Bob Ufer, broadcasting UM football game for WPAG, 1951 Indiana game

[from 1952 Minnesota game program)

Broadcasting stations of the world.

Description based on: 11th ed., 1952; title from cover.

Radio broadcasting to Cuba : hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session.

Item 1039-A, 1039-B (microfiche).

Special report by the Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting on TV Martí : presented to President George Bush, January 1991.

Shipping list no.: 91-152-P.

A simulation analysis of the market effect of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

In this paper we utilise a stochastic address model of broadcast oligopoly markets to analyse the Australian broadcast television market. In particular, we examine the effect of the presence of a single government market participant in this market. An examination of the dynamics of the simulations demonstrates that the presence of a government market participant can simultaneously generate positive outcomes for viewers as well as for other market suppliers. Further examination of simulation dynamics indicates that privatisation of the government market participant results in reduced viewer choice and diversity. We also demonstrate that additional private market participants would not result in significant benefits to viewers.

Community broadcasting and the enclosure of the public sphere

One of the normative tenets of the Habermasian public sphere is that it should be an open and universally accessible forum. In Australia, one way of achieving this is the provision for community broadcasting in the Broadcasting Services Act. A closer examination of community broadcasting, however, suggests practices that contradict the idea of an open and accessible public sphere. Community broadcasting organizations regulate access to their media assets through a combination of formal and informal structures. This suggests that the public sphere can be understood as a resource, and that community broadcasting organizations can be analysed as ‘commons regimes’. This approach reveals a fundamental paradox inherent in the public sphere: access, participation and the quality of discourse in the public sphere are connected to its enclosure, which limits membership and participation through a system of rules and norms that govern the conduct of a group. By accepting the view that a public sphere is governed by property rights, it follows that an open and universally accessible public sphere is neither possible nor desirable.