| Abstract: | In light of the court's rulings in Fox et al. v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the Commission failed to explain its departure from its 1984 efforts to eliminate the National Television Station Ownership rule, this paper examines the FCC record and finds two competing justifications: The 1984 Report argued that the rule did not encourage localism whereas the 2003 Report argued that the rule sustains localism, defined as affiliates' right to preempt network programming. This case demonstrates the politics of broadcast regulation, the power of the rhetoric of the marketplace, and the increased role of the courts in policy-making. |
