Law Commons^™

Unfit For Prime Time: Why Cable Television Regulations Cannot Perform Trinko's 'Antitrust Function', Keith Klovers

Michigan Law Review

Until recently, regulation and antitrust law operated in tandem to safeguard competition in regulated industries. In three recent decisions-Trinko, Credit Suisse, and Linkline-the Supreme Court limited the operation of the antitrust laws when regulation "performs the antitrust function." This Note argues that cable programming regulations-which are in some respects factually similar to the telecommunications regulations at issue in Trinko and Linkline-do not perform the antitrust function because they cannot deter anticompetitive conduct. As a result, Trinko and its siblings should not foreclose antitrust claims for damages that arise out of certain cable programming disputes.

The Journalism Ratings Board: An Incentive-Based Approach To Cable News Accountability, Andrew Selbst

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The American establishment media is in crisis. With newsmakers primarily driven by profit, sensationalism and partisanship shape news coverage at the expense of information necessary for effective self-government. Focused on cable news in particular this Note proposes a Journalism Ratings Board to periodically rate news programs based on principles of good journalism. The Board will publish periodic reports and display the news programs' ratings during the programs themselves, similar to parental guidelines for entertainment programs. In a political and legal climate hostile to command-and-control regulation, such an incentive-based approach will help cable news fulfill the democratic function of the press.

Will It Make My Job Easier, Or What's In It For Me?, Kenneth N. Flaxman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Putting aside philosophical questions about public access to government proceedings—what we now call “transparency”—and without regard to whether televising Supreme Court arguments is a logical extension of the common law’s “absolute personal right of reasonable access to court files” as described in 1977 by the Seventh Circuit in Rush v. United States, my real concern about whether Supreme Court arguments should be televised is somewhat narcissistic. Will it make my job—as a plaintiff’s civil rights lawyer who dabbles in criminal defense and post-conviction matters and who has had five adventures as “arguing counsel” in the Supreme Court—easier? I explain below …

Constitutional Etiquette And The Fate Of "Supreme Court Tv", Bruce Peabody

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In traditional media outlets, on the Internet, and throughout the halls of Congress, debate about whether the Supreme Court should be required to televise its public proceedings is becoming more audible and focused. To date, these discussions have included such topics as the potential effects of broadcasting the Court, the constitutionality of Senator Arlen Specter’s current congressional initiative, S. 344, and how the public would use or abuse televised sessions of our highest tribunal.

The Right Legislation For The Wrong Reasons, Tony Mauro

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Senator Arlen Specter took a bold and long-overdue step on January 22, 2007, when he introduced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of its proceedings. But instead of making his case with a straightforward appeal to the public’s right to know, Specter has introduced arguments in favor of his bill that seem destined to antagonize the Court, drive it into the shadows, or both. Chances of passage might improve if Specter adjusts his tactics.

Gee Whiz, The Sky Is Falling!, Boyce F. Martin Jr.

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

I am reminded of Chicken Little’s famous mantra as I listen to some Supreme Court Justices’ reactions to the prospect of televising oral arguments. Their fears—such as Justice Kennedy’s warning that allowing cameras in the courtroom may change the Court’s dynamics—are, in my opinion, overblown. And some comments, most notably Justice Souter’s famous exclamation in a 1996 House subcommittee hearing that “the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body,” make it sound as if the Justices have forgotten that our nation’s court system belongs to the public, not merely the …

Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Cameras are an understandable yet inapt target for Supreme Court Justices apprehensive about televising the high Court’s proceedings. Notwithstanding Justice Souter’s declaration to a congressional subcommittee in 1996 that cameras will have to roll over his dead body to enter the Court, the Justices’ public statements suggest that their objections are to televising—not to cameras. In fact, welcoming cameras to video record Court proceedings for archival purposes will serve the Justices’ interests well. Video recording can forestall legislation recently introduced in both houses of Congress that would require the Court to televise its proceedings. The Court’s desired result—the legislation disappearing …

C-Span's Long And Winding Road To A Still Un-Televised Supreme Court, Bruce D. Collins

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In 2005 when Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) first proposed legislation requiring the Supreme Court of the United States to televise its oral arguments, he resuscitated a twenty-plus-years long effort by several news organizations to achieve the same goal. For at least that long, C-SPAN has been ready to provide the same kind of video coverage of the federal judiciary as it has been providing of the Congress and the president. If cameras are ever permitted in the high Court’s chamber, C-SPAN will televise every minute of every oral argument, frequently on a live basis, and will do so in its …

Out Of Thin Air: Using First Amendment Public Forum Analysis To Redeem American Broadcasting Regulation, Anthony E. Varona

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

American television and radio broadcasters are uniquely privileged among Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensees. Exalted as public trustees by the 1934 Communications Act, broadcasters pay virtually nothing for the use of their channels of public radiofrequency spectrum, unlike many other FCC licensees who have paid billions of dollars for similar digital spectrum. Congress envisioned a social contract of sorts between broadcast licensees and the communities they served. In exchange for their free licenses, broadcast stations were charged with providing a platform for a "free marketplace of ideas" that would cultivate a democratically engaged and enlightened citizenry through the broadcasting of …

Sailing Toward Safe Harbor Hours: The Constitutionality Of Regulating Television Violence, Eric C. Chaffee

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Because of the recent focus on television violence, it is more a question of "when," rather than "if," Congress will take action on this issue. "Safe harbor" regulation, or restricting violent programming to certain hours of the day, is one form of regulation that is recurrently suggested as a means for dealing with the potential ills created by television violence. The possibility of such regulation implicates numerous constitutional issues. This Article addresses whether "safe harbor" regulation of television violence is feasible without violating the First Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution.

Turner Broadcasting, The First Amendment , And The New Electronic Delivery Systems, Henry Geller

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

After ducking the issue of the First Amendment status of cable television for years, the United States Supreme Court rendered its most important decision concerning the regulation of the new electronic media in Turner Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC. Turner involved the constitutionality of the "must-carry" provisions of the 1992 Cable Act (the "Act" or "Cable Act") which require cable systems to carry specified local broadcast television stations. While cable television began over four decades ago as a community antenna service, it changed drastically after the advent of satellite in the mid-1970's to also provide scores of satellite-delivered programs and to …

Fighting Exclusion From Televised Presidential Debates: Minor-Party Candidates' Standing To Challenge Sponsoring Organizations' Tax-Exempt Status, Gregory P. Magarian

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that courts should recognize minor-party presidential candidates' standing to challenge the section 50l(c)(3) tax-exempt status of organizations sponsoring televised debates that exclude minor-party candidates. Part I situates the issue within the context of the Supreme Court's standing jurisprudence and concludes that the validity of a third-party tax-status challenge by an aggrieved minor-party presidential candidate remains an open question. Part II analyzes the Second and District of Columbia Circuits' decisions and concludes that the Second Circuit's approach properly interprets the Supreme Court's standing doctrine and correctly resolves the particular arguments which both courts consider. Part III first demonstrates …

The Right To Speak, The Right To Hear, And The Right Not To Hear: The Technological Resolution To The Cable/Pornography Debate, Michael I. Meyerson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article concludes that the power of government to regulate cable pornography is limited to that which is legally obscene. Part I reviews Supreme Court cases delineating the relationship between the rights of privacy in the home and of freedom of speech. Part II demonstrates that the technology of cable television provides the solution to the pornography dilemma. Cable television preserves both privacy and speech interests because individual subscribers can be given the physical means to block out programming they find personally offensive without affecting the ability of others to receive that programming. Where such accommodation of interests is permissible, …

Expanding The Scarcity Rationale: The Constitutionality Of Public Access Requirements In Cable Franchise Agreements, Debora L. Osgood

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note argues that public access requirements should be upheld because they are constitutional and because they further the goals of the first amendment. As background for the debate over public access, Part I provides a brief description of cable television's history and regulation and discusses the case law concerning public access requirements. Part II examines the nature of the first amendment interests at stake in public access requirements. Before resolving the question of which interests should be protected, Part III argues that an expanded scarcity rationale should be used to justify cable regulation under the first amendment. Part IV …

Misregulating Television: Network Dominance And The Fcc, Robert R. Morse Jr.

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Misregulating Television: Network Dominance and the FCC by Stanley M. Besen, Thomas G. Krattenmaker, A. Richard Metzger, Jr. and John R. Woodbury

Cameras In The Courtroom: Guidelines For State Criminal Trials, Nancy T. Gardner

Michigan Law Review

This Note analyzes the conflicting interests involved in televising state criminal trials and proposes a model set of guidelines for consideration by states that decide to permit electronic media in their courtrooms. The Note favors restrictions on broadcasters once in the courtroom and advocates that the defendant's right to a fair trial receive more scrupulous protection than the broadcast media's interest in attendance and the public's "right to know." Part I presents the constitutional principles with which any set of guidelines must comply. Part II analyzes the policy considerations that should guide the formulation of state guidelines, and concludes that …

Sex Discrimination In Newscasting, Leslie S. Gielow

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the current judicial deference to viewer surveys used by television stations in newscasting employment decisions is unwarranted. Part I explores how different treatment of women newscasters constitutes sex-plus discrimination. Part II demonstrates that viewer surveys almost always reflect sexual stereotypes that are impermissible under title VII, and argues that such surveys should be presumptively inadmissible as evidence to rebut a claim of sex discrimination. Indeed, mere use of these surveys may in and of itself establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination.

Part III contends that sex discrimination in the news industry resulting from the …

Over The Wire And On Tv: Cbs And Upi In Campaign '80, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Over the Wire and On TV: CBS and UPI in Campaign '80 by Michael J. Robinson and Margaret A. Sheehan

Direct Television Broadcasting And The Quest For Communication Equality, Howard C. Anawalt

Michigan Journal of International Law

In the immediate past modem communication means such as efficient telephone and television systems have been viewed as the luxuries of well developed economies. Rapid advances in the field of communications and computer technologies have changed this basic outlook. Now, it is possible to use these technologies as tools of economic growth in both developed and developing countries. This is primarily because cost has gone down while efficiency has gone up. A recent article concerning small computers demonstrates the point. "If the aircraft industry had developed as spectacularly as the computer industry over the past twenty-five years, a Boeing 767 …

Revolution In The Wasteland: Value And Diversity In Television, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Revolution in the Wasteland: Diversity in Television by Ronald A. Cass

Fairness And Unfairness In Television Product Advertising, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The first section of this Note explores the impact of television product advertising on viewer attitudes. The next two sections set forth the statutory basis on which the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission could provide for the effective presentation of contrasting points of view on controversial issues implicitly or explicitly raised by television product advertising, could ensure that the implicit messages of such advertisements are delivered fairly and without deception, and could counter the adverse effects of such advertising. The purpose of these sections is not to predict actual regulatory behavior, for in fact the FCC and …

Broadcasting, The Reluctant Dragon: Will The First Amendment Right Of Access End The Suppressing Of Controversial Ideas?, Donald M. Malone

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The scope of this article will be limited to one aspect of electronic media programming-the extent to which the public is and should be exposed to an accurate cross section of public opinion and a broad range of controversial ideas. Many people, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have acknowledged that a desirable goal for the broadcast media, particularly television, is to provide a marketplace for controversial ideas. Part II of this article will identify the principal reasons why that goal has not been achieved. Part III will examine the fairness doctrine, the antecedents of which have been traced back …