CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 370Media Influence and PoliticsMedia Studies and CommunicationJournalism and Media Studies

Deconstructing the Diversity Principle

Napoli, Philip M.·1999·Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02815.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article presents an examination of the diversity principle in communications policy. Given the Federal Communication Commission's recent emphasis on diversity as a policy objective, diversity assessments must return to the forefront of communications policy analysis. To provide an analytical framework for such research, the diversity principle is broken into three distinct components (source, content, and exposure diversity), and multiple subcomponents. In the spirit of the FCC's empirical commitment to the diversity principle, this analysis focuses on diversity as a measurable concept, with potentially interacting dimensions and numerous means of assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02815.x

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Napoli (1999) destaca três dimensões da diversidade na comunicação a serem consideradas para analisar o sistema de mídia: diversidade de fontes, diversidade de conteúdos e diversidade de audiência.

    “Napoli (1999) destaca três dimensões da diversidade na comunicação a serem consideradas para analisarmos o sistema de mídia: a diversidade de fontes -em sua propriedade, na programação, tipos de veículos e na formação das equipes envolvidas; a diversidade de conteúdos, considerando diferentes públicos-alvo, pontos de vista e tipos de programas; e a diversidade de audiência, levando em conta o cons”

    From O novo e o velho na organização da mídia no território brasileiro: contribuições para a leitura da conjuntura atual a partir de Milton Santos (2022) · cites this paper as Napoli (1999)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Associated Press v. United States, 1945
  2. 1982, A framework for economic analysis of electronic media concentration issues., 82
  3. 1981, The origin, validity, and interrelationships of the political values served by freedom of expression, Rutgers Law Review, 33, 372
  4. 1992, Public service broadcasting before the commercial deluge, 7
  5. 1990, Presidential endorsement patterns by chain-owned newspapers, Journalism Quarterly, 67, 286
  6. 1995, The impact of ownership on content: Does it matter, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 13, 755
  7. 1968, The factor analytic search for program types, Journal of Advertising Research, 8, 55
  8. 1982, A marketplace approach to broadcast regulation, Texas Law Review, 60, 1
  9. 1990, Bright lines, the Federal Communications Commission's duopoly rule, and the diversity of voices, Federal Communications Law Journal, 42, 331
  10. , 1992, Study of the diversity indices used for programming analysis, Studies of Broadcasting, 28, 195
  11. 11 1998, Remarks to American Women in Radio and Television
  12. 1962, Program types defined by factor analysis, Journal of Advertising Research, 2, 29
  13. 1994, Regulating broadcast programming
  14. 1996, The fairness in broadcasting doctrine and the Constitution: Forced one-stop shopping in the “marketplace of ideas, University of Illinois Law Review, 1996, 271
  15. 1992, Economic aspects of program quality: The case for diversity, Studies of Broadcasting, 28, 121
  16. 1994, Measuring diversity in U.S. television programming, Studies of Broadcasting, 30, 131
  17. 1992, The Netherlands: Freedom and diversity under multichannel conditions, 96
  18. Foundations of communications policy: Principles and process in the regulation of electronic media
  19. 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, 1996, Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of
  20. 1992, Video economics
  21. 1994, Measured markets and unknown audiences: Case studies from the production and consumption of music, 171
  22. Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Television Broadcasting, Television Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules
  23. 1994, Victim, consumer, or commodity? Audience models in communication policy, 19
  24. 1988, Minority and gender enhancements: A necessary and valid means to achieve diversity in the broadcast marketplace, Federal Communications Law Journal, 40, 89
  25. 1989, The U.K.: The constancy of audience behavior, 91

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Napoli, P. M.
Affiliations
Fordham University (US)
Corresponding author
Napoli, Philip M.
ORCID
Napoli, Philip M.
Venue
Journal of Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1999-12-01
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
7-34
ISSN
  • 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2466
DOI
10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02815.x
OpenAlex
W2140484261
Semantic Scholar
258c3e93f4dbd705bd790a665b0b59c69f3767fd
Cited by
370
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 5753 d)
Locations
Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
diversity principle, communication policy, Federal Communications Commission, media pluralism, source diversity, content diversity, diversity assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review