In the right media environment, state-owned-and-controlled media can be such levers consistent with liberal, democratic values. The unattractive history associated with such forms of media, as well as the past limited scope of broadcasting opportunities, ha rightly foreclosed most consideration of such policy instruments. Current and anticipated changes in relevant circumstances suggest that more extensive discussion of state media is now warranted. State-owned-and-controlled media might be used to help change habits of media use, address issues that are hindering the development of business plans for commercial Internet information sources and services, and further the separation of politics and business in the information industry. Recognizing the importance of economics of attention, communications policy could converge with media development IL. Thirty Years of Deliberation of US Broadcast Law Since the late 1960s scholars, policy-analysts, and policy-makers have deliberated extensively about the legality and desirability of regulating broadcasting differently from print media in the US The U.S experience offers rich insight into the special power and influence of broadcasting. In contrast to most countries, in the US there has been private commercially driven broadcasting continually since the mid-1920s. The fundamental US sector-specific statutory law regulating broadcasting has not changed since 1934 Moreover, in contrast to European constitutional law, US constitutional law features greater continuity of texts, a more clearly defined domain of texts, and a more rigidly structured textual hierarchy. In this context, commercial and institutional incentives deep ideological currents of skepticism toward constraints on personal and entrepreneurial freedom, and a rich civic tradition of articulating the public interest have powered deliberatively productive clashes between broadcast law and other legal claim In the US the special nature of broadcasting has been discussed and scrutinized at various levels for over thirty years accepted changes in policy orientation. s The current practical significance ofU ely At the end of the year 2000, highly respected commentators and relevant US governme institutions are deeply divided on broadcast law, and there have been no clear, wide "Unattractive" means here unattractive to most persons living in high-income liberal democracies. Many persons living in formerly communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe now consider the historical period associated with state media to be preferable to their current situation Constitutional law might rightly preclude policies that seem desirable in particular circumstances; clearly a strong constitution is important to public health. I leave to others to analyze questions of constitutional law. Note, however, that observed new practices are consistent with the emergence of state media. See Section v Important early contributions to these deliberations are the Supreme Court case and judgement, NBC v United States, 319 US 192(1943)and Barron, Jerome, " Access to the Media-A New First Amendm Right, 80 Harard Law Review 1641(1967) Recently the FCC's personal attack and political editorial rules have created an unusually dramatic controversy. See Joint Statement of Commissioner Susan Ness and Commissioner Gloria Tristani Concerning the Political Editorial and Personal Attack Rules(Gen. Docket No. 83-484 )[on the web at http://www.fccgov/speecheS/ness/states/stsn819.htmlI,JointStatementofCommissionersPowelland5 In the right media environment, state-owned-and-controlled media can be such levers consistent with liberal, democratic values. The unattractive history associated with such forms of media, as well as the past limited scope of broadcasting opportunities, has rightly foreclosed most consideration of such policy instruments.10 Current and anticipated changes in relevant circumstances suggest that more extensive discussion of state media is now warranted.11 State-owned-and-controlled media might be used to help change habits of media use, address issues that are hindering the development of business plans for commercial Internet information sources and services, and further the separation of politics and business in the information industry. Recognizing the importance of economics of attention, communications policy could converge with media development. II. Thirty Years of Deliberation of US Broadcast Law Since the late 1960s scholars, policy-analysts, and policy-makers have deliberated extensively about the legality and desirability of regulating broadcasting differently from print media in the US12 The U.S experience offers rich insight into the special power and influence of broadcasting. In contrast to most countries, in the US there has been private, commercially driven broadcasting continually since the mid-1920s. The fundamental US sector-specific statutory law regulating broadcasting has not changed since 1934. Moreover, in contrast to European constitutional law, US constitutional law features greater continuity of texts, a more clearly defined domain of texts, and a more rigidly structured textual hierarchy. In this context, commercial and institutional incentives, deep ideological currents of skepticism toward constraints on personal and entrepreneurial freedom, and a rich civic tradition of articulating the public interest have powered deliberatively productive clashes between broadcast law and other legal claims. In the US the special nature of broadcasting has been discussed and scrutinized at various levels for over thirty years. At the end of the year 2000, highly respected commentators and relevant US government institutions are deeply divided on broadcast law, and there have been no clear, widely accepted changes in policy orientation.13 The current practical significance of US 10 “Unattractive” means here unattractive to most persons living in high-income liberal democracies. Many persons living in formerly communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe now consider the historical period associated with state media to be preferable to their current situation. 11 Constitutional law might rightly preclude policies that seem desirable in particular circumstances; clearly a strong constitution is important to public health. I leave to others to analyze questions of constitutional law. Note, however, that observed new practices are consistent with the emergence of state media. See Section V. 12 Important early contributions to these deliberations are the Supreme Court case and judgement , NBC v. United States, 319 US 192 (1943) and Barron, Jerome, “Access to the Media – A New First Amendment Right,” 80 Harvard Law Review 1641 (1967). 13 Recently the FCC’s personal attack and political editorial rules have created an unusually dramatic controversy. See Joint Statement of Commissioner Susan Ness and Commissioner Gloria Tristani Concerning the Political Editorial and Personal Attack Rules (Gen. Docket No. 83-484) [on the web at http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Ness/States/stsn819.html ], Joint Statement of Commissioners Powell and