News Broadcasting Censorship

Definition: Delivery of news by radio, television, or other electromagnetic transmission methods

Significance: In general, the broadcast media have been subjected to greater censorship than the print media

When the U.S. Congress passed the Radio Act of 1927 it did not grant the broadcast media the same freedoms that had applied to newspapers and other print media. The primary justifications for regulation of the broadcast industry, first through the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), and later through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have been the relative scarcity of available space on the radio and television frequency spectrums in combination with the larger philosophical belief that the airwaves belong to the public. The concept of public ownership of the airwaves has thus implied greater public—and less private—interest in what is broadcast on the airwaves. One person can privately produce a book; a broadcast, by definition, reaches many.

Through a competitive process, the FCC has licensed broadcast stations to operate “in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” The FCC always has defined a crucial part of this public interest requirement as the broadcasting of a variety of views on controversial issues of public importance. One of the reforms implemented by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to increase the periods of broadcasting licenses from five years for television stations and seven years for radio stations to eight years for both. However, the act also made it clear that renewal of licenses would depend, in large measure, upon the stations’ fulfillment of the law’s public interest programming requirement. Such an expectation of renewal was also to depend upon the broadcaster’s possession of a clean record of compliance with other FCC regulations.

Since its formation in 1934 the FCC has used a combination of persuasion, intimidation, and the illusion of apparent consensus to influence programming decisions regarding news broadcasting. A major area of concern for regulators has been the possibility that radio and television station owners might allow only the broadcasting of those viewpoints on social issues which they favored, or the airing of opinions only of those political candidates whom they supported. Efforts to prevent censorship of divergent views by station owners has taken three main forms. The first was the fairness doctrine, which directly impacted programming decisions until the FCC abandoned the doctrine under the Reagan Administration in 1986. The second has been the personal attack rule, which originally was part of the fairness doctrine, and which the FCC has continued to enforce. The third area concerns the airing of political editorials.

The Fairness Doctrine

In 1927, 1933, and 1947, Congress tried unsuccessfully to legislate that broadcasters include contrasting views on important social issues in their news coverage. Even in the absence of such a law, however, the federal government declared that balanced coverage was a requirement of news broadcasting that serves the public interest. The old FRC made this point in 1929. The commission ruled that the requirement of fairness applies not only to coverage of political candidates but also “to all discussion of issues of importance to the public.” The FCC made a similar statement in a case in 1945, when it reaffirmed “the duty of each station licensee to be sensitive to the problems of public concern in the community and to make sufficient time available, on a non-discriminatory basis, for a full discussion thereof.”

The FCC officially implemented its controversial fairness doctrine in 1949 as part of an extensive report, which dealt primarily with rules pertaining to the broadcasting of editorials. The report emphasized the need for broadcasters to play a positive role in bringing about the balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints on important public issues. The fairness doctrine won sanction from Congress in 1959, when lawmakers amended section 315 of the Communications Act to exclude news coverage from the equal opportunity requirements pertaining to candidates for political office. While allowing this exclusion, Congress insisted that broadcasters still must perform according to “the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

The fairness doctrine remained the most bitter issue in broadcast regulation until it finally was abandoned in 1986. Many broadcasters considered the doctrine to be a form of government censorship and a violation of their constitutional protections of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Many other people believed, however, that requiring broadcasters to provide balanced coverage was the only way to assure such freedom of expression, because it was the only way to be sure that the public would be exposed to a diversity of viewpoints aired over a limited number of privately owned broadcast stations.

The matter came to a legal head in 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality. In the Red Lion Broadcasting case, the justices rejected claims by opponents that the fairness doctrine violated the First Amendment rights of broadcasters by forcing them to include material in their news coverage which they might not otherwise include. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling rested on the original justification for federal regulation of the broadcast industry as necessary to protect the public from one-sided coverage of significant issues. Justice Byron White summarized the Court’s opinion by stating that the public’s need for a diversity of viewpoints and information supersedes the broadcaster’s right of free speech: “It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences, which is crucial here.”

The FCC’s method of monitoring stations for violations of the fairness doctrine depended upon complaints by viewers or listeners. Such complaints had to include evidence of violations. Further, the evidence had to indicate a station’s failure to provide balanced coverage of a controversial issue in the context of the station’s overall programming, not just within a single program or in a single news story. In 1980 more than twenty-one thousand complaints pertaining to violations of the fairness doctrine, equal opportunity, and political broadcasting were filed with the commission. Many of those came from candidates for political offices or their supporters. Of that total, only six complaints resulted in warnings or sanctions against stations by the commission.

One celebrated instance of a fairness doctrine complaint occurred in 1984, when the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) petitioned the FCC to sanction an American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network news show. The CIA objected to a story in which a Honolulu investment counselor had claimed to be a covert agent who thought that the agency wanted to have him killed. The ABC story included a denial by the CIA, so the complaint was dismissed by the FCC on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of a violation of the fairness doctrine. This was, however, the first time that the FCC had been officially pressured by another agency of the federal government to retaliate for a news broadcast.

The tide turned against the fairness doctrine in the 1980’s. The National Association of Broadcasters long had lobbied against the requirement. One reason was the perception of censorship and a violation of broadcasters’ rights. Another reason was the belief that free-market competition with other stations in their own markets, rather than a fear of government reprisal, provided the best incentive for broadcasters to program thorough and balanced coverage of important issues to their audience. As it turned out, however, the most compelling reason, in the commission’s view, was the argument that the requirement’s practical effect on news broadcasting was exactly the opposite of its intended effect. Broadcasters contended that the fairness doctrine was stifling public debate on matters important to both local communities and the nation. The possibility of being accused of biased news coverage was causing broadcasters to avoid covering controversial issues. This problem was acute among small- and medium-market radio and television stations, which typically lacked resources to wage extended legal battles in the event of a complaint.

In 1986 the FCC decided to cease enforcement of the fairness doctrine. After an extensive evaluation, the commission concluded “that far from serving its intended purpose, the doctrine has a chilling effect on broadcaster’s speech.” The matter remained a source of controversy, however. Many members of Congress and others in politics favor a return of the fairness doctrine, which, among other things, tends to provide them more access to the airwaves. Since 1986 several unsuccessful attempts have been made in Congress to codify the fairness doctrine into law.

Personal Attack Rule

Although the FCC abandoned the fairness doctrine, it left intact a portion of that doctrine known as the personal attack rule, which was begun in 1967. This rule requires broadcasters to notify any persons or groups whose character, integrity, or other personal qualities have been attacked during broadcasts of views on public issues. Such notifications must occur within a week of the broadcasts, and the stations must provide attacked persons or groups with reasonable opportunities to respond on the air.

The personal attack rule exempts certain kinds of charges so that it will not interfere with news coverage of political campaigns and other public issues. Exempt are attacks made by political candidates or their supporters against other candidates and their supporters. Also exempt are newscasts, news interviews, and on-the-spot news coverage. The rule applies, however, to personal attacks made by anybody as long as those attacks are aired by the station, not just to attacks made by someone who works for the station itself. The constitutionality of the personal attack rule was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of its ruling in the Red Lion Broadcasting case.

Editorials

The airing of editorials always has been a controversial aspect of broadcast news and public affairs programming. Broadcasters usually consider editorials to be a right or even a public duty. Regulators, on the other hand, often have been concerned about the potential for excluding differing viewpoints. In 1941 the FCC angered broadcasters by ruling that they no longer could editorialize on their stations. The commission revised this ruling in 1949, and stipulated instead that broadcasters had to provide equal access to their airwaves for persons or groups who wished to present opposing viewpoints. The commission later took up the matter of political editorials as part of its implementation of the personal attack rule. Broadcast licensees who endorsed particular candidates were required to notify the candidates’ opponents and offer reasonable opportunities for replies. In the event that a station editorial opposed a particular candidate, that candidate must also be given a chance to respond.

Overt Censorship

Although the Communications Act of 1934 specifically prohibited the FCC from censoring the content of news and other broadcasts, overt government and military censorship has occurred during times of international conflict. The government’s argument to justify such actions has been that some restrictions to a free press are necessary in order to protect American troops, advance the war effort, prevent enemy agents from using the broadcast media in the United States to send and receive secret codes, and, generally, to ensure the nation’s well-being.

During World War II the Office of Censorship was created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who insisted that its scope would be limited and that broadcasters would be called upon voluntarily to censor radio programs containing information which might be of value to the enemy. The National Association of Broadcasters complied with the call for voluntary censorship by issuing a wartime guide for radio stations. The code prohibited the broadcast of weather reports and weather-related data, except in cases of emergency, because it was feared that German navy commanders might use the information to plan attacks. The code also called for interview programs to be screened, and prohibited the broadcast of information relating to the location or movement of troops and vessels.

A major area of work for the Office of Censorship throughout the war was investigation of foreign-language programming on radio stations throughout the United States, especially around such large metropolitan areas as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Station owners were required to have English scripts of the foreign-language programs in advance of broadcasts, and station personnel were not allowed to depart from those scripts. Office of Censorship employees also were assigned to monitor American network news commentaries for any material that might compromise the war effort.

In 1990 and 1991 overt military censorship prevented Americans from gaining information from the broadcast news media about the origins and the developments of the Persian Gulf War. The military’s insistence on pool coverage kept American reporters away from the front lines and reliant upon the government for video and other information about the conduct of the war. The tactic was a response to a pervasive belief among the military and some others in government that an unfettered American press was responsible for losing the Vietnam War by turning public opinion against the war.

One result of the shortage of independent video from the war was the heavy use of maps and graphic designs in broadcast news reports, along with Pentagon-supplied images of exploding “smart-bombs,” which bore a remarkable resemblance to video games. The limitations placed on broadcast news gathering effectively made the war appear less real, less destructive, and less threatening to television viewers than probably otherwise would have been the case. Similar censorship of broadcast and other news outlets through the government’s insistence on pool coverage occurred in the 1980’s during the American invasions of Grenada and Panama. The trend led an angry Dan Rather of the Columbia Broadcasting System’s news department to complain that “politicians have learned ways to intimidate individual reporters, news organizations, and the press in general.”

In 2017, amid growing complaints among Republicans about the alleged liberal bias of major news outlets and threats by President Donald Trump that he might revoke their broadcasting licenses, a poll found that while only 28 percent of Americans overall thought the government should have the power to shut down news outlets that were "biased or inaccurate," 45 percent of Republicans support that idea, whereas only 20 percent oppose it. However, as of 2018, no actual attempts to censor broadcast news had been made.

Self-Censorship

A more subtle, yet important, form of censorship has always existed in ways in which broadcasters censor themselves. Robert McNeil, a prominent journalist with the Public Broadcasting System, commented on this phenomenon by observing that in the day-to-day broadcast of news, the public’s right to know is qualified by what government officials “choose to tell them and by what information journalists, for a variety of reasons, choose to pursue.” Noting that “secrecy is the oldest reality of government,” McNeil claimed that relatively little modern news broadcasting could be considered investigative. Instead, reporters commonly simply condense information that they are given by sources—often government sources. This process results in the government, not the news media, directing the public’s attention to areas that the government wants the public to be considering.

Certain qualities unique to broadcast news make it especially vulnerable to these subtle forms of self-censorship. One is the fast pace of most radio and television news formats, which allow little room for analysis, investigation, or questioning beyond a story’s most basic elements. Because broadcast news typically reports both simple and complex stories through the time-limited format, there is little time for serious consideration of subtleties. The need for visual elements to illustrate stories adds another obstacle to television news reporting. Many stories, although important and stimulating, are not pursued because they would not provide sufficiently entertaining visual images. This accelerated, fleeting, and often superficial style has created, critics argue, a tendency in broadcast news to impart facts without necessarily establishing context—historical or otherwise. The energies of broadcast news reporters tend to be concentrated on the basic task of disseminating information, rather than on the arguably more important one of deepening the audiences’ understanding of the significance of that information.

Bibliography

Beauchamp, Zack. "45 Percent of Republicans Want the Government to Shutter 'Biased or Inaccurate' Media." Vox, 27 July 2017, www.vox.com/world/2017/7/27/16036054/poll-republicans-press-freedom-trump. Accessed 30 Apr. 2018.

Donohue, Hugh Carter. The Battle to Control Broadcast News: Who Owns the First Amendment? MIT P, 1989.

Garay, Ronald. "Guarding the Airwaves: Government Regulation of World War II American Radio." Journal of Radio Studies, vol. 3, 1995–1996.

Katsh, M. Ethan. The Electronic Media and the Transformation of Law. Oxford UP, 1989.

Liston, Robert A. The Right to Know: Censorship in America. Franklin Watts, 1973.

McArthur, John R. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. Hill & Wang, 1992.

Pember, Don R. Mass Media Law Wm. C. Brown, 1987.

Rowan, Ford. Broadcast Fairness: Doctrine, Practice, Prospects. Longman, 1984.

Stephens, Mitchell. A History of News. Oxford UP, 2007.