Robert B. Horwitz
Corporate mergers and the consolidation of ownership in the American communications
arena have long been sources of concern. US regulatory and antitrust policy
traditionally attempted to secure a “diversity of voices” structurally,
largely through rules regarding ownership. Although the meaning of diversity
was always problematic and under-theorized, the Federal Communications Commission
long set ceilings on the numbers of broadcast outlets any single person or corporation
could own and enacted cross-ownership rules such as a prohibition against a
corporation owning a newspaper and broadcast outlets in the same market. These
rules, and the FCC’s authority to make them, were upheld, occasionally
even compelled, by the federal appellate courts. In the last 20 years, however,
legal trends, in conjunction with political developments, have undermined the
diversity rationales behind ownership rules and associated structural regulations
of mass media. Paradoxically, even as media corporations are becoming larger
and presumably more powerful, ownership regulations are being rescinded or struck
down. This paper explains this history. It concludes with a suggestion that
the First Amendment metaphor of marketplace of ideas is misplaced and how our
thinking about media ownership and diversity might be better served by the metaphor
of a mixed media system.