This entry excludes most discussion of commentators, political candidates, the fairness doctrine, or station editorializing­ all directly related, but treated separately in the encyclopedia.

Basis for Concern

  Consideration of broadcasts about controversial issues begins with an understanding of three related matters: the First Amendment, censorship, and access. The First Amendment (1791) makes clear that "Congress shall make no law" affecting freedom of speech, of the press, or of religion. Countless statements of political theory and policy as well as numberless court decisions (most having nothing to do with broadcasting) have made clear for decades that in order to be effective citizens and voters, the public needs to be informed about public issues and the various points of view concerning them. A number of Supreme Court decisions have held that robust public debate is a central component of effective freedom of speech and of the democratic system itself.

     Strictly defined, censorship in the American context means prior restraint of publication, broadcast, or speech by an act of government. It does not usually include private actions (such as those by broadcasters or advertisers) that might limit speech or access to a microphone by others. The term is usually applied far more generally and is often applied to corporate actions to restrict access or debate.

     Media access divides into two concerns: media access to places or people in order to report news or public (sometimes seemingly private) affairs, and access by people (other than a broadcaster or his or her staff) or their ideas to broadcast facilities. Discussion of controversial issues on radio almost always involves the latter.

Shaping a Policy

  As the potential value of radio as a means of shedding light on public controversies first became clear in the 1920s, policy makers and broadcasters alike began to focus on just what radio stations should or could do in support of public-affairs communication. Yet neither the Radio Act of 1927 nor the Communications Act of 1934 (until the latter was amended in 19 59) said anything about radio coverage of controversial issues or fairness in doing so. Both acts did make clear that the government had no right of censorship over radio content. The combination of having no clear statutory requirement to deal fairly with controversial issues on the one hand, with a very clear and firm statement of no censorship on the other hand, has made defining government policy-making in this field difficult.

     The first important relevant policy statement-one often still referenced in modern decisions-is found in an early Federal Radio Commission licensing case in which the commission concluded, "In so far as a program consists of discussion of public questions, public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views,-and the commission believes that the principle applies ... to discussions of issues of importance to the public" (Great Lakes Broadcasting Co., 1928; see Kahn, 1984).

     In the late 1920s and early 1930s, a number of legal cases concerned broadcasters who sought either to obtain or to retain stations as personal mouthpieces (e.g., John Brinkley) or whose programs espoused strong political views with little or no chance for rebuttal by others (e.g., Father Charles Cough­ lin). In a few short years, most had been forced to share time with others of different views or to leave the air entirely.

     Later cases and policy statements echoed the need to cover controversial issues, but to do so fairly. In March 1939, in an FCC statement on objectionable programming practices, one item listed was "refusal to give equal opportunity for the discussion of controversial subjects"; this statement underlines the twofold nature of the concern. First, stations should provide discussion of controversial subjects, and second, they should provide a fair balance of views on those subjects. Paralleling the government concern was the 1939 version of the National Association of Broadcasters' (NAB) Standards of Practice, which held that "as part of their public service, networks and stations shall provide time for the discussion of public questions including those of a controversial nature."

     This relatively early version of the NAB radio self-regulatory code also made clear a long-standing industry practice of not selling airtime for the discussion of controversial issues. The code claimed that this was because broadcasters did not want a situation in which only those able to afford the time could be heard. But such a policy also avoided offending either audience members or advertisers with too much controversy. The no-sell provision was largely followed until relatively recently. The downside of all this was that such discussions were nearly always provided as sustaining programs-meaning at the broadcaster's expense. The code provisions remained unchanged until 1948, when the restriction on sponsorship was dropped.

     In the meantime, other FCC decisions helped to pin down policy still further. At the end of World War II, the commission held that a station could not establish a blanket policy of not providing any time for discussion of controversial issues (United Broadcasting Company [WHKC], 10 FCC 515, 1945). A year later, three radio licenses in California were renewed despite the stations' refusal to allow a noted atheist to offer his views on the air. The commission reiterated that although "the criterion of the public interest in the field of broadcasting clearly precludes a policy of making radio wholly unavailable as a medium for the expression of any view which falls within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech," there was no obligation on the part of a station to grant the request of any specific person for time to state his or her views (Robert H. Scott, 11 FCC 372, 1946).

     The FCC Blue Book issued in 1946 devoted several pages to the discussion of public issues, going so far as to raise 19 questions about such broadcasts-bur answering none of them. The section concluded that in its decisions on whether a licensee had served in the public interest, the FCC "would take into consideration the amount of time which has been or will be devoted to the discussion of public issues" (Blue Book, 1946, 40). Clearly, trying to avoid such programming was not going to please the licensing authority. Thus, the licensee had to make judgments about what issues to cover and which points of view to present.

     The seeming hole in the Communications Act of 1934 was finally filled when a 1959 amendment to Section 315 made clear that licensees had an affirmative obligation "to afford a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." Nearly four decades after radio broadcasting began, the country's basic communications statute finally and specifically included coverage of controversial issues as being a part of the public interest stations were licensed to serve.

Modern Era: Selling Controversy

     The dominance of television in American life by the 1950s naturally shifted regulatory attention to that medium. Most cases concerning controversial issues focused on television programs, though the concerns raised paralleled those first evident with radio. And as discussed elsewhere, most controversial issue program questions were now dealt with in the context of the FCC's fairness doctrine, issued in 1949 and rescinded in 1987. The demise of the fairness doctrine, however, was but one of several factors that changed the face of controversial issue programming.

     The end of the doctrine in 1987 made possible substantial expansion of political and other controversial talk programs on radio, because they no longer faced private or government fairness doctrine-based requests for response time. Rush Lim­baugh, Oliver North, and many others with decided (usually conservative) political views would have had a difficult time maintaining their controversial programming in the face of a constant barrage of requests from audience members to respond to what they had heard.

     Nor did the FCC any longer seem concerned that many stations no longer provided time for discussion of controversial issues. Detailed license renewal forms that asked about station policies concerning the amount of time provided for controversial issue programming disappeared in the 1980s, to be replaced by simple postcard forms with no program-relevant queries whatsoever. The growing number of stations in most markers made regulation of individual outlets seem less relevant. Therefore, neither FCC commissioners nor their staff any longer felt that each station in a market had to provide such programs-as long as at least some stations did. Any nearby public radio station was often the selected "mark" to pick up the slack.

     More importantly, the economic basis of radio time devoted to discussion of controversial issues has changed radically. Once shunned by broadcasters, as noted above, the selling of rime for expression of points of view, whether in short spots ("editorial advertising" or "advertorials") or in programs, had by the 1990s become accepted practice. No longer did broadcasters have to pick and choose among the minefield of potential controversial issues without even the saving grace of selling time to support programs dealing with such topics. By the early 2000s, controversial issue programs almost always meant time sold for that purpose, usually to one or more syndicated talkers with an axe (or several) to grind or an audience large enough to attract advertisers.

     Some have argued that radio is thus no longer providing a minimum of public-affairs service to its listeners-that points of view have simply become another commodity for sale to the highest bidder. Others hold that radio is but one information conduit to the modern household and that audiences can obtain as much controversy as they desire from a combination of radio, television, periodicals, and the internet, to name only a few key media. In any case, far more people agree that government supervision or regulation of radio content is not the most effective means of creating an informed electorate.