wanted when charged its real cost. 27 Another scholar's text supplies a list ofeleven perceived problems and associates them with the proposition that well-functioning television markets are inadequate This same text also contains references to" the television market, the communications market, the emerging communications market, the broadcasting market, ""the media market, and"the emerging media market. The complex analytical work necessary to sort out and evaluate the functioning of all these different configurations of markets is rather intimidating, and the effect is to induce deference to the associated general claim A recent text on television and the public interest illustrates well this economics of attention. The text starts with the following two sentences The communications revolution has thrown into question the value of impose. o public interest obligations on television broadcasters. But the distinctive nature this unusual market-with "winner-take-all" features with viewers as a commodity, with pervasive externalities from private choices, and with market effects on preferences as well as the other way around -justifies a continuing role for government regulation in the public interest The second sentence presents as its subject"the distinctive nature of this unusual market. Use of the word"market "economically invokes the authority of disciplined analysis and the readers' personal representations of the status quo in communications, media, broadcasting, or television. The preceding adjectives"distinctive" and unusual help color the readers configuring of these representations. The second sentence dashes off jargon, economic terms, and complex interactions, and then releases intellectual tension in a familiar conclusion. Readers economically defer to economic authority, connect television to the need for government regulation, and conserve attention in dealing with the rest of the text Recent texts from influential sources in Europe also highlight the distinctive power of audio-visual media. This term encompasses all streaming pre-produced audio and video, but in deliberations it does not appear to be economically distinguishable from the terms broadcasting or television. The European Commission wrote in March, 1999 The socio-cultural impact of the audiovisual sector, in particular broadcasting, is without parallel.. The audiovisual sector, for its part, combines economic 27ld.p.349 See Sunstein, Cass R, " Television and the Public Interest,88 Calif.L Rev. 509 291 30 Evaluating whether US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes used"market" in this way in his famous"free speech opinion in Abrams v. United States(1917) requires much more than a literal reading of his opinion and a formalistic understanding of markets. Cf. Sunstein, Cass R, Democracy and the well developed at the time Holmes issued his opinion. Moreover, Holmes's apparent post-modern as not Problem of Free Speech(New York: The Free Press, 1993)pp. 23-28. Neo-classical economics w perspective on truth( see ld. p. 26)differs strongly from the epistemological framework of neo-classical economics. For an important article on another metaphor that has been widely misconstrued, see Rothschild, Emma, Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand, American Economic Review 82(2), May 19949 wanted when charged its real cost.”27 Another scholar’s text supplies a list of eleven perceived problems and associates them with the proposition that “well-functioning television markets are inadequate.”28 This same text also contains references to “the television market,” “the communications market,” “the emerging communications market,” “the broadcasting market,” “the media market,” and “the emerging media market.”29 The complex analytical work necessary to sort out and evaluate the functioning of all these different configurations of markets is rather intimidating, and the effect is to induce deference to the associated general claim. A recent text on television and the public interest illustrates well this economics of attention. The text starts with the following two sentences: The communications revolution has thrown into question the value of imposing public interest obligations on television broadcasters. But the distinctive nature of this unusual market – with “winner-take-all” features, with viewers as a commodity, with pervasive externalities from private choices, and with market effects on preferences as well as the other way around – justifies a continuing role for government regulation in the public interest.30 The second sentence presents as its subject “the distinctive nature of this unusual market.” Use of the word “market” economically invokes the authority of disciplined analysis and the readers’ personal representations of the status quo in communications, media, broadcasting, or television.31 The preceding adjectives “distinctive” and “unusual” help color the readers configuring of these representations. The second sentence dashes off jargon, economic terms, and complex interactions, and then releases intellectual tension in a familiar conclusion. Readers economically defer to economic authority, connect television to the need for government regulation, and conserve attention in dealing with the rest of the text. Recent texts from influential sources in Europe also highlight the distinctive power of audio-visual media. This term encompasses all streaming pre-produced audio and video, but in deliberations it does not appear to be economically distinguishable from the terms broadcasting or television. The European Commission wrote in March, 1999: The socio-cultural impact of the audiovisual sector, in particular broadcasting, is without parallel. …The audiovisual sector, for its part, combines economic, 27 Id. p. 349. 28 See Sunstein, Cass R., “Television and the Public Interest,” 88 Calif. L. Rev. 509. 29 Id. passim. 30 Id. p. 501. 31 Evaluating whether US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes used “market” in this way in his famous “free” speech opinion in Abrams v. United States (1917) requires much more than a literal reading of his opinion and a formalistic understanding of markets. Cf. Sunstein, Cass R., Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (New York: The Free Press, 1993) pp. 23-28. Neo-classical economics was not well developed at the time Holmes issued his opinion. Moreover, Holmes’s apparent post-modern perspective on truth (see Id. p. 26) differs strongly from the epistemological framework of neo-classical economics. For an important article on another metaphor that has been widely misconstrued, see Rothschild, Emma, “Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand,” American Economic Review 82(2), May 1994 pp. 319-22