1.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910451164603321

Autore

Hitchens Lesley

Titolo

Broadcasting pluralism and diversity : a comparative study of policy and regulation / Lesley Hitchens

Pubbl/distr/stampa

Oxford ; Portland, Oregon, : Hart Publishing, 2006

ISBN

1-4725-5997-5

1-280-82925-7

9786610829255

1-84731-281-0

Edizione

[1st ed.]

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (370 p.)

Disciplina

384.54/4308

Soggetti

Broadcasting policy

Cultural pluralism

Electronic books.

Lingua di pubblicazione

Inglese

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Note generali

Description based upon print version of record.

Nota di bibliografia

Includes bibliographical references (pages [321]-324) and index

Nota di contenuto

PART I: INTRODUCTORY MATTERS -- 1: Introduction -- 2: Policy Rationales and Implications for Regulation -- PART II: REGULATORY APPROACHES -- 3: Structural Regulation -- 4: Content Regulation -- 5: Competition Regulation -- PART III: REGULATORY FUTURES -- 6: Broadcasting and Economic Issues -- 7: Reforming Broadcasting Pluralism Regulation

Sommario/riassunto

Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity is a study of the policy and regulatory measures relating to the promotion of media diversity in three jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. A central focus of the book is regulation of media ownership and control, and, taking an historical approach, the book argues that early policy and regulatory decisions continue to have a significant influence on current reforms. Whilst policy and reform debates focus on ownership and control measures, the book also argues that such measures can not be considered in isolation from other regulatory instruments, and that a holistic regulatory approach is required. As such, content regulation and competition regulation are also considered. Underlying the study is the contention that much of the



policy informing pluralism and diversity regulation, although making reference to the importance of the media's role in the democratic process, has also been skewed by a futile focus on the different regulatory treatment of the press and broadcasting, which is adversely influencing current policy debates. The book argues that a different approach, using the public sphere concept, needs to be adopted and used as a measure against which regulatory reform in the changing media environment can be assessed

2.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910963708403321

Autore

Wu Jawjeong

Titolo

Citizenship status, race, ethnicity, and their effects on sentencing / / Jawjeong Wu

Pubbl/distr/stampa

El Paso, : LFB Scholarly Pub., 2011

ISBN

9781593326838

1593326831

Edizione

[1st ed.]

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (216 p.)

Collana

Criminal justice

Disciplina

345.73/0772

Soggetti

Sentences (Criminal procedure) - United States

Citizenship - United States

Minorities - Legal status, laws, etc - United States

Critical legal studies - United States

Lingua di pubblicazione

Inglese

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Note generali

Description based upon print version of record.

Nota di bibliografia

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Nota di contenuto

CONTENTS; Acknowledgements; CHAPTER 1; Citizenship Status and Sentencing; CHAPTER 2; Federal Sentencing Guidelines; CHAPTER 3; Theoretical Perspectives and Review of Research; CHAPTER 4; Data and Research Methodology; CHAPTER 5; Statistical Analysis and Findings; CHAPTER 6; Linking Empirical Findings to Theories; CHAPTER 7; Conclusions and Implications; Appendices; Bibliography; Index

Sommario/riassunto

Wu examines the independent effect of citizenship status and its joint effect with race/ethnicity, national origin, and geographic locations on sentencing outcomes. He studies the between-group relationship in



terms of citizenship status and conflict theory as well as the within-group relationship in terms of race/ethnicity and typification theory. Findings reveal mixed support for theoretical propositions and research hypotheses, with stronger support for conflict theory than for typification theory. The double-disadvantage hypothesis is not supported. The findings regarding federal judges' h