The Future of Internet Policy

Peter Decherney, Victor Pickard

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781317516729
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

All of the short essays in this volume look past the rhetoric of technological determinism and reliance on the natural logic of the market to consider the power of law and policy to steer new media in one direction or another. Many of the essays look backwards through history or outwards across national borders. They all look forward to how today's policies will shape the future of the internet and society.

A particular focus of interest for some of the contributors is the revelations that followed Edward Snowden's mass disclosure of classified documents in 2013, which revealed the U.S. National Security Agency's systematic and longstanding program of monitoring global communications. Some chapters consider different countries' varying approaches to regulating the proliferation of online communication, while others assess the current state of digital technology. They all call for policy interventions to solve market failures. This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Studies in Media Communication.

“The Air Belongs to the People”: The Rise and Fall of a Postwar Radio Reform Movement

Victor Pickard

The postwar 1940s witnessed the beginnings of a full-fledged broadcast reform movement composed of labor activists, African Americans, disaffected intellectuals, Progressives, educators, and religious organizations. Although this reform movement would never realize the full sum of its parts before it was quelled by reactionary forces, it would succeed in registering significant victories as well as laying the necessary groundwork for future reform. The following analysis draws from archival materials and interviews to recover a largely forgotten moment in broadcast history, one that holds much contemporary relevance for current media reform efforts and media policy issues.

The vehemence with which segments of the U.S. public criticized 1940s radio is difficult to overstate. In its 1946 year-end review, the New York Times found “radio subjected to more obverse and insistent criticism than the industry had experienced in the whole of its previous twenty-five years” (Gould, 1946, p. 9). Another article claimed, “Criticism of radio is not new, but in 1946, as the industry enters its third decade richer, more powerful and more excruciatingly vulgar and meaningless than ever before, impatience has reached a higher peak of articulate disgust” (Young, 1946). A Harvard report on American media noted, “One need be no soft paternalist to believe that never in the history of the world have vulgarity and debilitation beat so insistently on the mind as they do now from screen, radio, and newsstand” (1945, p. 30). While there was significant agitation against media in general, the most pronounced activism focused on the airwaves, leading Fortune Magazine in 1947 to dub it the “revolt against radio.”

Although articulated most forcefully among intellectuals and activists, evidence suggests that the depth and breadth of public unrest was more widespread than a few malcontents. Community radio “listening councils” sprang up to monitor local programming. Films and novels such as The Hucksters depicting sinister media moguls and advertising agents attracted significant audiences and press attention. Major newspapers and opinion journals across the country—particularly on the left, but also in mainstream trade journals such as Tide and Variety, popular magazines such as Reader's Digest and Life, and business journals such as Fortune Magazine and Business Week—railed against the state of American broadcasting.

Much postwar criticism centered on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government agency founded by Congress in 1934 to regulate telecommunications and broadcasting, and increasingly a target of activist interventions and public outrage. Indeed, FCC files at this time were stuffed with listeners’ complaints, indicating a pronounced anger toward radio. While social movements pushed from below, progressive policy proposals such as the FCC “Blue Book” and the Hutchins Commission's radio report emerged from elite circles (Pickard, 2010a, 2011a). Many believed the postwar changes sweeping American society also could lead to structural media reform.

Postwar America

The postwar period saw a moment of transition and “reconversion” in the U.S., and core social institutions came under increased scrutiny. New Deal liberalism had begun to falter with the rise of an anti-communist, conservative resurgence (Brinkley, 1995), but, despite this political shift to the right, a window of opportunity arose in the mid-to-late 1940s when structural reform still seemed possible. American society was not yet in thrall to reactionary politics, and many social movements, including those supporting labor and civil rights, continued to agitate for reform. The former saw massive strike waves in the mid-1940s (Lipsitz, 1994), and the latter saw a spike in momentum as African American veterans returned from war (Barlow, 1999). As these groups sought fairer representation on the air, their activism increasingly focused on radio as a vehicle for advancing specific issues, as well as a target for interventions to restructure the medium itself to become less hostile to activist messages (Fones-Wolf, 2006).

A three-pronged assault against commercial radio came from social movements, progressive policymakers, and average American listeners who were upset with their typical radio fare. In particular, widespread condemnation of radio's “excessive commercialism” galvanized a broad canvas of critical press coverage and irate letters sent to the FCC (Pickard, 2011b). The radio broadcasting industry already faced uncertainty given the impending competition from television combined with a steep decline in revenue and loss of lucrative wartime sponsors (Time, 1946). For a brief period, historical conditions seemed ripe for a structural overhaul. Although this contentious moment would help direct U.S. media's trajectory for the ensuing generations, this chapter in the history of American media reform has only rarely been mentioned in prior research and has yet to receive its due attention.

Previous Literature

Many historical accounts touch upon 1940s radio (for example, Barnouw, 1968; Sterling & Kittross, 1978; Brinson, 2004; Hilliard & Keith, 2010), but few address discontent regarding its commercialization. Horwitz (1997) situates these years as the second of three key media reform periods, occurring after questions of broadcasting ownership and control were decided in the 1930s, and before public broadcasting was established in the 1960s. Van Cuilenburg and McQuail (2003) see 1945 as the starting point for a new policy paradigm of “public service” media policy, while Sterling & Kittross (1978) depict it as the “Era of Great Change.” Havig (1984) suggests that popular criticism posed as a great challenge to broadcasters as did technological and financial disruptions. However, few histories have specifically addressed the importance of social movements and their efforts towards media reform.

In fact, previous foundational literature has argued that people were generally happy with radio (Baughman, 1992) or that significant reform efforts had ended by the mid-1930s (McChesney, 1993). Baughman suggests that in the 1940s people were largely satisfied with radio and that “critics of radio's commercial, oligopolistic foundations were few and far between” (1992, p. 20). Lazarsfeld ends his classic 1946 study with the observation that people generally accepted radio's commercial nature. Other historians see less complacency toward radio, but conclude that the fundamental questions of ownership and control were largely settled by the mid-1930s (McChesney, 1993; Smulyan, 1994).

Although much was put to rest in the 1930s when a commercial, privatized system prevailed over public alternatives—as McChesney's work convincingly shows—crucial questions involving broadcasters’ obligations to the public remained. More recent scholarship is beginning to provide a counter-narrative by uncovering evidence that many constituencies were unhappy with 1940s commercial radio and resistance was commonplace (Toro, 2000; Socolow, 2002; Newman, 2004; Fones-Wolf, 2006). Noting how this criticism differed from the 1930s, Newman asserts: “Instead of an intellectual elite attacking the commercial industry, a popular and widespread critique of the advertisers’ control over the American system of broadcasting emerged in 1946–1947” (2004, p. 291). Other historians have explored the media interventions of specific groups, especially labor (Godfried, 1997; Fones-Wolf, 2006) and African Americans (Barlow, 1999; Savage, 1999). In her study on the labor movement's radio activism, Fones-Wolf (2006) argues that the Congress of Industrial Organizations’ (CIO) attacks on the NAB fomented a larger movement based on a “loose media reform coalition” that was both “wide-ranging” and now “largely forgotten” (p. 126). Similarly, Toro (2000) observes that postwar “political struggles over program regulation reveal the continuous presence of social reform groups as participants in the FCC's broadcast policymaking.”

Despite these revisionist trends, a thorough history of the 1940s broadcast reform movement does not yet exist. While Fones-Wolf's emphasis on labor's role within this media reform coalition provides the first clear glance at how this movement operated, scholars have yet to provide a comprehensive view of its breadth, depth, and composition. Likewise, Toro observes that although a few scholars have looked at how media reform groups impacted policy after 1965, most “have fallen short in their examination of the role of social reform groups at the [FCC] prior to the 1960s” (2000, p. 9). Which social movement groups were involved in media reform in the 1940s, and what were their objectives? The following analysis is a first step towards answering these questions and recovering a largely forgotten postwar media reform movement.

Theoretical Framework and Methods

This study uses a Gramscian theoretical framework (Gramsci, 1971), appraising the historical processes of simultaneous hegemonic blocs and currents of resistance as power arrangements constantly re-legitimate themselves. Such a conceptualization of history and power considers media policy as neither natural nor inevitable, but resulting instead from constant conflict and negotiation, with multiple, shifting terrains of struggle, particularly at the discursive level. The following analysis also draws from social movement theory, especially “movement framing” (McCammon et al., 2007). “Discursive opportunity structures,” as formulated by Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, and Rucht (2002), suggests that social movements often begin as intellectual critiques that are opportunistically exploited by grassroots social forces. Media policy discourses in the 1940s reflect a growing cultural critique that dialectically combined with the beginnings of a popular radio reform movement.

To make sense of these ever-shifting discursive realignments, this study relies on historical methods, including in-depth archival research of activist literature, memos, letters, and personal papers connected to individuals and groups that participated in 1940s broadcast reform activities. Close attention was given to the personal papers of FCC Commissioner Clifford Durr, whose range of contacts serve as a lens through which to glimpse the inner-workings of a postwar media reform movement. Additionally, phone interviews were conducted with two Durr confidantes and long-term media reform activists central to the 1940s movement: Everett Parker, a leader of various progressive religious broadcast groups, and the late Norman Corwin, a famous radio personality and radio division director for a major progressive activist group.

Out of this research, a general narrative emerges that traces the rise and fall of a postwar media reform movement. Based largely on FCC Commissioner Durr's correspondences and various activist literature, the following analysis examines the anatomy of this movement—its tensions, successes, and failures—by focusing on particular groups, campaigns, and strategies. Groups not discussed in depth that were involved in specific postwar media reform campaigns include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Jewish organizations, and women's groups (Proffitt, 2010). Although disparate, the core reform groups’ media criticism and activism were remarkably similar and often coalesced around common goals and ideals, including fairness in media representation, the creation of alternative media, and increased access to media production. More specifically, to varying degrees all of these groups engaged with the policymaking process in an attempt to remake the American broadcast system along more democratic lines. Given the last decade's surge in media reform activism, this history is particularly relevant to our contemporary moment.

Labor Holds the Line in Dark Times

Labor was arguably the first social movement to organize explicitly around media issues. Alongside other nonprofit organizations including churches and educational institutions, labor groups like the Chicago Federation of Labor were early owners and operators of AM stations (Godfried, 1997, p. 133). Yet by the mid-1940s, most of these nonprofits had been pushed off the air. Finding it increasingly difficult to gain airtime on commercial radio, the labor movement began contesting a rightward shift in the nation's news discourse, particularly its overt censoring of pro-labor views and voices. Labor historian Nathan Godfried, pointing to a 1943 Federated Press poll that found 92% of the press was anti-labor, notes that it was not surprising that “the mass media reflected business interests and values,” especially with groups like the National Association of Manufacturers disseminating anti-labor propaganda messages as “briefs for broadcasters” (pp. 210–211). An example of censorship included zealously purging scripts for a Heywood Broun memorial broadcast of any mention that he founded the Newspaper Guild (Ernst, 1946, 142–145). The NAB Code Manual gave broadcasters ample cover for excluding labor, claiming “Discussion—or dramatization—of labor problems on the air is almost always of a controversial nature” (quoted in Ernst, p. 145).

Although industry would benefit from the 1947 Taft–Hartley Act's chilling effects, the mid-1940s still held bright spots for labor's organizing and media strategies (Fones-Wolf, 2006; Lipsitz, 1994). The CIO, unlike the more accommodationist AFL, used radio as a public relations vehicle for organizing as well as a weapon against anti-labor employers. Godfried notes that while the AFL hierarchy had “no grievance against” commercial radio, the CIO wanted to “meet propaganda with propaganda” (1997, pp. 210–211). The CIO's political action committee galvanized reformers with its Radio handbook (1944), which contained instructions for getting on the air and promoting “freedom to listen.”

In the pamphlet's preface, CIO president Philip Murray wrote that the Labor Movement believes “that the years immediately ahead are the most critical we have ever faced,” and thus “the people” must be “kept alert and informed as to their political interests.” “In this task,” he stated, “radio will inevitably play a very important part (CIO, 1944, pp. 2–5). Murray concluded that labor leaders and all those interested in “freedom of the air” must know their rights so that “radio is used as intended, namely, to serve the best interest of the people.” The people's right to the air was a recurring theme throughout the handbook. Seeing radio as an underutilized resource, the pamphlet stated that workers “have not taken full advantage of their right to use radio broadcasting.” “Labor has a voice,” the pamphlet stated, and “people have a right to hear it.” Although radio stations and equipment belong to broadcasters, “the air over which the broadcasts are made does not belong to companies or corporations. The air belongs to the people” (CIO, 1944, p. 6 original emphases).

Variations of “The air belongs to the people” served as a common rallying cry for 1940s media reformers. For example, in the 1948 pamphlet “The radio listener's bill of rights” (written by FCC Blue Book author Charles Siepmann) the Anti-Defamation League emphasized, “The essential knowledge you must have—and spread—about radio is the fact that it is yours. The wavelengths of the air belong to the people of America” (p. 44). This slogan struck at the central absurdity of a commercial system monopolizing a crucial public resource only to exclude voices of wide swathes of the population. This heavily biased system struck many as inherently unjust, as illustrated by one listener's comments: “While I am not a member of any union, as a patriotic American I am greatly interested in all sides of a question” (Keator, 1947).

The CIO Radio handbook provided instructions for gaining radio time for a labor point of view via several discursive techniques, including “The straight talk,” “The round table discussion,” “The spot announcement,” and “The dramatic radio play.” The book encouraged activists to generate good publicity, advising them to “not hesitate to send out your announcements to consumer groups, cooperatives, women's organizations, fraternal and religious organizations.” The book emphasized, “The more all these community organizations know about you and your ideas on national and local problems, the better you will be able to cooperate with them in any problem requiring political action” (p. 25). The handbook also provided advice about choosing optimal airtime (evenings, although difficult to attain), tips on making high-quality programs that were not “tight-laced” or “too dull,” and sample scripts for announcements and dramatizations titled “Are you registered?” and “What is the PAC?” Suggested topics included: “Labor's war record,” “Child care and school lunch programs,” “G.I. Joe and CIO,” “Why we are for FDR,” “The need for farm-labor unity,” “The negro in 1944,” and “Women war workers” (p. 23).

The book recommended responses to denied airtime included asking for the station manager's refusal in writing, writing a response, and sending copies of all letters to the FCC Chairman. Noting “the tremendous influence” a letter of protest can have if sent to contest “labor-baiting or any other objectionable programs,” the handbook also instructed readers to ask members “to report to your Radio Committee any programs or any statements over the radio which are unfair to labor, or tend to incite people against the Negro or the foreign-bor...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Internet Policy Crises
• Part I: The Pre-History of Internet Policy
• Part II: The Future of Internet Policy
• Index