The First Amendment; Alternative Journal

The First Amendment and a free people weekly examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s produced by WGBH radio Boston in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. The host of the program is the institute's director Dr. Bert it will be. My guest on this edition of The First Amendment and a free people is the well known historian and professor of political science at Boston University Howard Zinn. He's active in civil rights to say the least of it. He is and been very active in the anti-war movements and is the author of The Current. Stage production the play Emma about the feminist the anarchist Emma Goldman. He's also well known to those who read a lot. And as the author of such books as disobedience in democracy the politics of history and Vietnam the Logic of Withdrawal how if I may let me ask you this is sort of the opening

question. What is the state of dissent in this country today. If you have a point of view that's not favored just what is your situation. Well are you implying that I have a point of view that's not favoring one one. Well you know let's talk about other people. You know the problem in the United States is a very special problem and it's not one of those totalitarian countries banana republics. And it's another kind of Republican another kind of situation. We have all a constitutionally unequal right to free speech Our problem is that the resources for free speech are so badly distributed in this country that while we all have a technical right to free speech some of some people have an enormous opportunity to get across their message to very large numbers of people. And some are given the right to reach

27 people or 2000 people or 7000. But all of that is very minuscule. It's very hard for dissenters who go beyond the pale to reach very large numbers of people they can publish little left wing journals they can occasionally get a piece on the op ed page of The Times. They can have something on a little radio station. I'm not talking about this one of course but the prime time big stations the large mass media Reader's Digest. No that is available for people with a lot of money for corporations and for government. When other words what they call access is the major problem I see that is the major problem it's a problem for all minority groups whether they're racial minority groups or groups that hold diverging opinions. But for the dissenters especially you're suggesting that the center in politics has almost cut

off from the mass audience. It was the result of that in your opinion what does that result in. Well it results in an in the public which is badly informed or uninformed public which simply doesn't know about lots of things that are happening in the country. That doesn't know the extent to which corporate influence exists in high levels of government and low levels of government. Doesn't know enough about foreign policy in the 50s and 60s I.F. Stone existed and it was very refreshing to have him. So he had I have stones Weekly had I have stones What was the circulation of that. Well it started out with a circulation of something like 5000 and it ended maybe with a circulation of 80000 but it was very influential lots of influentials read it to listen but it was very influential but you know when you think about even a circulation

of 80000 that's I.F. Stone when he was already becoming accepted at the margins of the establishment and he gets awards with Walter Cronkite and so even 80000 is very very tiny. I remember looking for I have stone in the press conferences of the president of the United States he wasn't there. He was barred from the Press Club in Washington. They wouldn't let him into press conferences. It's still true today that people who are too far to the left have a very hard time getting on television getting on very big radio programs getting in for well big metropolitan dailies. And I have I had a little experience with a Boston Globe grad tells of the Boston Globe a couple of years ago did. What you might say they set out to demolish my theory. Here I was talking about how people on the left have limited access to the media and then the Boston

Globe goes ahead and offers me a column of a bi weekly column me and another person both of us considered radicals of sorts by American standards. Many American man. And so the two of us had a bi weekly columns running alternately on Fridays. And then my theory my theory was being demolished week week by week you might say. However disquieting things began to happen. Two of Eric man's columns did not appear because one dealt with the school situation the other dealt with Israel and the Globe was sensitive on both of those things. And then after a year and a half my column just disappeared without notice. Even so your. Censorship of man's columns and and in your case the fact that they disappeared is not part of the capitalist system. Things are appearing and disappearing or. Or would we just assume that that this was again some sort of

censorship. You say part of the capitalist system you free enterprise you me thing is just a matter of coincidence something's appearance something. Well yes in a capitalistic system some things disappear more than other things I see and radical opinions disappear from the pages of the big metropolitan newspapers more often in a capitalist system than conservative part of the times though. How would the country seems to have gone into a shift toward more conservative thinking. A popular newspaper like The Globe might have certain ideas that they wanted. Howard Zinn at a certain time and then they might say at an editorial conference how is a great writer but we want somebody else for another Fed. Unfortunately all ideas in the media are subject to Fed ism. They might have replaced you with no political. Connotation is possible. It's it's always possible but not probable in the probable because politics enters into what you know that you've written on that and you've written about the

relationship between politics and the media and and business in the media. Politics enters the situation. It's not always easy to prove because those are the things that happen quietly on behind the scenes but they handle the situation. The fact is that you're right we are in a situation now I think where there has been a general agreement and by agreement I don't mean a few people sat down in a room and planned that. Well lo for all we know they did. But I mean a kind of general a tacit or overt agreement on the part of the people who run this country. And I mean the Democrats and Republicans but people with money and power. To bring the country back from where it was in the 60s and to and from Vietnam and Watergate and that enormous disillusionment with government and business which manifested itself in the American people around the time of the nomine Watergate in the early 70s. And I think well I think of the bicentennial year I think of the Bicentennial and I think of the election of Carter

as two things that happen in this country almost simultaneously as attempts to bring the country back to the good old days of a kind of moderate lukewarm liberalism which doesn't go too far which cuts $92 off the military budget cuts out this weapon and adds this weapon gives a little bit to welfare but cuts out the benefits for abortions for poor people. We're in that sort of situation and in that sort of situation where the moderate left has taken a hold and the country is back on its usual an orthodox track a track which usually leads to disaster. At such moments left wing critics are generally shut out of the picture may I ask you about other periods for example during the Eisenhower period of his presidency that eight years was very hard to get dissent going there was such disinterested it was almost a plateau a long plateau of American politics. We may be in a in a phase a natural phase of

politics rather than than in some deliberate something rather into the psychological reaction to all those tumultuous years like the reaction to the tumultuous years of the New Deal. Well you know what is. These are tumultuous years except that we're not allowed to experience the tunnel because the mass media gives the impression of quiet as beneath the surface of calm. There are people living very tumultuous lives in this country people without money people who cannot pay their gas bills and electric bills and can't pay their medical bills. People can't make their mortgage payments because the economic system is squeezing people so hard. This is a tumultuous set of facts in the lives of ordinary people but that they don't get exposed to the media as a big dramatic thing like the Vietnam War didn't. Then you're saying that the media really ignore certain kinds of stories. Yes almost entirely we said there's this war on this program. I haven't heard it but I'm glad you are. Yeah well it is yeah it is a problem that

certain problems of the age of the sick and whatnot don't aren't good copy for the media and are good entertainment and so on. Yeah they like overt violence so there isn't a left right kind of thing. Yes I know it is. You think so. Well left or right makes it you know a little too mechanical but it's it's big and little it's rich and poor. It is the fact that the newspapers it's not just an accident. The newspapers report the violence of the poor. That is they were in no way does or ration and not the violence against the poor. Not the violence that and I call it the violence violence of every day life the violence of sickness of anguish of living in terrible places of mental difficulties over having to meet the bills that kind of every day violence that isn't covered but the violence that the poor then inflict when they react to their condition.

This is reported in the Penny I ask you in regard to those who feel very strongly about this on the on the left the left of the political spectrum. Let us just assume that your proposition is correct that they have limited access to the mass media. On the other hand they have almost unlimited access to writing and in the literature of the left. Is there a real concern for these subjects or is it or is it polemic. I mean is it how they have the opportunity. I'm not denying your proposition but if they had the opportunity use the mass media with the left often to a whole polemical harangue or would they say this is our program officers are added to this. These are the cases in point here. You have if you have something but important there and it would be wrong of me absurd of me to say oh if the left only had an opportunity it would make beautiful use of it. No the left doesn't always make beautiful us

radical critics are of all sorts. And sometimes they go off into polemics and sometimes they ignore the very they ignore specific reality and facts and figures and sometimes they're full of criticism and they they don't come up with solutions sometimes but other times they do it with the left is a very mixed bunch of people. And you know and here in Boston there's a left wing little publication called Dollars and cents. I counter pose this to other leftwing publications which may be full of rhetoric and not give any practical information and solutions dollars and cents as publish and some of that has very practical information that you don't get in the ordinary media about prices wages unemployment Rance what are nuclear power companies and what the Edison Company is doing how much money big the corporations are making a very specific stuff. Plus occasionally suggestions for solutions. Working papers is a publication that does the same thing as it has experiments

solutions attempts. How can you set up the electric power business so as to get the corporations out of it and distribute electric power cheaply sort of people's electric bills will go down. There are there are rhetorical and very silly things on the left just as there are on your learnings yet in the other yes. Let me ask you to change the pace a little bit. Practically everybody in the United States today is against the Vietnam war I think you would agree with that no matter if everybody wants our troops out. Many are retroactively against the war including a great many people who didn't agree with your stand at the time or who agree with your stand but didn't agree with your premises at all. When it comes to other issues one of the issues in the world today is the absence of freedom of speech and of expression in many of the countries of the world especially the Soviet Union. I have noticed a remarkable reticence of certain

people on the left of the spectrum to deal with that at all to deal with the Middle East to talk. It's almost as if that kind of thing doesn't concern them. What concerns others I'm not saying this is a blanket I just mean that a reluctance on the part of left to criticize the lack of freedom of speech and so V2 not just the Soviet Union and other kind but in other countries as well. It's not as popular as it was as the Vietnam War. Oh no. Well it's understandable why it's not as popular an issue as a Vietnam War because. There's not very much Americans can do. I want to say there's nothing we can do there's not a lot we can do directly about the problem of free speech in the Soviet Union but of course the Vietnam War was our war freedom. You know sending people to camps is not you know our government stop so it's understandable that people you know would get more excited about the Vietnam War. But I find that it's not the way it was in the 30s when the left the left was dominated by the Communist Party in the 30s and the Communist Party was

pro-Soviet in the Tenn the Communist Party was not to see what was happening under Stalin. I'm not suggesting that is true no no no. You know well it's but I think today most people I know on the left a very critical of the Soviet Union and of the lack of freedom in the Soviet Union and don't see the Soviet Union as a true socialist state I don't I certainly don't. And you know I and I. You know my own tendency is to is to criticize a repression of freedom of speech wherever I see it. You know in any country in any place in the world this isn't including the United States but you know the United States problem of freedom of speech is a different sort of problem the Soviet Union has. We have a more sophisticated way of dealing what would you do Howard if you had the if you had your druthers or some some people say and you could make one or two recommendations to the FCC one or two recommendations for reorganization of broadcasting what would they be. Well what of the printing press. As you know through the press the

problem the problem unfortunately is a deeper one then recommendations to the FCC or to the print press because the very idea of making recommendations suggests that their problem is that they're they're ignorant and they don't know. And that they need to be informed or that it's a matter of a policy change the problem is deep the problem is the structure of the basic structure you have the fundamental structure of the communication system in this country is like the structure of the economy. It's controlled by real big money and I'm afraid that whatever is done in law and regulation would be overcome by the power of money. Let us just say that if it was possible to avoid the implications of big money is is big labor any better or Big anything else any better than now. Big big is the problem big is the problem. I mean of course some somethings are not as big as others and as big as Labor is it's still not as big you know as as big business but the problem in this country

is I think basically the control of the mass media by the industrial and financial corporations of the country that I see as fundamental. Would you divest all large corporations from media activities. Is this what you're suggesting. See the there's nothing that we could do in broadcasting alone that would solve the problem would have to change the economy of the country. This seems very impractical. This is the problem you know it's unfortunate but it's true. We would need to give access wide access to all sorts of groups on television and on radio have a real spectrum of opinion. Right now the spectrum of opinion goes from Republicans to Democrats. You see how in a presidential campaign they even Congress even passes all laws and the FCC regulates it so that anybody other than Democrat or Republican can't appear on these nationally televised debates so we have to x expand the the openness of radio and television to include all sorts

of opinions. One of the problems with open access is that a great many people would be absolutely shocked by all the groups and all the diversity in the country. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Sure I've suggested it's a good thing to be a little sharper sure but would you be prepared to hear all of the ideas that you find noxious and eye a bore and a given full reign on the table do I do now. I'm saying is it when it's a situation I want to be on in politics. You know if you went beyond ordinary you know traditional politics would you be prepared not only to state your case but to stand by when so many people that you would deem to be kooky or crazy or whatnot were stating their case you're sure that's a that's a fair trade. It's a fair trade. What do you when you say that that what you suggest is impractical have you have you given up hope are you know less you less optimistic. No I just think it's a long range problem I haven't given up hope. But I thought I don't think

there's any immediate solution I think it will it's going to take a long time and a lot of organization and a lot of work for the American people to organize themselves to transform this economic system. It's a very long what I would like what would in your view cause them to transform it would be the collapse economically also in itself the collapse alone wouldn't do it unless there were people already organized conscious thinking thinking about solutions for a collapse you know without readiness of people to do something constructive could lead to you know chaos and fascism you see. And I. You know I think people have to organize starting now. People already are organized around economic issues around trade union issues even organize around communications issues at Boston University right now. They're organizing to try to prevent WBAY from being taken over by the president of Boston University. That's organization people have to be

in a constant state of self defense and a constant state of trying to open up things for themselves economically open up the media fight for every bit of space they can get fight for every bit of air time they can get even though they're minuscule. You know if somebody differed with you on the WB You are a case. You would you would suggest that they ought to argue it with you on the open airwaves is this yes this is the I play to handle it. Yes indeed in terms of the of the changes that you would advocate. Suppose we did have changes in the communications business. I even hate to use that word but it is. But it is communications enterprises are enormous. If you if you didn't have the primacy of the private sector would it be the primacy of the government sector. How could we escape some form of tyranny of the state. That is very hard. I like to think that it may be possible to escape both the tyranny of big business and the

tyranny of the state by a whole series of cooperatives around the country. My problem in talking about this is I'm talking about something that doesn't exist anywhere. Now even where something is government or public it's not good but it's better than business. Big business I'm thinking that probably BBC and CBC British and Canadian probably are better off than the American system with more public control of more outlets I don't know if you would agree with me about much more limited access than we have in this country for example the BBC says that there are the British government rather says that there should be the BBC Two channels and one Independent in London area in the Greater London area. They just don't want to have seven or ten channels. Yeah there's this problem I agree it was a problem government interference big business interference and it's a real problem to get. The media

out of the hands of these enormous centralized enterprises and into the hands of the councils of citizens representing a whole spectrum of opinions with access to all of these different groups. It's a very hard thing to do I don't want to deny that. But I know that the present situation the present monopoly of information the sameness of stuff that we see on CBS and NBC you know you flip the channels from one channel to another and you see the same things everyone I've spoken out against violence on television in every way that I can for years this season they have so much kiddie behavior on television I may be an advocate of violence return the violence in return and get rid of the cartoon work. Do you find yourself in agreement with such a radical. The middle of the roaders or middle of the road radicals is Nicholas Johnson. Well I think Nicholas Johnson has done very good critical work in pointing to well his own experience and the FCC gave him so much knowledge about us

pointing to the way that the media has been controlled and the way government has stepped in and we've talked about whether it's good to have government or business or big business generally it's a partnership in this country between government and big business they work for one another and I think at the expense of ordinary people is there is there an echelon of leaders that are saying the things that you think ought to be heard. If they are I can't find them. You know those that they're not in the pages of The New Republic they're not in Honduras or Atlantic or commentary. Well of course there is a whole set of little newspapers sort of post I have stone sources are you know seven days in these times the nation the winde magazine. Or the year one published by this little nonviolent group in Baltimore so many thousands of community newspapers all over the country. Prison newspapers. You know that person a perfect example of

people shut off the air. People in prison. Just that they don't exist. They are invisible but you know so you have to read their little papers that come I was prisons in order to find out what's happening. Have you written anything specifically about your views on the mass media. Or is it have you turned your mind to this specific problem or are you beginning to think about it as a special problem. All my life I thought about the media. My mind has been turned to it a long time ago asking Have I written anything about it not now not I guess not specifically. No I think he's not one of the problems I think that's what you would do well you know but if you do it. Yeah but you can't leave it to somebody else to mess with you know it's not the problem of of the left that has become so identified with a political stance that hasn't taken time out to address square on problems so that people can understand just what their premises are. It's true we need a Upton Sinclair I up and Sinclair used to do that George sell these I don't we we do

need by the way Eric Harlow Eric Hoffer will take care of the whole story for you. Oh yes. But now we need we need we do need radical critics of the media more and more right. I agree is there anything going on in the in the most media that is worthwhile. Did you see some hope in hell. I wish I were. I do see that there are people in the mass media who have been affected by the events of the 60s. Tom Wicker is not a radical but he he writes about things in a way that ten years ago you couldn't find in the pages of The New York Times. What I see you do is Anthony Lewis also I think has done a lot of good things. So there's been an effect on the Orthodox and establishment writers by the movements of the

last 10 to 15 years. But are you not going to suffer the same fate as Norman Thomas who who pursued the point until the point that the major parties picked up on some of his more progressive. Of course they usually pick it up but not very much to pick it up very likely and therefore radical critics need always to push things even further. What's your definition of radical. I see somebody who wants to do something to fight. Make very fundamental changes in the distribution of wealth and the distribution of political power. And in a kind of culture of violence and and oppression in which we exist today race sex class oppression something that fundamental. That's what I mean I guess. Well I think that's a good statement for you to make at the end of the program. And I want to repeat that I've enjoyed having this conversation with Howard Zinn. Thank you very much Howard. Thank you as you said Bernard Rubin saying good night.

The First Amendment and a free people. A weekly examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s the program was produced in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. Why didn't you GBH radio Boston which is solely responsible for its content. This is the station program exchange.