Self-study
P1
The United States government agency responsible for overseeing television and radio broadcasting, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), had an early history of addressing only the concerns of parties with an economic interest in broadcasting—chiefly broadcasting companies. ███
Intro topic ·
FCC and its stakeholders
FCC's perspective ·
Saw itself as responsible only for the concerns of broadcasters
Because broadcasters have an economic stake in broadcasting, whereas members of the general public do not
P2
█ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ █████ █ █████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ███ █ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████████ █████████ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███ █ ███████ █████ ███ ████████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ █ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███
Spotlight important development ·
Church opposed renewal of local station's broadcasting license
FCC rejected the church's request for a hearing on the grounds that (1) the church did not have an economic stake in the situation and (2) the FCC already agreed with the church's concerns
Criticize FCC ·
Its behavior was inconsistent with its rationale
Author's perspective ·
FCC's real rationale
FCC wanted to prevent community interest groups from influencing the broadcasting decisions of government and industry
P3
███ ██████ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ █ █████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ █ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███ █████████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████████ ████████
Next important development ·
Multiple appeals by church led to court ruling in their favor
Court revoked station's license, ruled that public concerns are a legitimate reason for challenging FCC decisions
P4
███ ████ ███████████ █ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████████████ ██████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ██████
Main point ·
Chuch's appeals created important legal precedent
Requires public concerns to be heard by FCC
Passage Style
Single position
Spotlight
4.
Based on information presented in ███ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██████
a
If the United ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ ████████████ █████████
Not supported. We know the station still had to apply for a renewal with the FCC. We have no reason to think the FCC wouldn’t learn about the station’s broadcasting policies during the renewal hearing.
b
By their very ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████████
The author never indicates that industry and business are by default opposed to public interest. Maybe they were opposed in the specific situation discussed in the passage; that doesn’t imply the author thinks they’re always opposed.
c
The recourse of █ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████████
d
Governmental regulation cannot █████████ ███████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████████
The author doesn’t comment on whether regulations can protect individual businesses. The passage involves a case in which a public interest group was able to be heard at an FCC licensing hearing. But whether regulations generally can protect business is a broader topic the passage says nothing about.
e
The government cannot ██ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████████████ ████████ ██████████
Not supported, because the author never suggests that she’s skeptical of the government concerning protection of the rights of the public over broadcasters. Court rulings have opened up FCC hearing to the public. The author never suggests government agencies will favor broadcasters at these hearings.