I have a new essay out in the journal Media Development: "Democratizing the platforms: Promises and perils of public utility regulation" (it might be paywalled -- happy to share a PDF if you contact me). waccglobal.org/democratizing-… The article provides an overview of recent thinking and writings on the potential of public utility regulation for reining in commercial platforms. Certainly there are limitations with this approach, but I argue it's worth further consideration.

.@_DavidBerman and I have a new piece out in the @thenation arguing that we need guaranteed Broadband for All. thenation.com/article/politi… We argue that Biden's plan (many details of which are still unclear and its passage far from certain) is an excellent start, especially by prioritizing muni/nonprofit broadband & qualifying internet access as an essential utility, infrastructure, and public service. This is key.

For obvious reasons, the Fairness Doctrine has been coming up a lot recently. It is perhaps the most famous--and most maligned and misunderstood--media policy ever enacted in the US. Here's an article I wrote a few years ago on its long, strange history: ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc… Here are some key takeaways from this research: The Fairness Doctrine’s longer history, especially its origins in the 1940s, is generally not well known. To the extent that it does persist in public memory, it's often conflated with the “equal time” rule for political candidates.

Received some great feedback on this piece from folks. Below I try to go beyond treating the Municipal Newspaper as an interesting historical anomaly to consider it (or something similar) as a potential alternative to the collapsing commercial model. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/0… Some have bristled at notion that gov could fund news-a reaction that invariably comes up against any media subsidy plan. It’s a legitimate concern b/c state capture is a real vulnerability. But such hazards don't justify knee-jerk rejections of a potentially democratized system.