thumbnail of The First Amendment; 5; Roger Manville
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
What wing program is made possible in part by a grant from the courier corporation of Lowell Massachusetts. WGBH Boston in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. Now presents the First Amendment and a free people. An examination of the media and civil liberties in the 1970s and now here is the director of the Institute for democratic communication Dr Bernard Reuben. Hello this is Bernard Rubin of the Institute for democratic communication with a colleague of mine Paul Prince. Our guests guest on this edition of First Amendment end of free people is Roger Mandel the distinguished British lecturer a scholar and interpreter of mass media. He's written about eight books on the Nazi German period. Heinrich Frankel in addition to many other works of his.
I just want you to know that he is distinguished lecture in about 40 countries and an outstandingly perceptive critic of films history and filmmakers. As a novelist playwright television producer the all around British renaissance man and today he's here to talk to us about the authoritarianism of the 1970s which we are living through and the authoritarianism that exists in the world existed in the world in the 1930s. So I think the first question that I want to throw out Roger is what link does he see between these two periods. Well I think authoritarianism is deep in human nature and the wire story is going to exist in all periods. The thing is to take whatever dance that is around. And the Nazis have produced I suppose on the whole the largest body of evidence
survives which shows how this sort of thing comes into being at any particular time. Hitler after all had no power whatsoever in nine hundred twenty six. By 1933 he was in control of the biggest elected and it's important that was an elected party in the right. And by March 33 was dictator of Germany. Throwing aside the Democratic machine quite easily as it seemed. Now why would we as Heinrich Franklin I've spent so much time on this in writing the you the series of books largely drawing on the evidence that exists in Germany and taking oral evidence from all the people who survived who've been involved in this thing as cataclysm in Germany in the 1930s and 40s is we've taken what evidence there was in order in fact to see how this particular case in history came about now. All right we can almost apply that
all of us can apply it to the present day to the 1900 years and of course to the future. The thing is I think to take any aspect of the history of the past take from it what you can in terms of generalization that is a political tool in differing circumstances. The present or the future as it were it's a scenario I remember Crane Brinton. Discussing one day with some of us the background to his book An Anatomy of a revolution. Yeah and it was an effective scenario for different types of revolution that could be applied to our own time or to any previous time. Paul do you have some feeling that the authoritarianism of the day is not linked or is directly linked to the 30s. I'm really here to ask the question of how it relates to today because unlike you gentlemen I did not live through the authoritarianism
however. What's little closer to my own thinking and perhaps this particular nostalgia wave of the moment some of the problems of the 50s in which we saw the House Un-American Activities Committee come to the fore. And Senator McCarthy. So I I think more and more in those terms. However I perhaps in a little bit of the late coming sixties paranoia I think back to the 50s and see perhaps that some of the same causes coming up again the 70s and I would like to hear Roger Mandel trace it back a little bit more for me in particular into the into the 30s and perhaps see I see a lot of cycle they see cycles in history and I think we're going through maybe the 30s the 50s the 70s or sort of cycle. And I'd like to hear Roger's comments on that. Well his sense of history repeats itself in a way it does but it repeats of course through
human nature. Human nature doesn't change historical circumstances do change so we will not see I think you know the 1930s repeat itself in modern terms what we shall see is aspects of human nature that Rose fierce little before in the 1930s repeat themselves perhaps in what country I don't know repeat themselves again because in terms of human nature that aspect comes to the top wins out against what we call the more democratic form of. The control of the community. So this is in effect a permanent feature of man's existence that there is this authoritarian streak and the anti authoritarian protest. But if we take a look at the 1930s one of the favorite words was totalitarianism. These were supposed to be totalitarian states and obviously they were anything but totalitarian they were very inefficient they ran the war World War Two very inefficiently.
They were using primitive instruments of mass communication. And I could ask you directly if we are going to take the road of authoritarianism today and most of the world is under authoritarian control given the instruments of mass communication today wouldn't we really be approaching a true totalitarianism. Well this is a very very enormous question Norm's question is going to vary country by country is going to vary I think regime by regime is going to vary according to the degree of the controls that exist over the public communications media which again will differ country by country. Let me go back a moment to the 1930s what was new and I think significant. About Hitler's position was that public address equipment came into use just at the time when he was seeking to get power again after he failed in 1923 in the Munich Putsch. He was as it were and
CASA rated but he gently but nonetheless he was incarcerated during 1924 and to 25 and in 2025 he had to steam his way back to par. At that stage the public address equipment came into force that is it was possible for the human voice to be enlarged to cover large audiences huge mass audiences. This I think was the first point. Secondly radio came in this instrument we are now using came into force in the 1920s television was not to come until the 1930s and the Nazis in fact never used television but they did use public address equipment. And I think steaming their way to power as I put it but largely because they had access and they did use the film very adroitly did they not use the film adroitly until they were actually in power that is 1933 Plus they had newsreel coverage years of their. Morale isn't the sort of thing. But I don't think they relied on film. I think they were not
exclusively on the enlargement of the human voice over large audiences. This I think was what really brought them to power. I had that instrument not being there are we today of course have to record not only with that instrument but also with television and film if you have power over film. We must I think allow for the fact that any given country. What kind of control downs in a potential dictator have over these media. What what kind of protection does democracy put round these media which have enormous accessibility to the public in democracy there is diffusion of control over each instrument of communication and separation of authority. Private ownership of newspapers and so on and so forth in a totalitarian state. I was interested in regard to Nazi Germany that. Let us say the example of a triumph does villain triumph of the will and then the Russians Dols famous film that it was made early on in the regime.
As I recall and also gave evidence of the fact that they were in power not only did they have power but they gave visible evidence which they rammed down the throat of the captive German audience at that point and combined the instruments of communication. Absolutely right that they used radio so well. But I think that one of their secrets was it not that they combine the uses for the first time in the history of the 20th century of film of radio of newspapers. Well the Soviet Union have been doing this in the 1920s laterally with their yes but of course again they haven't got sound film till 1928. I haven't got radio until the mid 20s. The instruments of mass communication came in at about the same time as these totalitarian regimes came into power and trying to interrelate as you see the existence of the machinery with the form of authoritarianism as opposed to that I think is the lesson number one for the 907 suppose you were a dictator in the 1970s and most of the world is ruled by
petty major dictators. Let's face it no democracy is to use that phrase at bay. You know suppose you were a dictator coming in now perhaps you would even think in terms of nationalistic terms you might think in terms of Continental. Ambitions What would you do first. Would you seize the army or get Army power or would you seize the army and the instruments of Mass Communication at one time. I would do it all together same time but in probably to some degree in phases phases. Otherwise have the whole concept of taking over the the power of military might but also the power of communication with people and cutting off the voice of the opposition. The all important thing is to cut off the voice I think of the opposition in both forms. One form is through speech print and song. The other form course is marching in the streets. So you have I think to work two ways but you will
find many revolutions surely are staged via the army. So you therefore got command over the force over the streets and over the people. But often you do not have necessarily a command over the speech media. So I think it's all important to take the do both at the same time if you possibly can but certainly must take over the instruments communication and you would you would certainly take cover would you not if you were a modern authoritarian. Dictatorially minded would you not take over the space effort of a modern technological country in order to gain control over these killer satellites which would end the communication system of another nation or of other nations and also interfere because we know at the United Nations one of the greatest questions now is the ability of the modern technological state to interfere with transmissions and actually to raid. If that's the proper word the domestic broadcasting. Yes. In other countries. I'm just
trying to find out Roger is there any defense against the technological author of terrorism which seems to be possible. Well again this is a complicated question because it will very very is going country by country. Let's take those two extreme opposite cases. Let's take a very small African state which we won't name. Now their interest in satellite shall we say is going to be nil. Their immediate need is to take control of their own terror right now and avoid and kill off the opposition. Well here you would either buy up or take by force the local newspapers and certain of the local radio station. Possibly there won't be any television and almost certainly will be no films but you would take what is immediately in your hands into to reach the area in which you want to control take over all forms of communication which which affect that area and you can do it either say by force if you possess access to the
Amish was a right the army takes over the radio station the army takes over the presses for the newspapers and so on. Do it that way I think. Now if your take the other extreme which is a very huge nation which does have access to satellites that does want to affect immediately the opinion of the world as a whole. Then of course in that case you would certainly do what you say. Yes but even in the even in your first case if we witness Angola as an example Paul and we were going to mention that one. But if we use angle as an example wouldn't it occur to the Russians and to the Cubans that. It is important to seize control of the instruments of communication almost on a semi continental basis. Even more important than sending troops in because communications are the only essential link between tribes between regions if they can control those. It doesn't really matter who is in power in
any headquarters city any any central government city because they can easily be deposed if the people don't believe that they have power. And now with the with all the modern means of communication they could actually install in a country that didn't have modern communications enough communications in a hundred villages or a thousand villages instantly to take over or is this is this a real list. This is implicit as against explicit power. Let's go back to our 1930s and falters because we're trying to derive from the Nazis system what lessons are for us will not take one case. The difference between the Soviet Union's use of oil and gerbils use of the Soviet Union took the whole instrument of the nine hundred twenty nine hundred nineteen actually nationalize the film industry. And from then on all films had to be. Had to have communist content that is overtly that must every film it was made had to carry a message of some sort. However entertaining its outer framework
had to have a built in message. Now Goebbels coming in much later 1933 saw this was a rather he thought stupid way of doing it. It was far better to have the entertainment media left to entertain and infiltrate into the programs on which pure entertainment there what message you wanted through the newsreels documentaries and the occasional prestige film like Triumph of the will which was a really an ask and an act of private enterprise by Hitler to have that film made at all and then make it a prize winner in the festivals and all the rest of it. So there's two ways of doing it one is to take over the whole thing and then try to force your public to see only message material in the entertainment media. The other is to say let's keep the entertainment media as entertaining as possible. But see to the great audiences that come in. There is a message put through then gradually acquire rights on hold and grip over the. Seemingly independent entertainment media
otherwise keep the film studios turning over seemingly as private enterprise. But in fact putting your money and underground or buying them up so they didn't in fact nationalize the film industry or they bought it up slowly. During the 1930s and finally nationalize it probably only during the war. See but two ways of doing this thing and often it's with a more sophisticated community than say an African country would. It's better to make the thing appear to be independent and then gradually buy it over than it is to seize it immediately and make it overtly a nationalized Enterprise which was what the Russian Could you comment for a moment of just piggybacking on your entertainment thesis which I agree with. As the war got worse and worse for the Nazi German government went to the proportion of entertaining films which was always hardly increased and the big production films made by and other companies controlled by that by the Nazis in turn to big budget seventeenth century kind
of 18th century costume dramas and whatnot. Is there a lesson here for for advocates of democracy that one of the tools that authoritarian governments use is to tantalize us with entertainment to divert us from the real truth. Well this I think is what is the big lesson for the 1970s is that the public media and I mean this is in fact for the United States to take a little notice some public media should not be sold out entirely to sheer sort of diluting entertainment by diluting entertainment I mean at a time of the time makes no demands whatsoever on the imagination or on the intellectual capacity or on the capacity to understand human nature more fully. None of those demands are made only want you people to pass time and time and it seems to me to be throwing away a great medium. And when this happens of course it is all the easier in fact to
take it over. I mean there is no and there's no built in opposition within the machine itself. Interesting example this was in 1996 with the BBC in London during the period of the general strike. Now the BBC was very young but it had been just incorporated by charter as an independent body and had been only too easy during the general star strike for the government to take it right over and say now out everybody in the government are going to command those important media. But because it was an they had a very him a very imposing boss Raith in charge of it who immediately even in his first year of independence oppose the government and said no we are an independent medium just as a newspaper is and we are going to comment as we see. And if you're going to use us in any way for governmental propaganda it's got to be plainly stated that you've taken us over for 10 minutes for this but you know he said
Lord Reith was was an eminent director of the BBC and I grant you and he did stop the government from its or its invasions of the of the medium but then he turned out to be one of the great authoritarian directors of recent decades keeping the BBC firmly fixed in the image that he saw. And the British only recently escaped such a well energy types of control though it was he resigned in 1938 wasn't it. But it what it is. It was good on the aunty and the tactics that he lingered on I think yes it did then was the war you're seeing here which it was a ritual has imposed different conditions. The post-war Of course it was very very much released from us during the 1950s particularly. It was released from the haunting image and I think became a much more responsible public medium in the fullest sense but I think we needed Reith to put muscle power in in the first 10 years of the first decade when anybody could have taken entire
industry could have taken over government could have taken it over. You see and this is a lesson of our in 20s and 30s as it were of the 1970s I think as far as a democracy is concerned. The other lessons we take from the Russian use of the communication media and the Nazi. Systems here on the Hill there are plainly documented and it seems to me to study as it were competitive muscles of the control of the public media using these different systems for purposes of looking at call friends when when you talked about the throwing away of the medium pole did you think that Roger Mandel was talking about American television. BRADY Yeah I think Roger's point of view reflects perhaps his BBC upbringing Ed. Ed does as regards it does sound rather authoritarian because you were saying that we must not allow the evil to be thrown away on the who's going to protect us from throwing away the medium.
Is it going to be the government. Perhaps rather than the notion that we suggested the Nazis as things got worse. Fell more to escapist entertainment. The truth of that perhaps certainly is simply suggesting what I feel to be the case now is that the public needed more of that escapism requested escapism didn't want to deal with the hard facts of politics. War effort at all much in the way right now we seem to be reverting you know in this big period whether the bicentennial in Stella's or 50s nostalgia going back to escapism looking at what we perceive to be a simpler past which is now the 50s looks like of simpler past of course and also the escapist melodramas from Jaws to cowering inferno all of this becomes escapism and seems to me this is the public saying let's slow down let's let's be entertained we the 60s exhausted
us and now we're ready for something else I think broadcasting in this country is a rather reactionary medium that ridge tends to react to the public. State of mind. Would you sir. Here we are going to push me into a seat which I know you're going to label elitist. I don't think so. I think the responsibility for the use of any medium. First of all rests with those who operate in it. I mean this is so in education isn't it. We don't say to our students although our students would often like to say to us OK you take a well we'll teach you what you say you want to learn and we'll teach it the way you exactly would like us to teach it. You know and we won't have an examinations we won't set any great standards. You would tell us and we'll teach you you know exactly how you wish. We don't say this in education because we know this will be the end of any improper educational system. On the other hand all good teachers take due note.
To the needs of the students and what I hope tailor the way they teach to those needs all the time. Watchfully doing the best they can for their students because they are in the position of knowing best how the subject in fact should be taught and how best in the long run it should be presented. Now I think therefore newspaperman broadcaster's all those responsible for the handling of the public media all the in the primary position of judging how best it should be used in the public interest it's the public's job to see in fact that those who are in charge of radio and television and films and all the rest of it are using the medium as they feel best of that of Anschutz a two way traffic. Well then would you would you call for a lessening of the federal regulations on broadcasting in terms of fairness political broadcasting and many of the regulations which deal more and more with content less and less with a technicality. I think it needs both. But on the other hand I think you have the instrument
in the Federal Communications Commission setup in fact to. The judge the issue wisely at the point is does the commission have power. Does it have teeth. U.S. can it say to any station you are not in fact fulfilling sufficiently that what we regard as the public need. Now you say this to a university. Wouldn't you say every university sets up just out of the blue says and buys a building and sets up to give away degrees and all its own thing. We immediately step in either on state terms on federal terms or in Britain on national terms and say well now that university come up operate as such and give degrees and all the rest of it unless it fulfil certain conditions which are partly of course established by what the other universities have set up. United's sense is a communal judgement. Before In fact you permit that university to present degrees and I was saying the same thing is true on the public media. They too in turn should set themselves standards so that any newcomer into the into the
medium should operate at least on that level if not better. I get a sense that we're talking about three different concepts of government. All existing at the same time we're all worried about all three of them. Yes one is autocracy going to the authoritarian strict or authoritarian side which is deep in human nature even in really major democracy which is also deep in human nature being one ideal. Ideals are deep in human nature and mob ocracy for anarchy which is also rampant in human history. Exactly and when we say how does one control. Well we keep the mob from the door we try to get democracy we try to keep the dictators out. This is a pretty nice juggling trick. Whenever you want to reform can it be done are you hopeful. I think it can be done providing we operate. We use our best brains in the best possible why. That's what I would say I'm pushed a bit into the elitist seat both for education and for the use of the media. Yes I think it can be done but we've got to be
on guard the whole time and as far as possible protect the media and education from the one to lead to. To my mind go hand in hand. Protect them if necessary named by forms of regulation and control which should not be government controlled but public to control which is a difference. Well I'm delighted to have your opinions you made it clear of the ME and certainly worried me a little bit more on certain issues because you are so correct about this authoritarianism threat. But again you are representative of your own thoughts you are part of the natural intellectual elite we so admired here in abroad. We thank you for joining us Roger Manville good night. Thank you. WGBH Boston in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University has presented the First Amendment and the free people. An examination of the media and civil liberties in the 1970s. This program was recorded in the studios of WGBH radio Boston and the program
was made possible in part by a grant from the courier corporation of Lowell Massachusetts.
Series
The First Amendment
Episode Number
5
Episode
Roger Manville
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/15-12m6460g
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-12m6460g).
Description
Series Description
"The First Amendment is a weekly talk show hosted by Dr. Bernard Rubin, the director of the Institute for Democratic Communication at Boston University. Each episode features a conversation that examines civil liberties in the media in the 1970s. "
Created Date
1976-03-02
Genres
Talk Show
Topics
Social Issues
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:28:29
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
Production Unit: Radio
AAPB Contributor Holdings
WGBH
Identifier: 76-0165-04-03-001 (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Generation: Master
Duration: 00:28:20
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “The First Amendment; 5; Roger Manville,” 1976-03-02, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 29, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-12m6460g.
MLA: “The First Amendment; 5; Roger Manville.” 1976-03-02. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 29, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-12m6460g>.
APA: The First Amendment; 5; Roger Manville. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-12m6460g