Radio Censorship in Europe

  From the 1920s to the present day, radio has been mobilized as a tool for the purposes of authoritarian governments and colonial authorities around the world. Internationally, radio censorship has most significantly and powerfully taken the form of its classic definition: to suppress unofficial and oppositional political voices before they can be heard and to prohibit unauthorized material and information.

     Radio broadcasting in the former Yugoslavia, for example, was heavily controlled by the government prior to World War II. After the ascendance of a socialist regime in the 1940s, radio was coordinated by Jugoslavenska Radiotelevizija (JRT), although it was a highly federalized arrangement, with regional broadcasting networks located in the various republics serving the multilingual and culturally and ethnically pluralist populations included under the state. Yugoslavia's relative autonomy from the Soviet Union resulted in a heavier infiltration of Western news and entertainment media and a more open news broadcasting policy. Local radio stations operated independently of JRT, but a basic censorship was exercised over all Yugoslav radio. Criticism of the basic communist system was prohibited, as was any personal attack directed toward Chief of State Marshall Tito. Nothing could be broadcast that might "exacerbate the troublesome animosities dividing the various Yugoslav nationalities" (Paulu, 1974). Negative viewpoints regarding the Soviet Union were not permitted, for fear that such views might antagonize Soviet leaders into military intervention.

     Clandestine samizdat radio stations helped to propel the cultural and political reforms that swept across Eastern Europe in the early 1990s. But although most of those nations subsequently embraced privatized radio as a symbol of newfound democratization, Serbia's troubled late 1990s history resulted in heavy-handed reassertions of state control. The Milosevic regime revoked operating licenses and physically dismantled independent radio stations during times of anti-government protests and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military actions. Likewise, radio is closely controlled (censored, as need be) in most Third World countries, where the media are either a voice of the state or are held by those close to the party in power.

Great Britain

     The censorship situation in the United Kingdom has been much different, but similarly complex. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was formed as an autonomous public monopoly in Britain in 1926 after four years of commercial operation. Although outright instances of radio censorship have been few, the organization has routinely encountered various pressures from the party and prime minister in power. Historically, the relations between Broadcasting House and Whitehall have been rather too cordial for many critics, raising questions about the political and cultural neutrality of the corporation. Although BBC News has earned a much-vaunted reputation for impartiality, during the General Strike of 1926 and over the course of World War II, "the BBC became an integral part of the state's information machinery" (Schlesinger, 1978). Close government oversight of reporting was likewise maintained during the Falklands/Malvinas conflict with Argentina in the early 1980s.

     Once established in 1955, commercial television was subject to the self-regulatory authority of the Independent Television Authority. Cat-and-mouse adventures between licensing authorities and pirate radio ships-unauthorized music stations transmitting from vessels in the North Sea--enlivened the regulatory scene in the 1970s and forced the BBC to adopt more popular programming. Despite the recent proliferation of independent and community radio stations in the United Kingdom, pirate outfits catering to fringe musical tastes are still common in metropolitan areas.

     The primary government influence over U.K. radio has involved the coverage of events in Northern Ireland. Irish Republicans have long criticized the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) stations for their biased or partial coverage of the "Troubles." Unofficial agreements and tacit understandings between government and broadcasting establishments were the most common cause for this, although the relationship had clearly become strained in many areas by the late 1980s. The Conservative government responded with extraordinary provisions, including prohibiting the direct reporting of Sinn Fein members-a measure that backfired, antagonizing journalists and garnering widespread condemnation as unwarranted government interference.

The "Absence" of Official Radio Censorship in the United States

     Officially, no government censorship of regular radio program­ming has ever existed in the United States. The First Amendment's prohibition of laws concerning speech and the press are the primary barrier to such activity. Under the Radio Act of 1912, the secretary of commerce and labor was obliged to issue radio licenses to all applicants. Section 29 of the Radio Act of 1927 stipulated that:

     Nothing in this act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio co_mmunications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.

     This clause was reproduced as Section 326 of the Communications Act of 1934, and it has been applied to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) oversight of broadcasting ever since.

     The real history of radio censorship in the United States, however, has been far less clear-cut than this official situation would suggest. The "no-censorship" clause was designed to allay fears that a government agency might impose its political will against the First Amendment rights of the press. The assumption that censorship was an act of "prior restraint" by the government on a private citizen, company, or organization was reiterated in this legislation. But if we understand censorship to constitute a more diverse set of limitations and restrictions, patterns of censorship have existed throughout the history of American radio broadcasting.

     The no-censorship clause was crucial because it differentiated the "democratic" American system of broadcasting from the state-controlled or state-affiliated systems adopted by most other nations (such as Yugoslavia and Britain). The specter of political control loomed over early discussions about radio regulation and justified the adoption of a system that endorsed private commercial development of the airwaves. In the process, censorship was frequently regarded as a black-and-white issue: the presence or absence of government control. The broadcasting industry was highly successful in soliciting support for its two philosophies on the subject: (1) the argument that government censorship was a slippery slope (i.e., once established in any measure, it would tend toward the kind of political despotism present in authoritarian media systems); and (2) the idea that the government should not be allowed to impose its elitist standards of taste and culture on the American public by determining program content (hence, a paternal­ist radio model was unacceptable).

     In the early 1930s, the federal courts recognized the Federal Radio Commission's (and subsequently the FCC's) fight to consider past programming performance when deciding whether to renew or revoke a broadcasting license. Because no radio station can legally broadcast without a license, this "subsequent review" power has long been recognized as an indirect form of censorship, producing the "chilling effect" on broadcasters of avoiding controversial material that might antagonize the commission. In truth, the commission has rarely revoked or failed to renew licenses.

The Emergence of Self-Censorship in the United States

     Most censorship in American radio has consisted of self-regulation by networks, stations, advertisers, and performers. Except for certain situations involving political candidates, broadcasters can refuse anybody access to their facilities. This "editorial control" has inspired well-founded criticisms that particular political opinions, news items, and entertainment forms have been routinely excluded from the radio airwaves. Market censorship, where the commercial basis of the industry discourages the airing of certain "unpopular" topics or minority perspectives, is often responsible for these restrictions. Allegations have also surfaced that networks and station owners­ controlled by wealthier, politically conservative individuals­ have prohibited left-wing viewpoints and protests against the broadcasting industry from reaching the microphone. Conversely, throughout the 1930s, Republican congressmen and conservative commentators such as Boake Carter objected that stations and networks, fearing or favoring the Democratic administration, refused them equitable opportunities to air their perspectives.

     Private censorship refers to the various program (or advertising) prohibitions undertaken by radio stations and networks. The most commonly restricted subjects during radio's golden age were labor unrest, socialist politics, pacifism, political "radicalism," birth control advocacy, criticism of advertising, anti-Prohibition speeches, unorthodox medical practices, unorthodox religious opinions, excessive excitement in chil­dren's shows, "offensive" words, and suggestive situations. Private censorship often stemmed from stations' unwillingness to offend advertisers or listeners (based upon feedback or the assumed preferences of their audience). Such actions were not always unfounded or irresponsible. Popular radio priest Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitic remarks resulted in his program's cancellation by a number of stations in the late 1930s and led to his eventual removal from the air. Significantly, however, most networks and many stations responded to Coughlin by formalizing policies refusing to accept paid programming that addressed "controversial" issues. As a result, the limits of radio discourse were further circumscribed.

Obscenity and Indecency in Radio

     In response to an outbreak of "radio vandalism," in 1914 the Department of Commerce stipulated that amateur licensees must refrain from profane or obscene words. This preoccupation with maintaining standards of good taste and upholding the moral order continued into the broadcasting era. The one exception to the no-censorship clause of the Radio Act and the Communications Act is the following addendum: "No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication."

     In other words, this was the one legislated area in which prior restraint was permissible: broadcasters airing obscene, indecent, or profane material could expect license revocation or nonrenewal. During its tenure, the Federal Radio Commission interpreted this clause broadly, arguing that because radio entered the home and was accessible by children, indiscretions in this area were unacceptable. Several licenses for smaller stations were revoked following "vulgar" and "offensive" broadcasts, encouraging a higher degree of caution among other broadcasters. Any mention of "sex" was avoided, leading to the widespread cancellation of academic lectures on venereal diseases and birth control methods.

Self-Regulation

     In fact, the larger stations and the radio networks justified their dominance within the industry based upon their ability to uphold "good taste" in programming. The commission supported the notion that "quality radio service" was best represented by vigilant self-monitoring of programs and performers. The corroboration between official government regulation and industry self-regulation solidified in the 1930s. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) emerged as the primary industry lobbying group and developed continuing working relations with the FCC and Congress. Dominated by the larger commercial entities throughout its history, the NAB encouraged its members to more aggressively self-censor.

     Without formal government outlines of what was permissi­ble over the airwaves, program producers personally took on the obligations of unofficial censorship. Most stations codified their censorship policies, justifying them in terms of universal community interests. KSD, St. Louis, prided itself on its ability to exercise "an inflexible censorship over all programs offered for broadcasting ... [to protect] listeners and advertisers against association with the unworthy." In the early 1930s, the trade magazine Variety described how the current policy, "somewhat along the lines of an honor system, makes a censor of everybody in the studio, from actors to control room engineers. Nobody has been taught what to avoid or bar and the material washing is left to personal discretion" (quoted in Rorty, 1934).

     This gatekeeping function was formalized as the decade progressed, especially as the networks asserted their oversight functions. The Columbia Broadcasting System’s (CBS) 1935 policies focused on children's programming, listing themes that would not be permitted:

The exalting, as modern heroes, of gangsters, criminals and racketeers will not be allowed. Disrespect for either parental or other proper authority must not be glorified or encouraged. Recklessness and abandon must not be falsely identified with a healthy spirit of adventure.

     The National Broadcasting Company (NBC) likewise institutionalized restrictions, prohibiting such subjects as "off­ color" songs and jokes, astrology and fortune-telling, irreverent references to the deity, and "questionable statements." The NAB followed suit, issuing in 1939 a more stringent code of "accepted standards of good taste" for its members. CBS and NBC established "Standards and Practices" and "Continuity Acceptance" departments to enforce "courtesy and good taste" and to guarantee programming appropriate for "homes... of all types ...  and all members of the family."

     The self-censorship system was similar to that of the motion picture industry, but it differed in certain respects. The Hollywood movie studios submitted scripts and films to a semi-independent body to preview and approve. Radio censorship was less centralized; most radio programs were created (and self-censored) by sponsors and their advertising agencies. Networks and stations were therefore usually dealing with third parties, not their own productions. The sheer volume of radio programming meant that continuous monitoring of all stations' output was impractical. Radio guidelines were also harder to enforce, because most broadcasts were transmitted live. The radio networks and stations required all programs and speakers to submit scripts in advance and for­ bade ad-libbing, but this cumbersome "blue-penciling" review process was never comprehensively enforced, and it failed to account for misinterpretations or unscheduled deviations from the script during broadcast. Writers and performers frequently challenged the networks' censorship provisions, slipping in double entendres or tiptoeing on the brink of "tastelessness" with their gags and dramas. Nevertheless, major infractions of the self-regulatory codes were few and far between, and the FCC wholeheartedly supported the application of private censorship as a preferential alternative to official program supervision.

     The close cooperation between government and big industry objectives in radio that had developed during the 1930s was indicated by the formal alliances forged during World War II. The administration's faith in the ideological integrity of radio business interests was confirmed when President Roosevelt appointed top radio journalists and executives to posts in the Office of War Information (OWi) and the Office of Censorship. Networks, stations, and sponsors obliged the OWi by providing hours of free airtime to government programs and bond drives. Dramatic scripts were rewritten to encourage patriotism, enlistment, and home front support for the war effort. The Office of Censorship issued guidelines of prohibited topics such as weather reports and troop movements, and it required the downplaying of racial antagonisms-all of which broadcasters followed willingly.

Radio Censorship in the United States after World War II

     As the networks shifted their interests to television in the post­ war period, the tight mechanisms of self-regulation that had developed in the 1930s and 1940s began to break down. Radio stations shifted away from a mass-appeal broadcasting model to a format-based system that targeted particular localities and audience groups. In the process, minority tastes, unorthodox political opinions, and non-mainstream moralities were serviced. In increasingly competitive urban radio markets, commercial broadcasters began to "push the envelope" and schedule controversial and sensational programming. A rise in noncommercial community radio stations resulted in programming that resonated with more politically and aesthetically progressive audiences. The NAB Code of Program Standards was abolished in the 1950s. Censorship reemerged around the fringes of the electromagnetic spectrum.

     In the 1970s, the FCC reprimanded several "indecent" radio broadcasters. The trend toward "topless radio"-call-in talk shows inviting sexual anecdotes from listeners-resulted in fines and warnings from the Commission. Various stations associated with the Pacifica Foundation (a listener-supported organization serving avant-garde tastes and addressing political subjects) were chastised for their indiscretions. Most significantly, Pacifica member WBAI, New York, broadcast an unexpurgated sketch called "Seven Dirty Words" by comedian George Carlin. This resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring that, although the sketch was constitutionally protected speech, the FCC had the right to restrict indecent expression over the airwaves. The FCC more aggressively reasserted this right in the 1990s, in response to the daytime scheduling of "shock jocks." The shock jocks were largely the employees of ratings-hungry radio networks and station conglomerates, who revamped their criticisms of the FCC's intervention into program content as First Amendment infringements.

     A burgeoning "microradio" movement, which broadcasts to immediate localities using cheap, portable, low-power transmitters, more recently flustered the FCC. Advocates of micro­ radio argue that it allows greater access to the airwaves for marginalized voices. The FCC long refused to license broadcasters under 100 watts and considered such microbroadcasts illegal. In 2000 the FCC began to license low-power FM transmitters; microradio proponents consider this an attempt by the commission to commercialize the movement and extend its authority over radio content.

     A significant censorship issue for the future concerns internet radio, which many forecast will supersede broadcast radio if issues of listener access and portability can be resolved. The international implications are massive, because the delivery of audio over the internet renders discrepancies in signal strength and frequency allocation irrelevant. Censorship based upon geographical factors disappears as a result. Internet radio seemingly offers a solution to national/state censorship, representing a technological means to circumvent authoritarian attempts to prohibit or limit broadcast transmissions.