Book Review: Broadcasting Law. A Comparative Study
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X9400100311 |
| Published date | 01 September 1994 |
| Date | 01 September 1994 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
Eric .Barendt, Broadcasting Law. A Comparative Study, Clarendon Press
Oxford, 1993, 249 pages,hardback £32.50, paperback £17.95
Eric Barendt, Goodman Professor of Media Law at University College London since
1990, is one
of
the few English scholars studying legal developments in the media
sector and publishing regularly on these issues. He is known for studying UK law in the
broader perspective
of
European and international law rather than restricting his
observations to the
UK's
national legal system. Articles from his hand have been
published in a variety
of
law reviews in different countries.
In Broadcasting Law. A comparative Study, he gives an unprecedented comparative
description
of
the relationship between public and private broadcasting, the scope and
enforcement
of
programme standards, the application of anti-trust laws, and the access
of political parties, groups and individuals to the media in five different countries:
Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the United States. International and European law,
and their influence on the national regulatory systems, are also described.
The book contains good and valuable references to other information sources although,
especially in case
of
the description of French broadcasting law, it relies too heavily on
secondary sources to provide information on developments in case law. In this respect,
Charles Debbasch's Droit de l'audiovisuel! is the major source relied upon.
Investigating the reasons for the regulation of broadcasting, the aiJthor finds four main
rationales for the differing regulatory treatment
of
broadcasting and the press. The first
one argues that airwaves are a public resource and that governments are therefore
entitled to set terms on their use for broadcasting purposes; the second one involves the
scarcity of frequencies argument; the third one concerns the character
of
both media:
the broadcasting media are considered to be more influential; the fourth one sees
broadcasting as a remedy for the deficiencies of an unregulated press, which therefore
should be regulated. One by one, these rationales are set aside as being either
unconvincing or rendered out of date because
of
economic and technological
developments. This' part
of
the book immediately identifies one of the major problems
of
modern broadcasting law: how can regulatory authorities in today's world maintain
that they have a right to treat broadcasting media differently from the press.
The book illustrates clearly that nowadays there is no convincing reason for differential
treatment
of
the broadcasting and press media. All the arguments put forward for
regulating broadcasting could also apply to regulating the press. Regulation of the press,
however, seems not to be desirable or even possible from the point
of
view
of
fundamental rights, while regulating broadcasting media seems to be generally
acceptable. Oddly enough, up to now, constitutional courts in Germany and Italy have
1.Charles Debbasch, Droitde
I'audiovisuel,
2nd edition, (Dalloz, 1991).
MJ 1 (1994) 329
To continue reading
Request your trial