g., Federal Communications Commission, 1986a). (2) Such debates have become more urgent in recent years, as technological developments have threatened to undermine the traditional logic of the localism principle, raising the possibility that localism may need to be either substantially reconfigured or abandoned entirely as a guiding principle in communications regulation (see Federal Communications Commission, 1998b).
This crucial time in the history of the localism principle merits a critical reexamination of its role and function in communications policymaking. In conducting such an analysis, this paper first examines the rationales that traditionally have underlain the localism principle, both within and beyond the context of communications policymaking. Such a grounding is necessary in order to gain the proper interpretive lens for the subsequent analysis. This paper then examines how policymakers have defined localism within the context of assessing localism policies. As this section will illustrate, policymakers have failed to reach a stable definition of what constitutes local programming, which has contributed to the sense of ambiguity, uncertainty, and inconsistency that has long characterized localism policymaking. Drawing upon the rationales that underlie the localism principle, this section argues for a broadening of how local programming is defined by policymakers and policy analysts.
This expansion of the definition of local programming is particularly relevant given the ongoing changes in the media environment, which may require policymakers to reconceptualize the localism principle. As the final section of this paper illustrates, the traditional "spatial" conceptualization of the localism principle may no longer sufficiently reflect the rationales that underlie localism policies. Instead, more "social" conceptualizations may be required in order for localism to remain a viable and useful guiding principle.
In the end, this analysis is intended to alleviate some of the ambiguity that has traditionally surrounded the localism principle and to provide suggestions about how the localism principle can be revised and strengthened as a guidepost for policymaking and policy analysis.
Rationales for Localism
Regardless of the historical or institutional context, localism has never been conceived as an end in and of itself. Rather, localism traditionally has been viewed as a means of achieving broader social objectives. Unfortunately, these broader objectives have not been particularly well-defined by communications policymakers (see Collins, 1980; Horwitz, 1989). Consequently, it is necessary to look beyond the communications context in order to identify the specific rationales relevant to the use of the localism principle in communications policy. As this section will illustrate, localism has long had both political and cultural relevance and has factored prominently in the design and operation of our social institutions. Placing communications policy into this broader institutional context helps illuminate the political and cultural objectives at the core of most localism policies.
Political Rationales for Localism Policies
From a political standpoint, localism traditionally has been an important value in the distribution of governmental control in the United States (Briffault, 1988, 1990). As Collins (1980) states, "The pervasive desire of the American people to diffuse political power encourages commitment of power to local entities" (p. 569). Indeed, localism in the design and operation of our political institutions was a central tenet of many of the early democratic theorists such as John Stuart Mill and G.D.H. Cole (Pateman, 1970). This localization of political power was seen as promoting political participation and education among the citizenry (Frug, 1980). According to this perspective, "It is by participating at the local level that the individual 'learns democracy'" (Pateman, 1970, p. 31). Such participation, and its concomitant education, can only be achieved, however, via a reduction in the scale of decision making and a genuine transfer of power to the decentralized units (Frug, 1980). Thus, "The existence of representative institutions at [the] national level is not sufficient for democracy" (Pateman, 1970, p. 42).
Such localization of governmental organizations is thought to provide benefits at both the individual and the societal levels, with "political participation seen as enhancing both the lives of the participants and the welfare of the polity that promotes it" (Briffault, 1990, p. 394). Specifically, greater localism in the distribution of political power is seen as promoting personal empowerment and increased political knowledge at the individual level and, at the societal level, a greater sense of community and more participatory -- and ultimately better -- decision making that is more closely aligned with the true values and interests of the citizenry (Frug, 1980).
Given the prominent political dimension of our media institutions (Napoli, 1997), it is perhaps not surprising that the localism principle quickly took hold in this regulatory arena. Cook (1998) provides perhaps the most thorough discussion of the extent to which our media organizations function as a political institution on par with such traditionally recognized political institutions as government bodies, the electorate, and special interest groups. According to Cook (1998), the news media form a collective institution with direct ties to -- and interrelationships with -- government. Policymakers have long recognized the unique political power of the communications industry, and this recognition has informed their approach to its regulation (McChesney, 1993, Napoli, 1998). Thus, when we acknowledge the media as a significant political institution, the function of localism as a communications policy objective becomes related to traditional democratic theory objectives such as enhanced political participation and better informed political decision making (e.g., Barlow, 1988).
Unfortunately, acknowledgments of the broader political functions of localism policies are infrequent in the FCC's policy discourse. Consider, for instance, that in 1985, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the FCC, in trying to justify the must-carry obligations imposed on cable operators, failed to demonstrate sufficiently that localism (a central motivating principle for the must-carry rules, see below) served an important or substantial government interest (Quincy Cable TV, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 1985). This is not to say that the court rejected localism as a substantial government interest, only that the Commission had yet to demonstrate it as such. Even in subsequent FCC proceedings (inspired by the Quincy decision) devoted specifically to determining the value of localism, specific articulations of the principle's traditional political rationales are missing (Federal Communications Commission, 1986c).
The Commission did, however, offer a somewhat ambiguous articulation of the political value of localism within the context of its re-evaluation of the continued necessity of the distant signal importation and syndicated program exclusivity (SYNDEX) rules. These rules limited the carriage of distant signals by cable systems and restricted cable systems from importing into local markets those signals that duplicated syndicated programming already being aired by local broadcast stations within those markets. These rules were intended to protect the financial health of local broadcasters, in the name of preserving localism (Federal Communications Commission, 1979). According to the Commission, "our concern with localism . . . may be characterized as a concern with externalities -- that is, the true value of local news and public affairs programming may not be reflected in the number of individuals who view it or the value they place on it but in the value it has to our society as a whole and especially in the functioning of our democratic institutions" (Federal Communications Commission, 1979, p. 1023). By linking local news and public affairs programming with the functioning of "our democratic institutions," the FCC effectively placed localism as a communications policy objective into its broader political context (see also Cox & Johnson, 1968).
Cultural Rationales for Localism Policies
A local orientation to the design and functioning of our social institutions can serve a cultural function as well. Specifically, a focus on localism in institutional design and operation has been viewed as essential to the preservation of unique cultural values and traditions within particular communities. Within the United States, such cultural diversity is both extensive and highly valued (see Briffault, 1988; Frug, 1980). The growth of what is frequently termed "mass society" often has been viewed as a threat to the unique cultural elements of local communities or small geographic regions (Bernard, 1973; Donner, 1998; Neuman, 1991). The feared result is a "disembedding" of local relations as they become involved in impersonal systems of standardized economic transactions and professional expertise (see Giddens, 1990, 1991). As Donner (1998) illustrates:
National holidays replace community festivals; professional medical practices replace folk treatments . . . international standards for measuring time replace locally relevant systems of time . . . and personal interests and voluntary associations replace extended kinship ties in the formation of groups and activities. In general, human activities become disembedded as they are decontextualized from their local settings and determined by standards and knowledge beyond the local community. (p. 61)
Such concerns have been central motivating factors behind the local orientation of institutional structures such as governments and schools (Briffault, 1988).
These concerns have been transferred to the regulatory treatment of media institutions. Our media institutions have long been recognized as a potentially powerful influence on culture and values. Research suggests that television viewing has the capacity to diminish the cultural diversity that exists between regions (Morgan, 1986). Consequently, communications policymaking has proceeded with an eye towards structuring the media system in a way that both preserves and promotes local culture. The Carnegie Commission (1967), which successfully advocated that Congress establish a public television system oriented around local stations, was particularly forceful in making this point:
America is geographically diverse, ethnically diverse, widely diverse in its interests. American society has been proud to be open and pluralistic, repeatedly enriched by the tides of immigration and the flow of social thought. Our varying regions, our varying religious and national and racial groups, our varying needs and social intellectual interests are the fabric of the American tradition. Television should serve more fully both the mass audience and the many separate audiences that constitute in their aggregate our American society. There are those who are concerned with matters of local interest. (p. 14)
Within this statement we see two separate constructions of the media audience. The first is the traditional mass audience, which is seen as national in scope and having some shared interests and concerns. The second is the local audience (of which there are of course many), which is seen as being more homogeneous in composition (along ethnic or regional lines) and as having unique interests that are separate from those being served by mass appeal programming. Addressing these local cultural interests was seen by the Carnegie Commission (1967) as a primary function of public television (see Mulcahy & Widoff, 1988).
The FCC also has emphasized the preservation and promotion of local culture in its localism policies; although, as is the case with the political rationales for localism, clear and extensive articulations of the cultural rationale are infrequent. The Commission's most explicit articulation of the cultural rationale for localism comes from then-Commissioners Cox and Johnson (1968), who stated rather broadly, "Ultimately, our broadcasting system is premised on concern that the very identity of local states and cities might be destroyed by a mass communications system with an exclusively national focus" (p. 8).
In sum, both the political and cultural concerns that historically have permeated the localism principle in the design and operation of our social institutions are relevant to the structure, function, and regulation of our system of electronic communication. Research indicates significant relationships between use of localized media and the strength of community ties (Emig, 1995); positive attitudes towards the community; the intensity of community commitment (Jeffres, Dobos, & Sweeney, 1987); and levels of knowledge of local political issues (Lucas & Possner, 1975). These findings suggest that the maintenance and promotion of localized means of self-expression can indeed promote broader political and cultural objectives. Placing localism within these broader political and cultural contexts provides a solid normative foundation from which to analyze its use in the communications arena.
The Localism Principle in Practice
The central problem in localism policymaking has been the long history of ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes local programming. In some instances, the goal of localism has been operationalized primarily in terms of the point of origin of the programming; however, in other instances, a more stringent standard addressing the nature of the program content has been applied. In the second scenario, local programming is operationalized in terms of whether the programming addresses local interests and concerns. It is certainly the case that these two criteria may often be congruent. Indeed, the Commission often has assumed a causal relationship between them, with local origination presumed to lead to local interest programming (Berkowitz, 1984; Collins, 1980). However, the Commission has not been consistent in its acceptance of this assumption, and the empirical record on this issue is spotty, at best.
Local Programming as Point of Origin
At the most basic level, local programming frequently has been defined in terms of the program's geographic point of origin. Thus, any program produced and presented within a local community would be seen as contributing to the fulfillment of the localism ideal. Consequently, many FCC policies have focused on promoting, or mandating, local program production. In some instances, these efforts have been quite direct, such as in the case of the now-defunct broadcast television programming guidelines. These rules specified that any television license renewal application demonstrating less than five percent of air time devoted to local programming would be subject to review (Federal Communication Commission, 1976). These guidelines were eliminated in 1984 on the basis of empirical analyses suggesting that they contributed only about two percentage points to the average station's level of local programming, and that most stations already provided well above the five percent minimum of local programming (Federal Communications Commission, 1984, Appendix C). In this instance, local programming was defined as:
any program originated or produced by the station, or for the production of which the station is primarily responsible, employing live talent more than 50 percent of the time. Such a program, taped, recorded or filmed for later broadcast shall be classified as local. . . . All non-network and non-syndicated news programs may be classified as local. (Federal Communications Commission 1984, p. 171)
Obviously, this is a purely geography-based definition of local programming. A similar definition can be found in the Commission's decision to eliminate the distant signal importation and syndicated exclusivity (SYNDEX) rules (Federal Communications Commission, 1979, 1980). In this decision, the Commission conducted an empirical analysis of the potential effects of the regulations' removal on broadcasters' provision of locally produced programming. The results suggested that the anticipated declines in station revenues and increases in cable penetration would have a negligible effect (roughly seven to 15 minutes per week) on the amount of local programming provided by broadcast stations (Federal Communications Commission, 1979, 1980). Geography-based definitions have predominated in more recent decisions as well. For instance, in the context of its decision to allow exceptions to the cable-MMDS (microwave multipoint distribution service) cross-ownership rules for local programming, (3) the Commission defined local programming as "any programming produced in or near the cable operator's franchise area and not broadcast on a television station within the franchise area" (Federal Communications Commission, 1993d, p. 92, footnote 95). Following the Commission's lead, such geography-based definitions have been commonplace in localism policy analyses conducted by academics and public interest groups (e.g., McKean & Stone, 1992; "What's local about local broadcasting," 1998). (4)
Moving Beyond the Point of Origin
The FCC has not always defined local programming purely in terms of its point of origin. In some instances, the Commission has employed a more stringent definition of what constitutes local programming that also addresses the nature of the content provided by local programmers. Under this operationalization, the localism principle is only fulfilled if the programming addresses the unique needs and interests of the local community.
This more stringent definition can be seen in the Commission's assessment of the local origination requirements that were once placed on cable operators. These requirements stipulated that no cable system having 3,500 or more subscribers could carry the signal of any television broadcast station unless the system also operated as a local outlet in its cablecasting, and had facilities for local program production and presentation (Federal Communications Commission, 1969). In justifying these requirements, the Commission argued that mandatory origination would stimulate the creation of more programming sensitive to local interests, which would, in turn, benefit small communities (Federal Communications Commission, 1969).
The Commission later reconsidered the effectiveness of these regulations, questioning whether the local origination requirement was an appropriate means of achieving this goal (Federal Communications Commission, 1974a). The Commission eventually concluded that "the mandatory origination scheme is not likely to be the most effective means of fostering local expression programming" (Federal Communications Commission, 1974b, p. 1104). (5) In support of this conclusion, the Commission noted that the mandatory origination programming generally garnered a minuscule share of the television audience, which the Commission interpreted as indirect evidence that the programming was not effectively serving local interests and concerns. The validity of such an indirect approach seems questionable, since a purely ratings-based criteria would suggest that broadcast network programs are generally the most effective at serving local interests and concerns, given that they generally attract the largest audiences. In any case, the Commission's decision illustrates the point that local origination may not be synonymous with programming that serves local interests and concerns.
Over a decade after eliminating the local origination requirements for cable systems, the FCC raised similar questions about the relationship between the point of origin and content with regard to the Main Studio and Program Origination Rules for radio and broadcast television (Federal Communications Commission, 1986b). These rules required that each AM, FM, and television broadcast station maintain a studio in the station's principal community in which the station is licensed to serve; and that more than 50 percent of an AM, FM or television station's non-network programs originate from the station's main studio or from remote points that are situated in the principal community (Federal Communications Commission, 1986b). The Commission again questioned the linkage between means and ends, stating that "we do not see a causal relationship between the main studio rules and the provision of service to the community of license which is sufficient to warrant their retention" (Federal Communications Commission, 1986b, p. 537). The Commission questioned whether accessability of the main studio to the community of license actually increased interaction between a station and community residents; and whether, given technical advances in programming production and transmission, the main studio was central to the majority of programming. (6) On these bases, the studio location rule was relaxed (the studio now must be located only within the station's "principal community contour") and the 50 percent program origination requirement was eliminated (Federal Communications Commission, 1987, 1988).
The Commission again employed a more content-based definition of localism in its reexamination of the broadcast licensee ascertainment policy. This policy required broadcasters to engage their local communities in an effort to identify community problems and concerns via surveys of the general population and consultation with community leaders. The Commission acknowledged that "ascertainment was never intended to be an end in and of itself. Rather, it is merely a tool to be used as an aid in the provision of programming responsive to the needs and problems of the community" (Federal Communications Commission, 1981, p. 993). In 1981 the FCC eliminated the ascertainment requirement for radio broadcasters, concluding that competitive market forces provided the more effective means for reaching the desired end of providing programming addressing local interests and concerns (Federal Communications Commission, 1981). In 1984, the Commission eliminated the requirements for television broadcasters as well, concluding that it doubted that the rules achieved their intended goal of stimulating more locally sensitive programming (Federal Communications Commission, 1984). The Commission further concluded that there was no guarantee that ascertainment of a community concern would lead to programming responsive to that concern. Instead, competitive market forces were believed to be the more efficient and effective means of assuring the existence of programming sensitive to local issues and concerns (Federal Communications Commission, 1984). However, neither the decision regarding the ineffectiveness of the ascertainment requirement nor the decision regarding the superior effectiveness of market forces was based upon any systematic assessment of the production of programming serving local interests or concerns.
Like the Commission, the courts also have employed a content-based approach to localism. The Commission's failure to meet this standard led to the demise of the integration preference for broadcast license applicants. Under this policy, the FCC gave preference, among competing broadcast license applicants, to those applicants who planned to reside in the community of license and be involved in the day-to-day management of the station. This preference grew from the assumption that an owner involved in the management of the station would exhibit greater sensitivity to local community needs and that this sensitivity would manifest itself in programming (Bechtel v. Federal Communications Commission, 1993). However, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit struck down the policy, concluding that "the Commission accumulated no evidence to indicate that [the policy] achieves even one of the benefits that the Commission attributes to it" (Bechtel v. Federal Communications Commission, 1993, p. 880). Thus, without evidence of a linkage between geographic placement of ownership and content, the integration preference was deemed essentially baseless.
A similar demand for content-based criteria arose in the Supreme Court's decision regarding the must-carry rules. The must-carry rules initially were motivated largely by the Commission's concern that cable television posed a threat to free, over-the-air television broadcasting and could therefore diminish the amount of locally oriented programming available to audiences (see Federal Communications Commission, 1986a, 1994b). Given that the Commission had long viewed cable television as lacking the capacity or inclination to serve as an effective outlet for community self-expression (Federal Communications Commission, 1979), cable's rise at the expense of broadcasting's decline was not viewed as an effective substitute from a localism standpoint.
When the must-carry rules eventually reached the Supreme Court, a divided Court upheld the regulations. However, in her dissent, Justice O'Connor argued that at every decision making level (including the Court's), the analyses that guided the decision making failed to consider the policy's effects on the provision of local programming (Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 1997). Indeed, throughout the entirety of the must-carry controversy, neither the FCC nor Congress investigated the fundamental underlying assumption that local broadcast content was significantly different from cable programming in terms of the local orientation of the content provided (Kim, 1998). (7)
Discussion
Clearly, localism policymaking has suffered from severe ambiguity in terms of what exactly constitutes local programming. This operational ambiguity hinders coherent and consistent policymaking, as the evaluative criteria are constantly shifting. More importantly, of the two operationalizations discussed above (point of origin and content), only one has been significantly utilized in the Commission's policy analysis. Recall that the elimination of both the local programming guidelines and SYNDEX rules was guided by analyses that employed geography-based definitions of local programming (see above). In each of the other cases discussed above, when the more stringent definition of local programming was used as the guiding analytical criterion, it was not employed in any comparable systematic policy analysis. Indeed, in each of these cases there was generally no empirical evidence of any kind to guide decision making. The decision making record for the integration, must-carry, program origination, and ascertainment policies discussed above suggest that no strong evidence regarding the relationship between the policies and their desired outcomes was required (or at least used) at the formative stages. Nor does it appear that hard evidence undermining these assumptions was necessary for the policies' elimination. Rather, the absence of evidence one way or the other was alone sufficient to permit the elimination of these policies.
These empirical vacuums provide the leeway for alternative logical approaches and predictive judgments to be embraced, and for policy conclusions to be based primarily on the beliefs or ideologies of the decision makers (Napoli, in press). This situation contributes to the appearance of ambiguity and inconsistency that has long plagued the FCC's localism policymaking. Absent a stable definition of local programming, this inconsistency will continue.
The central question that arises from this discussion is, should localism be defined in a way that extends beyond geography? Or, does such a definition go too far? Answering these questions necessitates drawing upon the underlying rationales for localism policies. To some degree, the cultural and political rationales for localism suggest that the definition of local programming should delve deeper into the actual nature of the program content. Local origination alone may not be sufficient, given that a program that originates locally could conceivably not address or appeal to the cultural values or beliefs of the local community. Similarly, from a political standpoint, locally originated programming need not necessarily address local political issues and concerns. The latter is, in fact, a common finding of the (unfortunately) scant research that has looked beyond geography to actual content in the assessment of localism (see Adams, 1978, 1980; Slattery, Hakanen, & Doremus, 1996). These studies examined not only the overall quantity of locally originated programming, but the quantity of the content within this locally originated programming that dealt with local issues and concerns (thus, essentially treating localism as a two-layered construct), finding that even locally produced news dealt largely with issues outside of the community. In addition, programming that caters to the cultural or political interests or concerns of a particular community could very well be produced outside the geographic boundaries of the community. It is certainly possible "that local interests can also be served from afar" (Duggan, 1991a, p. 11). The Commission acknowledged as much in its decision to relax the Main Studio and Program Origination rules for broadcasters. Clearly, in this case, local service broadcasting did not depend entirely on the point of origin of the programming.
Thus, a content-oriented dimension to the operationalization of the localism principle is necessary. However, this is not to say that the geographical dimension should be abandoned. When we consider the rationale of decentralization of control that is central to the localism principle, then the purely point-of-origin approach to local programming does have value. Localism is intended to facilitate a decentralization of decision making regarding the programming audiences receive, regardless of the specific content decisions the programmers ultimately choose to make. This motivating factor is purely structural and completely content neutral. Content neutrality is particularly important given the potential First Amendment difficulties that could be encountered by taking an overly content-specific approach to defining local programming and implementing localism policies. (8) However, without also addressing the content dimension in their assessments, policymakers are not fully reflecting the rationales that underlie localism policies.
Reconceptualizing Localism in the New Media Environment
Just as the previous discussion suggested that policymakers need to expand the operational definition (i.e., what constitutes local programming) of localism, this section suggests a similar expansion at the broader conceptual level. Traditional conceptualizations of the localism principle have been characterized as primarily "spatial" in their orientation (Stavitsky, 1994). That is, localism policies have typically been oriented around spatial parameters such as cities, counties, or regions. Thus, license placements have been equitably distributed across geographical areas and local programming has been defined in terms of emanating from, or catering to, specific geographic areas (see above).
However, the degree to which this remains a sufficient conceptualization of the localism principle is being challenged by new communications technologies that defy spatial boundaries. Satellite and Internet technologies, in particular, are compelling a reexamination of the localism principle, and raising the question of whether its traditional conceptualization possesses any lasting utility. The nation-wide or world-wide reach of these new technologies has prompted some to ask, "Is there a need for localism in the global community of tomorrow" (Sohn & Schwartzman, 1994, p. 384)? Others question whether the traditional spatial conceptualization should be abandoned in favor of one that is less tied to geography (Calhoun, 1980; Jones, 1995; see below).
Policymakers have devoted a significant amount of attention to the future of localism in response to the emergence of these new technologies (e.g., Federal Communications Commission, 1998b). In some instances, policymakers have perceived these technologies primarily as threats to the localism principle (e.g., Duggan, 1992, 1993; Quello, 1992; Sikes, 1991), a position taken by many industry stakeholders as well (see Federal Communications Commission, 1995a). The National Association of Broadcasters has even argued (albeit unsuccessfully), that the language of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the FCC from licensing broadcast services that are not tied to individual communities (see National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission, 1984).
Often, however, the Commission has acknowledged that the localism principle has the potential to endure, and perhaps even flourish, in the new media environment (e.g., Marshall, 1991), but that conceptual changes may first be necessary (e.g., Tristani, 1998). In reference to the implications of satellite-delivered radio services, which have a national "footprint," then-Commissioner Ervin S. Duggan (1991a) summarized the analytical challenges facing regulators as follows:
What . . . do we mean by localism in the new world of DAB [Digital Audio Broadcasting], if we have a satellite-delivered technology? . . . We may even be upon the verge of broadening the meaning or changing the meaning of localism. It may be perfectly acceptable, and even desirable, to broaden our definition of localism. (p. 11)
As Duggan's (1991a) statement suggests, national-reach communications technologies need not necessarily spell the end of the localism principle, but rather the next stage in its conceptual evolution.
Much of the Commission's recent activity in re-examining the meaning of localism has been prompted by Congress. Congress' longstanding concern about localism led it to direct the FCC (in the Cable Act of 1992) to consider the "opportunities that the establishment of DBS [Direct Broadcast Satellite] service provides for the principle of localism under this Act, and the methods by which such principle may be served through technological and other developments in, or regulation of, such service" (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Section 335(a)). However, as the Commission later noted, Congress provided no guidance on how to define localism in the context of DBS services (Federal Communications Commission, 1998b).
In carrying out this mandate, the Commission concluded in 1993 that DBS technology is inherently unsuitable for the provision of traditional local broadcast service unless localism were conceptualized at the broader regional level, instead of in terms of individual communities (Federal Communications Commission, 1993a). As the Commission noted at the time, DBS providers lacked the channel capacity to provide individualized service to communities the size of typical broadcast markets (Federal Communications Commission, 1998b). At the broader regional level, the Commission considered the possibility of DBS providers producing regional programming, or carrying select local broadcast channels from within each region (Federal Communications Commission, 1998b). The latter possibility was, until recently, impeded by the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, which prohibited a satellite carrier from offering network television stations to subscribers capable of receiving those signals via a conventional over-the-air antenna (see Federal Communications Commission, 1998g).
Thus, as was the case with cable television in its early period (Cowles, 1989), the FCC considered DBS incapable of contributing to the localism principle. However, the development of spot-beam technology has facilitated "local-into-local" transmissions, in which local television signals are broadcast into local markets. Further, Congress' recent passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (1999) allows DBS providers to transmit local broadcast signals to subscribers in those markets.
The key point of this example, however, is that it illustrates that while the FCC has been willing to consider that localism need not be tied to the point of origin of the programming service, it has not yet moved beyond a primarily spatial approach to the concept. Both alternatives considered by the Commission in the DBS matter revolve around a geography-based conceptualization of what constitutes a community.
Localism and Community
It is the concept of community that is perhaps most vital to any reconceptualization of the localism principle in communications policy. Localism policies typically refer to service to "local communities" or to addressing "community concerns." Consider, for instance, the criteria in the Communications Act (as revised by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) for determining the must-carry status of broadcast stations. The Act instructs the FCC to afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account the following factors:
(a) Whether the station, or other stations located in the same area, have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community;
(b) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community;
(c) whether any television station that is eligible to be carried by a cable system in such coverage of issues of concern to such community or provides carriage or coverage of community in fulfillment of the requirements of this section provides news sporting and other events of interest to the community; and
(d) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and non-cable households within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community. (Communications Act of 1934, Section 534(h)(1)(C)(ii))
Clearly, the principle of localism is tightly intertwined with the concept of community. Not surprisingly, these community parameters frequently have become the subject of debate in controversies over the application of the must-carriage rules (e.g., Federal Communications Commission, 1997; WLNY-TV, WRNN-TV, & Paxson New York License v. Federal Communications Commission, 1998). Consequently, a clearer articulation of the meaning of community is essential to the conceptualization of the localism principle. Unfortunately, such discussions seldom have found their way into the communications policy arena.
There is a long tradition of scholarship devoted to defining and/or identifying the key elements of the concept of community (Beniger, 1987; Bernard, 1973; Calhoun, 1980; Emig, 1995). As Calhoun (1980) notes, community traditionally has been conceptualized in terms of a "geographically or administratively bounded population" (p. 106). Thus, the linkage between the traditional approach to community and the traditional approach to localism policies in communications regulation should immediately be clear. However, scholars have long contested this conceptualization of community, arguing instead for an approach that focuses on shared culture and social networks, an approach that "focuses away from place" (Jones, 1995, p. 24). Along these lines, Calhoun (1980) argues for a conceptualization of community that "allows us to penetrate beneath such simple categories as city, village, town, country, to see a variable of social relations" (p. 107). Such an approach to community focuses instead on issues such as shared agendas, common interests, and shared values that may or may not be geographically associated (see McCain & Lowe, 1990).
This "social" conceptualization of community (as opposed to "spatial") has not manifested itself in localism policies in the communications arena (see Stavitsky, 1994), yet it appears that the developments taking place in communications technology promote social conceptualizations of community over traditional spatial conceptualizations. As Dillman (1985) notes, "it is plausible in an information age for a new structure of social interaction to evolve that is not based to a significant degree on locality. . . . these geographically unbounded interactions may become a dominant influence on individual behavior" (p. 8).
The specific developments at issue seem to undermine the traditional spatial conceptualization of community in several ways. First, satellite and Internet technologies have freed communicators from many of the technological and economic barriers to reaching national or global audiences. These technologies suggest the possibility of realizing McLuhan's famous global village, in which all people become part of a large global culture and individual regional or cultural differences become less distinct or important (McLuhan & Powers, 1992). Even the recent legislation allowing DBS providers to carry local signals (Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999) does not completely change DBS's status as a primarily national medium. Local broadcast signal carriage arrangements are likely only to be struck in large markets (generally, top 30 markets; see Albiniak, 2000), leaving the bulk of the nation's local broadcast stations inaccessible via DBS service. Recent data indicate that EchoStar and DirecTV carry local broadcast stations for 28 and 22 markets, respectively (Higgins, 2000). Thus, in over 180 television markets, it remains impossible to receive local broadcast signals via DBS. As this pattern suggests, the economic viability of DBS service still rests primarily on the provision of national programming.
Along with the increased capacity for reaching national or global audiences, the Internet is also allowing for the development of small, highly specialized communities independent of any geographic association (Jones, 1995; Mukerji & Simon, 1998; Rheingold, 1993; Shapiro, 1999). These communities are instead constructed on the basis of shared political, cultural, or professional interests. These developments suggest that existing localism policies may rest upon outmoded perceptions of what constitutes a community.
The results of this clash of technological innovation with traditional policy thinking are well-illustrated by Congress' efforts to regulate obscenity on the Internet. At the end of 1998, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act. This act makes it a crime to knowingly make available any communication that is harmful to minors. Anyone communicating material that is potentially harmful to minors must restrict access to such material via requiring a credit card number or other form of adult identification. Part of the definition of material considered "harmful to minors" includes whether, "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest" (Child On-Line Protection Act, 1998, Section 231(e)(6)(a)).
Certainly, the way that the Internet appears to be redefining the meaning of community provides the first real difficulty in applying these criteria (see Huelster, 1995; Zanghi, 1995). In traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, community standards have been approached from a strictly spatial perspective (see Miller v. California, 1973). Yet the Internet is well-documented as promoting social conceptualizations of community, allowing people with shared cultural or political interests to congregate on-line and interact, regardless of their geographic location (Jones, 1995; Rheingold, 1993). This reconfiguration of the notion of community raises the question of how the idea of "community standards" can or should be enforced within the context of Internet regulation. Is a purely spatial conceptualization either sufficient or appropriate? As Huelster (1995) asks, "What constitutes a 'local community' in the context of a global electronic service" (pp. 866-867)?
In addition, although the concept of "community standards" has proved challenging (some would say ineffective) enough to apply simply within the boundaries of the United States, it is now being applied to a technology in which the audience is inherently global (Zanghi, 1995). The primary problem is that individual communities have neither the authority nor the means to enforce their community standards against communication originating from outside of the community. What recourse is available to the United States government to punish an individual in Sweden who is posting -- and providing free and unrestricted access to -- sexually explicit material?
Direct Broadcast Satellite also appears to be pushing policymakers away from spatial conceptualizations of community. If a communications technology is inherently capable of serving a national or global audience with highly specialized content, but has difficulties serving geographically localized audiences (as is the case, to a certain degree, with DBS), then any policy principle that approaches the concept of community from the traditional standpoint of small geographic units is inapplicable to the new technology. In such a situation, the concept of localized community service either needs to be reconceptualized or eliminated from the inventory of relevant policy concerns.
These developments suggest that a spatial conceptualization of community, and hence a spatial conceptualization of localism, are no longer sufficient in the new media environment. But do they still have relevance? A look back at the primary rationales for localism policies indicates that the answer is yes. First, however, it is important to recognize that "globalization" or "nationalization" do not necessarily take place at the expense of "localization." As Donner (1998) illustrates, even as the process of "disembedding" takes place, there is often an accompanying process of maintenance of local spheres of activity and establishment and preservation of localized cultural and political organizations and institutions. Thus, the globalization process need not be seen as contradictory to traditional conceptualizations of localism.
Second, it should be emphasized that communications technologies that were, at one point, viewed as antithetical to the spatial conceptualization of localism have evolved into important contributors to the localism doctrine. Consider cable television, which was long perceived by the FCC as a threat to localism (Cowles, 1989). By 1993, however, cable television was praised by then-FCC Commissioner Ervin Duggan (1993) for its contributions to localism. According to Duggan (1993), after serving first as an antenna service for broadcasting, then primarily as a provider of national programming, cable was entering the third stage of its development -- "a stage in which locally originated cable programming is approaching critical mass, in quality and quantity" (p. 5). Evidence of this evolutionary development included: (a) the fact that individual cable systems aired an average of 450 hours of local programming per year; (b) that the industry spent an average of $250 million annually on local programming; and (c) the development of alliances between cable operators and broadcasters to produce locally originated news programming (Duggan, 1993, p. 6). The cable example suggests that, even if new technologies at this point appear only capable of undermining the traditional spatial conceptualization of localism, they may eventually evolve in a very different direction.
These two points have demonstrated that the spatial dimension of the localism concept may endure. They have not, however, addressed whether it should endure. Only when we place the motivations for localism policies within their broader political and cultural contexts does the enduring need for a spatial dimension of the localism concept become apparent. As was illustrated at the outset of this chapter, the local orientation of our media institutions is meant to parallel the local orientation of our other political and cultural institutions, given that media institutions are intended to interact with, and reflect, these other political and cultural institutions. Thus, as long as localism in our other social institutions continues to be expressed -- to any degree -- along spatial lines, then this spatial element of localism must remain in media policy. Such parallelism with other institutions is essential if the communications system is effectively to serve its political and cultural functions. As long as governments remain organized along geographic lines, for our communications system effectively to serve its political functions of enhancing citizen knowledge and facilitating political participation, some component of it must remain oriented to the same geographic boundaries as the corresponding governmental institutions. From a cultural standpoint, as long as individuals with shared cultural backgrounds, interests, and values continue to congregate together within particular geographic regions, then there remains an impetus to consider geography in the formulation and application of localism policies (see Sohn & Schwartzman, 1994). However, policymakers' approach to localism must be supplemented by more social conceptualizations if localism is to fully reflect the rationales on which it is based. New technologies facilitate the same types of political and cultural exchanges and organization that previously required geographic proximity. If localism is to remain a mechanism of facilitating such exchanges and organization, it must reflect the increasing diversity of means by which these activities are carried out.
Conclusion
Rather than being abandoned entirely, as some have suggested, the localism principle is sorely in need of being revised and modernized in a way that reflects recent developments in communications technology as well as the full extent of the principle's underlying rationales. This revision need not involve abandoning the concept's traditional geography-based conceptualization and operationalization. Rather, the concept is in need of an expansion beyond its traditional confines. How the localism principle is put into practice by policymakers must begin to reflect the way that new communications technologies are expanding the notion of what constitutes a community. This expansion must be firmly grounded in the tradition of sociological analysis devoted to the meaning of the concept of community and the role that communications technologies play in the establishment, maintenance, and alteration of communities. At the same time, this expanded conceptualization must also be reflected in how local programming is defined from an assessment standpoint. The preceding discussion illustrated the importance of looking beyond geography in defining local programming, to examining the nature of the programming. This imperative becomes even more pronounced when the conceptualization of localism is not necessarily geographically tied, but is instead a function of shared culture, values, or political views. In such situations, purely point-of-origin-based measures of local programming are largely irrelevant and more content-specific measures are essential.
Further, in light of the expanded conceptualization of localism advocated here, these content-based measures will need to look beyond geographically-based notions of what constitutes serving local interests and concerns. In the end, this increased operational rigor hopefully will reduce the instability that has historically characterized localism policy. Hopefully, it will also enhance the degree to which the localism principle functions as a meaningful tool in communications policy design and analysis.
References
Adams, W.C. (1978). Local public affairs content of TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 690-695.
Adams, W.C. (1980). Local television news coverage and the central city. Journal of Broadcasting, 24(2), 253-265.
Albiniak, P. (2000, April 10). Lining up stations for DBS. Broadcasting & Cable, p. 10.
Anderson, C.W. (1992). The place of principles in policy analysis. In J.M. Gillroy and M. Wade (Eds.), The moral dimensions of public policy choice: Beyond the market paradigm (pp. 387-409). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Barlow, W. (1988). Community radio in the U.S.: The struggle for a democratic medium. Media, Culture and Society, 10, 81-105.
Bechtel v. Federal Communications Commission, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Beniger, J.R. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community. Communication Research, 14(3), 352-371.
Berkowitz, E.D. (1984). Low power television and the doctrine of localism: The need to reconcile a medium with its message. University of San Francisco Law Review, 18, 505-533.
Bernard, J.B. (1973). The sociology of community. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Briffault, R. (1988). Localism in state constitutional law. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 496, 117-127.
Briffault, R. (1990). Our localism: Part II -- Localism and legal theory. Columbia Law Review, 90, 346-454.
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385.
Calhoun, C.J. (1980). Community: Toward a variable conceptualization for comparative research. Social Theory, 5(1), 105-129.
Carnegie Commission on Educational Television (1967). Public television: A program for action. New York: Harper & Row.
Carter Mountain Transmission Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission. 321 F.2d 359. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. 1963).
Child Online Protection Act (1998). 47 U.S.C. § 231.
Collins, T.A. (1980). Local service concept in broadcasting: An evaluation and recommendation for change . Iowa Law Review, 65(2), 553-635.
Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 416.
Cook, T.E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cowles, E.A. (1989). Must-carry and the continuing search for a First Amendment standard of review for cable regulation. George Washington Law Review, 57, 1248-1280.
Cox, K.A. & Johnson, N. (1968). Broadcasting in America and the FCC's license renewal process: An Oklahoma case study. In Federal Communications Commission, In re applications for renewal of standard broadcast and television licenses for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, 14 F.C.C.2d 2.
Dillman, D.A. (1985). The social impacts of information technologies in rural North America. Rural Sociology, 50(1), 1-26.
Donner, W.W. (1998). Assimilation and localism: Some very small towns in mass society. Sociological Inquiry, 68(1), 61-82.
Duggan, E.S. (1991a, April 11). Digital audio broadcasting: Getting it finished and getting it right. Remarks before the Annenberg Washington Program, Washington, DC.
Duggan, E.S. (1991b, Oct. 7). Dare we be optimistic? Remarks before the NAB Hundred Plus Exchange, Washington, DC. FCC LEXIS 5507.
Duggan, E.S. (1992, June 27). Localism: Tied to the tracks? Remarks before the Mississippi Association of Broadcasters. FCC LEXIS 3548.
Duggan, E.S. (1993, March 22). Cable, localism and the third stage: Remarks before the sixth annual local programming seminar, National Academy of Cable Programming, Washington, DC. 1993 FCC LEXIS 1345.
Emig, A.G. (1995). Community ties and dependence on media for public affairs. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 402-411.
Federal Communications Commission (1969). Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the Commission's rules and regulations relative to community antenna television systems; and inquiry into the development of communications technology and services to formulate regulatory policy and rulemaking and/or legislative proposals, 20 FCC 2d 201.
Federal Communications Commission (1974a). Amendment of Part 76, Subpart G, of the Commission's rules and regulations relative to program origination by cable television systems; and inquiry into the development of cablecasting services to formulate regulatory policy and rulemaking, 46 FCC 2d 139.
Federal Communications Commission (1974b). Amendment of Part 76, Subpart G, of the Commission's rules and regulations relative to program origination by cable television systems; and inquiry into the development of cablecasting services to formulate regulatory policy and rulemaking, 49 FCC 2d 1090.
Federal Communications Commission (1976). Development of policy re: Changes in the entertainment formats of broadcast stations, 60 FCC 2d 858.
Federal Communications Commission (1979). In the matter of cable television syndicated program exclusivity rules; In the matter of inquiry into the economic relationship between television broadcasting and cable television, 71 FCC 2d 1004.
Federal Communications Commission (1981). In the matter of deregulation of radio (part 1 of 2), 84 FCC 2d 968.
Federal Communications Commission (1984). Revision of programming and commercialization policies, ascertainment requirements, and program log requirements for commercial television stations, FCC LEXIS 2105.
Federal Communications Commission (1986a). In the matter of amendment of part 76 of the Commission's rules concerning carriage of television broadcast signals by cable television systems, FCC LEXIS 3796.
Federal Communications Commission (1986b). In re amendment of sections 73.1125 and 73.1130 of the Commission's rules, the main studio and program origination rules for radio and television broadcast stations, 1 FCC Rcd 536.
Federal Communications Commission (1987). In the matter of amendment of sections 73.1125 and 73.1130 of the Commission's rules, the main studio and program origination rules for radio and television broadcast stations, 2 FCC Rcd 3215.
Federal Communications Commission (1988). In the matter of amendment of sections 73.1125 and 73.1130 of the Commission's rules, the main studio and program origination rules for radio and television broadcast stations, 65 Rad. Reg 2 (P & F) 110.
Federal Communications Commission (1993a). In the matter of implementation of section 25 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, direct broadcast satellite public service obligations, 8 FCC Rcd 1589.
Federal Communications Commission (1993c). In the matter of amendment of the Commissions rules to establish new personal communications services, 8 FCC Rcd 7700.
Federal Communications Commission (1993d). In the matter of implementation of sections 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; horizontal and vertical ownership limits, cross-ownership limitations and anti-trafficking provisions, FCC LEXIS 6578.
Federal Communications Commission (1993e). In the matter of implementation of sections 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; horizontal and vertical ownership limits, cross-ownership limitations and anti-trafficking provisions, 8 FCC Rcd 8565.
Federal Communications Commission (1995). In the matter of amendment of the Commission's rules with regard to the establishment of new digital audio radio services, 10 FCC Rcd 2310.
Federal Communications Commission (1997). In the matter of Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. d/b/a Time Warner Cable; for modification of the Boston, Massachusetts ADI, 12 FCC Rcd 22069.
Federal Communications Commission (1998a). In the matter of satellite delivery of network signals to unserved households for purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act; Part 73 definition and measurement of signals of grade B intensity, FCC LEXIS 5874.
Federal Communications Commission (1998b). In the matter of implementation of section 25 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Direct broadcast satellite public interest obligations, FCC LEXIS 6060.
Federal Communications Commission (1998c). In the matter of carriage of the transmissions of digital television broadcast stations; Amendments to part 76 of the Commission's rules, 13 FCC Rcd 15092.
Federal Communications Commission (1999). A new Federal Communications Commission for the 21st Century. Available: http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/fcc21.html
Frug, G.E. (1980). The city as a legal concept. Harvard Law Review, 93(5), 1057-1154.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Higgins, J.M. (2000, April 24). Some gains, no pain - yet. Broadcasting & Cable, p. 14.
Horwitz, R.B. (1989). The irony of regulatory reform: The deregulation of American telecommunications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huelster, P.A. (1995). Cybersex and community standards. Boston University Law Review, 75, 865-888.
Jeffres, L.W., Dobos, J. & Sweeney, M. (1987). Communication and commitment to community. Communication Research, 14(6), 619-643.
Jones, S.G. (1995). Understanding community in the information age. In S.G. Jones (Ed.). Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 10-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, J. (1998a, April). Empirical testing on an unasked question in Turner v. FCC: Do must-carry rules enhance diversity? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Broadcast Education Association, Las Vegas, NV.
Lucas, W.A. & Possner, K.B. (1975). Television news and local awareness: A retrospective look. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Marshall, S.P. (1991, September 11). Remarks before the National Association Broadcasters Radio 1991 Convention. 1991 FCC LEXIS 4847.
McCain, T.A. & Lowe, G.F. (1990). Localism in Western European radio broadcasting: Untangling the wireless. Journal of Communication, 40(1), 86-101.
McChesney, R.W. (1993). Telecommunications, mass media, & democracy: The battle for the control of U.S. broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford University Press.
McKean, M.L. & Stone, V.A. (1992). Deregulation and competition: Explaining the absence of local broadcast news operations. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), 713-723.
McLuhan, M.M. & Powers, B.R. (1992). The global village: Transformation in world life and media in the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
Morgan, M. (1986). Television and the erosion of regional diversity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30(2), 123-139.
Mukerji, C. & Simon, B. (1998). Out of the limelight: Discredited communities and informal communication on the Internet. Sociological Inquiry, 68 (2), 258-273.
Mulcahy, K.V. & Widoff, J. (1988). Localism and the administrative foundations of American public broadcasting. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(3), 13-23.
Napoli, P.M. (1997). A principal-agent approach to the study of media organizations: Toward a theory of the media firm. Political Communication, 14(2), 207-219.
Napoli, P.M. (1998). Government assessment of FCC performance: Recurring patterns and implications for recent reform efforts. Telecommunications Policy, 22(4/5), 409-418.
Napoli, P.M. (in press). Foundations of communications policy: Principles and process in the regulation of electronic media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Neuman, W.R. (1991). The future of the mass audience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Quello, J.H. (1992, March 26). Remarks before the Michigan Public Service Commission Telecommunications Policy Conference, Dearborn, MI. 1992 FCC LEXIS 1593.
Quincy Cable TV v. Federal Communications Commission, 768 F.2d 1434. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. 1985).
Radio Act of 1927. Pub. L. No. 632.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shapiro, A.L. (1999). The control revolution: How the Internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. New York: PublicAffairs.
Sikes, A.C. (1991, November 7). Remarks before the Association for Maximum Service Television fifth annual high-definition television conference, FCC LEXIS 5883.
Slattery, K.L., Hakanen, E.A., & Doremus, M.E. (1996). The expression of localism: Local TV news coverage and the new video marketplace. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 403-413.
Sohn, G.B. & Schwartzman, A.J. (1994). Broadcast licensees and localism: At home in the "communications revolution." Federal Communications Law Journal, 47, 383-389.
Stavitsky, A.G. (1994). The changing conception of localism in U.S. public radio. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38(1), 19-33.
Tristani, G. (1998, September 3). Keeping the local in local radio. Remarks before the Texas Broadcasters Association. FCC LEXIS 4560.
Turner Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications Commission, 117 S.Ct. 1174 (1997).
"'What's local about local broadcasting?' A joint report of the Media Access Project & the Benton Foundation" (1998). Available: http://www.benton.org/Policy/TV/whatslocal.html.
WLNY-TV, WRNN-TV, & Paxson New York License v. Federal Communications Commission (1998). United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Zanghi, J.S. (1995). "Community standards" in cyberspace. Dayton Law Review, 21, 95-117.
Endnotes
1. In the PCS case, the localism principle arose in arguments in favor of establishing a regional or local licensing plan (as opposed to a national plan) in the allocation of licenses (Federal Communications Commission, 1993c, pp. 7731-7732).
2. In this instance, the Commission sought comment on the "issue of whether local broadcast service and the concept of 'localism' as a communications policy objective are sufficiently important Federal interests to warrant the intrusion on the First Amendment rights of cable operators" (Federal Communications Commission, 1986a, p. 4).
3. MMDS is often referred to as "wireless cable." This restriction prohibits a cable operator from holding an MMDS license in any portion of the franchise area served by the cable operator's system. The exception states that a cable operator can use one MMDS channel to provide locally-produced programming to cable headends (Federal Communications Commission, 1993d). As the Commission stated: "Such an exception furthers the . . . longstanding goal of enhancing localism, by promoting the establishment of additional outlets for locally-originated programming" (Federal Communications Commission, 1993d, p. 92).
4. The McKean and Stone (1992) study found that deregulation was leading to a decline in the number of television stations presenting local news programs. The Media Access Project and Benton Foundation study ("What's local about local broadcasting?") found that less than .50 percent of TV station programming was devoted to local public affairs.
5. The Commission ultimately concluded that the more effective means of promoting local programming was to require all systems serving 3,500 or more subscribers to have available equipment for local production and presentation of cablecast programs and to permit local non-operator production and presentation of such programs (Federal Communications Commission, 1974b). The Commission has also gone on to provide exemptions to the cable vertical ownership limits for channels devoted to local or regional programming (Federal Communications Commission, 1993e). These limits state that cable systems may only devote 40 percent of their activated channels to the carriage of programming services in which they have an attributable interest (in order to enhance diversity). However, these limits apply only to national programming services. Local and regional programming services are exempt, in recognition of the importance of localism and in an effort to encourage cable systems to develop local programming (see Federal Communications Commission, 1993e, 1995b).
6. As the Commission noted, "Programs are originated now at the main studio only in the most technical sense; for example, . . . in the case of AM radio, origination at the main studio largely consists of playing tapes previously recorded at remote locations" (Federal Communications Commission, 1986b, p. 537).
7. It is worth noting that the localism principle has factored prominently in the most recent manifestation of the must-carry issue -- the appropriate carriage requirements for digital television signals. The FCC is considering whether priority should be given to stations geographically closer to the operator's principal headend in order to support the localism principle (Federal Communications Commission, 1998c).
8. Content-directed policies have often avoided First Amendment entanglements by imposing "structural" regulations, as opposed to "behavioral" regulations (see Napoli, in press).