Page 27 - Cultural Studies A Practical Introduction

Policy and Industry 11

news from being used for purely partisan purposes. Is that still the
case?
A major argument against the continuation of the doctrine was
that new media such as the Internet multiply the number of outlets
for diverging points of view and different political opinions. There
is no longer scarcity of the kind that made the doctrine originally
necessary. Do you agree? Does the multiplicity of Internet outlets
balance the power of, say, a Fox News or a CNN? Should such
powerful media entities still be required to address a “ public inter-
est ” ? Would that constitute a restriction of their rights of free speech?
Or should the loudest and most powerful media still be held
accountable?

Sources

On the evolution of Hollywood, see Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner , Camera
Politica: Politics and Ideology in Contemporary Hollywood Film ( Bloomington,
Ind. , 1988 ). For a discussion of the French policy of “ cultural exception, ”
see Kim Eling , The Politics of Cultural Policy in France ( Basingstoke, UK : 1999 ),
Tyler Cower , “ French Kiss - Off: How Protectionism Has Hurt French Films, ”
Reason Magazine , July 2008 , http://www.reason.com/news/show/30691.html ; Alan
Riding , “ Filmmakers Seek Protection from US Dominance, ” New York Times ,
February 5, 2003 , http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2003/0205fi lm.
htm ; and David Wachtel , Cultural Policy and Socialist France ( New York , 1987 ).
On the Fairness Doctrine, see Pat Aufderheide , “ After the Fairness Doctrine:
Controversial Broadcast Programming and the Public Interest , ” Journal of
Communication 40 , no. 3 (September 1990 ): 47 – 72 .