struck down the fCC rule limiting cable television MSOs to 30 percent of U.S households.) In reviewing these regulations policy analysis is required at several levels. First, what policy goals are at issue? Second, how should media ownership transactions be analyzed in light of these goals, and what standards should apply? Third, is this analysis best con- ducted case-by-case or reflected in a rule of general applicability? It is not difficult to identify two broad social values at issue in media ownership policy There is little opposition to the idea that ownership policy should promote economic competition(to increase the economic welfare of consumers) and First Amendment vah ues( to preserve the political freedom of citizens). Of course there is room for disagree ment on the specifics and on how to balance the goals to the extent they are in conflict will argue below that the goals are not in conflict, so that no tradeoff is required. On the meaning of First Amendment values, I accept for purposes of this Article the classical Western liberal position that decentralized, unregulated competition in the marketplace of ideas is a desirable prospect, and I reject the modern liberal position that the public has a ight passively"to be informed"by the state, directly or through a state-engineered and regulated media industry. 6 I believe that the economic aspect of media ownership concentration is best approached using the standard tools of economic analysis intended for such purposes. Analyzing the fects and measuring the extent of economic concentration is a well-developed field of economic policy analysis, especially in the context of antitrust enforcement. Whether In Time Warner Entertainment Co v. Federal Communications Commission, 240 F 3d 1 126(D. C Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the Federal Communications Commission's cable ownership rules, 47 C F R$876.503-76504, promulgate ursuant to $1l(c)of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 S.C.$533(f(1). The court applied a standard developed in Time Warner Entertainment Co United States, 211 F 3d 1313(D.C. Cir. 2000) a defense of the modern liberal position may be found in Lee Bollinger, Image of a Free Press, Chicago, 1991. Statements of the classical liberal position may be found in John Miltons famous Areopagitica: A Speech For The Liberty OfUnlicensed Printing To The Parliament Of England (1664) and more recently in Lucas Powe, American Broadcasting and the First Amendment, Univ of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 1987, and Matthew L Spitzer, Seven Dirty Words and Six Other Stories Controlling the Content of Print and broadcast. Yale Univ. Press 19865 struck down the FCC rule limiting cable television MSOs to 30 percent of U.S. households.5 ) In reviewing these regulations policy analysis is required at several levels. First, what policy goals are at issue? Second, how should media ownership transactions be analyzed in light of these goals, and what standards should apply? Third, is this analysis best con￾ducted case-by-case or reflected in a rule of general applicability? It is not difficult to identify two broad social values at issue in media ownership policy. There is little opposition to the idea that ownership policy should promote economic competition (to increase the economic welfare of consumers) and First Amendment val￾ues (to preserve the political freedom of citizens). Of course there is room for disagree￾ment on the specifics and on how to balance the goals to the extent they are in conflict. I will argue below that the goals are not in conflict, so that no tradeoff is required. On the meaning of First Amendment values, I accept for purposes of this Article the classical Western liberal position that decentralized, unregulated competition in the marketplace of ideas is a desirable prospect, and I reject the modern liberal position that the public has a right passively “to be informed” by the state, directly or through a state-engineered and regulated media industry. 6 I believe that the economic aspect of media ownership concentration is best approached using the standard tools of economic analysis intended for such purposes. Analyzing the effects and measuring the extent of economic concentration is a well-developed field of economic policy analysis, especially in the context of antitrust enforcement. Whether 5 In Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 240 F.3d 1126 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s cable ownership rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.503-76.504, promulgated pursuant to §11(c) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. §533(f)(1). The court applied a standard developed in Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. United States, 211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 6 A defense of the modern liberal position may be found in Lee Bollinger, Image of a Free Press, Chicago, 1991. Statements of the classical liberal position may be found in John Milton’s famous Areopagitica: A Speech For The Liberty Of Unlicensed Printing To The Parliament Of England (1664) and more recently in Lucas Powe, American Broadcasting and the First Amendment, Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 1987, and Matthew L. Spitzer, Seven Dirty Words and Six Other Stories: Controlling the Content of Print and Broadcast, Yale Univ. Press 1986