Diversity In The Regulation Of American Mass Media

Under the guidance of the theory of Marketplace of Ideals, diversity has become an important concept in the regulations for American mass media industry, which not only runs through policy documents and regulation actions of the government, but also is embodied in self-regulation actions of the media. Although the concept of diversity is particularly prominent in the regulations for electronic media represented by radio and television, it also exists in the traditional print media or news industry which is represented by newspaper. This article is based on the three dimensions of media diversity, namely ownership diversity, content diversity and exposure diversity. Combined with regulation ideas and media environment in different historical times, it also touches on the embodiment and diversion of the media diversity from the aspect of the significance of theory and practice.Seeing from the dimension of ownership, the media diversity is always keeping in line with theories of regulation economics. In different development periods of media economic market, the focus of the concept of diversity vacillates between competitiveness and publicness, trying to look for a balance point of comprehensive diversity between them. However, with the progress of economy and technology, the boundary of the industrial market on which ownership diversity relies has expanded unprecedentedly. And the supporting point of diversity has also changed. Obviously, this kind of unstable form is detrimental for the determination of the connotation of diversity and the evaluation of the effect of the media diversity.In comparison with the positive effect of ownership diversity, although governmental regulations partly involve in content diversity, they inevitably suffer from setbacks over and over again. In the meantime, self-regulations of media industry provide important supplement for content diversity. However, self-regulation of media itself is more of a compromise for governmental regulations. That is to say, resisting the invasion of heteronomy at the lowest cost and thus, it is hard to form strong constraint. More importantly, content diversity in fact cannot directly reflect the effect of media diversity and the concept of diversity should not be confined by requirements for content diversity.Because of the emergence of the Internet and other new media platforms and the lowering entry barrier of media market, traditional worries for ownership diversity and content diversity has been eased. However, another worry is emerging-the diversity of media supply market is not likely to inevitably account for the diversity of consumption market and it can even lead the reducing degree of the diversity of media consumption market. Although these results are not caused by the Internet and other new media, they come along with the emergence of the Internet and other new media. In other words, the change of media environment makes regulators realize that there is no inevitable causal relationship between supply and consumption. The concept of diversity has turned its direction from the aspect of theory and has returned to the perspective (or a perspective focusing on the effect of communication) which centers on consumers. "Exposure diversity" which is once neglected becomes more significant in new media environment.