Passage Discussion

[ganbayou]

I'm not sure about the scale of this passage.
Is there 2 sides for this passage? This is the 1st passage, but I felt it was a little hard compared to other 1st passages...

[maryadkins]

Here's how I'd break it down into a passage map:

P1: The FCC in its early years appeared only to serve the interests of the broadcasting industry, not viewers and listeners.

P2: A big legal case changed that. We're given an overview of the case and a description of what it was about. At the end of the paragraph, a question is raised and answered: the reason the church didn't win is because it would have made the FCC more about CITIZENS' interests than about INDUSTRY interests.

P3: The case continues. A judge comes in and overturns the FCC! A new precedent is set, and community voices now matter .

P4: Now, things are different. Community voices matter.

As a scale, I agree that there's not so much a PRESENT dispute here as a HISTORICAL one. The author is describing two sides of a debate, but they're the two sides of history.

Side 1: The way the FCC used to be: industry interests only
Side 2: The way the FCC is now: community voices matter

What's clear to me from the tone of the passage is that the author endorses the new way. As did the judge who overruled the FCC, and the community group that brought the case.

Hope this helps clarify the passage for you.

[JorieB701]

"What's clear to me from the tone of the passage is that the author endorses the new way" ^^^

-can someone elaborate on this, please? I'm curious because I wasn't sure I noticed the author's opinion, necessarily. I had some assumptions, based on the content of the passage and this being the LSAT, that they might think this was a great thing but I'm not as clear regarding specific words or phrases that get the author's opinion across. I saw that they referred to the ruling as "unprecedented" and a "landmark case" might suggest that they thought the result had significant social benefit?

Any additional insight is welcome. Thank you in advance!!

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm closer to your interpretation: I didn't think I noticed any moments where the author editorialized. It seemed like the author was certainly interested in the topic and convinced of the impact of the church's court case.

There are a lot of small moments, that in and of themselves are pretty neutral, but taken together might suggest that the author's word choice favors the eventual breakthrough.

8 - "The FCC regarded viewers MERELY as members of the public"

30 - "That decision raised a question ... why was the license renewed at all?"

40 - "The hearing was to little avail"

50 - "opening up to the public the world of broadcasting"

But overall I would categorize this author as neutral, or at best "implicit agreement".

[VendelaG465]

I'm confused about line 30-32. wasn't the license renewal what they wanted? why would that question have been brought up..?

[ohthatpatrick]

The local TV station wanted its license renewed.
The church wanted that renewal to be denied, because the station was kinda racist.

The FCC said, "We're not gonna have a hearing, church, but we hear ya. We're going to just give them a short-term, probationary renewal."

The FCC told the church there would be no hearing because the FCC didn't need to be persuaded; it was already in agreement with the church that the local TV broadcasters had committed misconduct.

So the author is asking, "if the FCC acknowledges that the local TV station was kinda racist, then why did they renew the license at all?"

Essentially, the author is saying, "if this TV station is a bad actor, then how is granting it a SHORT TERM renewal an acceptable solution? Just don't renew its license at all."

[Laura Damone]

Scale
The old way: The FCC was in the pocket of the broadcasting industry and closed to the public. The new way: The public has a right to weigh in at FCC hearings.

Author's VP/Purpose
The author supports the new way.

Important Lines (usually Author's view)
Lines 11-13: Define the old way (public kept out). Lines 32-36: The author's view on the real reason the FCC denied the church a hearing. Lines 50-54: Define the new way (public let in).

Paragraph 1
Purpose: Present the old way the FCC operated. Content: At the service of the broadcasting industry, Lines 11-13.

Paragraph 2
Purpose: Present the catalyst for change. Content: The Jackson Mississippi case (A church petitioned the FCC accusing a station of being segregationist. The FCC accepted that the accusations were true but extended the station's license without a hearing anyway). The author's view on that case: The FCC denied the church to maintain the status quo and keep the public out.

Paragraph 3
Purpose: Discuss how the case proceeded through the legal system. Content: The church appealed in court, won a hearing, but it did no good because the FCC dismissed the church's claims and granted full renewal to the station. The church appealed again and the judge broke precedent and took away the station's license, declaring the public has the right to challenge the renewal of a station's license.

Paragraph 4
Purpose: Discuss the significance of the case. Content: The case set the precedent for public oversight every three years (line 54). Note the list in lines 55-57.

Takeaway/Pattern: The old way vs. the new way is one of the most common RC passage structures. In legal passages, it tends to play out exactly like it does in this passage: there's a problematic old way and a case that is the catalyst for change.


#officialexplanation