No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Congress established a policy for wartime radio under Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934 when it gave the President power to take over the entire radio industry in time of war or national emergency. He took advantage of this in September, 1940, when by an executive order he created the Board of War Communications (previously the Defense Communications Board). In the 1934 act, too, he was given wide authority to suspend the FCC rules and to close stations or to use them as he saw fit. In September, 1939, when a state of “limited national emergency” was declared, there was speculation as to the effect that this section would have on the broadcasting industry. Certain Congressmen showed an inclination to back down from the principle of broad Presidential powers over radio. Representative Ditter's bill of 1940, enthusiastically supported by the broadcasting industry, was intended to curb the wide powers the Communications Act had conferred upon the President. This bill, never acted upon, would have added a provision that no transmitter might be confiscated or silenced because of the “character or contents of any program” or in order to permit the government to engage in or control broadcasting, except upon proclamation by the President that the United States was actually at war.
Previously, Congress had enacted some legislation which is pertinent to the war. In 1932, for example, a law was passed that licenses should be issued to qualified United States citizens only, and in 1941, by a new act, the Commission was enabled to consider the character and capacity of potential licensees in order to guard against “subversive” individuals.
88 S. 4289.
89 H. E. 5074.
90 S. 3018, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess., Mar. 13, 1940, p. 2761. See also “Controlling Broadcasting in Wartime,” by Friedrich, C. J., Studies in the Control of Radio, No. 2 (1940).Google Scholar
91 S. Res. 152. See also H. Res. 292, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.
91a H. Res. 21.
91b For the documented story of the Cox Committee investigation, see Memorandum in Support of the Memorial to the House of Representatives for Fair Play to the Federal Communications Commission, published by American Civil Liberties Union, Sept., 1943.Google Scholar
92 S. 1268, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1939, p. 1275.
93 Cong. Rec., 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 903 (Appendix).
94 S. 1806, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., July 31, 1941, p. 6641.
95 H. R. 5497.
96 Hearings before Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess.
97 H. R. 1490.
98 S. Res. 286.
99 S. 2874 and S. 149.
100 S. Res. 305.
101 Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., Oct. 15, 1942 (p. 8467 unbound).
102 See Young, Roland, This Is Congress (1942).Google Scholar See also L. W. Haney, A Congressional History of Railways in the United States; G. H. Haynes, The Senate of the United States; H. Hazlitt, A New Constitution Now; L. Rogers, Crisis Government; W. Wilson, Congressional Government; and Friedrich, C. J., “Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility,” in Public Policy, Vol. IGoogle Scholar, Yearbook of the Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard University.
103 NBC; Blue Network; Mutual; Network Affiliates, Inc.; General Federation of Women's Clubs, Washington, D. C.; Federal Communications Bar Association; NAB; CBS; Clear Channel Broadcasting Service; Newspaper-Radio Committee.
104 Hearings before Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., on H. R. 8301, Apr. 10, 1934, p. 294.
105 Hearings before Committee on Interstate Commerce, U.S. Senate, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., on S. 2910, Mar. 9–15, 1934, p. 45.
106 Hearings before Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., on H. R. 5497, p. 985 ff. of Committee Print.
107 Hearings before Committee on Interstate Commerce, U.S. Senate, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., on S. 2910, Mar. 9–15, 1934, p. 57.
108 H. Res. 370.
109 Hearings before Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., on H. R. 5497, p. 187 of Committee Print.
110 Ibid., p. 336.
111 Ibid., p. 763.
112 Ibid., p. 845.
113 Ibid., p. 613.
114 Ibid., p. 965 ff.
115 FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134 (Jan. 29, 1940).
116 Hearings on H. R. 5497, op. cit., p. 97.
117 Ibid., p. 135.
118 For a competent analysis, published since this was written, see Robinson, Thomas P., Radio Networks and the Federal Government (1943).Google Scholar
119 See for a carefully elaborated policy pattern the study based on a report of a committee of the National Economic and Social Planning Association, Rose, C. B. Jr., National Policy for Radio Broadcasting (1940).Google Scholar
120 On the problem of responsibility, see “Radio in Wartime,” in Education on the Air (1942), edited by MacLatchy, Josephine.Google Scholar
121 See Bruner, Jerome S. and Sayre, Jeanette, “Short-Wave Listening in an Italian Community,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4Google Scholar; Jeanette Sayre Smith, “Broadcasting for Marginal Americans,” ibid., Vol. 6, No. 1; Friedrich, C. J., “Foreign Language Radio and the War,” Common Ground, Autumn, 1942.Google Scholar
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.