In contrast to critics’ charges, Mc

In contrast to critics’ charges, McChesney’s analysis relies on a fairly extensive
body of historical material, especially relative to the standards of the ! eld. I
disagree with him on three important points of media history—that is, the
“struggle for control model of global media history” that he and Herman use
in The Global Media , the claim that the de! nitive historical moments in the
early politics of radio in the United States fell between 1927 and 1934 (rather
than 1918 to 1926), and a reading of the 1996 US Telecommunications Act
that leads him to conclude that it was a complete capitulation to the incumbent
telecom and media players negotiated outside of public view (McChesney 2008).
That said, however, McChesney has “rediscovered” the history of radical
media and media criticism in the United States; his account of radio history
makes extensive use of archival material, and his recent book The Death and
Life of American Journalism (2010) (with John Nichols), uses some of the best
scholarships available on the history of the press, post of! ce, and journalism
in the United States. Indeed, the bibliography is as impressive as it is long, and
the belief that the First Amendment bars the government from implementing
policies to help foster high-quality journalism and a good media system is
convincingly discredited.