โ€œIt gets something off my chest, doesn’t it?โ€: Keeping Norman Corwinโ€™s โ€œAppointmentโ€ย (1941) Because Liberty Wonโ€™t Keep in the Heat of Hatred

Cover ofย Thirteen by Corwin,
containing “Appointment,”
from my collection of radio-related literature

Speaking out against fascismโ€”publicly and nationally, via the airwavesโ€”used to be regarded in the United States of America as a moral imperative, or at least, in the terms of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as an act โ€œin the public interest.โ€

These days, in the era of MAGA on steroidsโ€”and, to be clear, the first โ€œAโ€ in the acronym can be readily substituted to designate any number of imperiled democraciesโ€”fascism is no longer the anathema to democratic rule that it used to be understood as constituting.  

This is mainly because democracy itselfโ€”as a construct, an ideal and a realityโ€”has become anathema to the members of a growing movement that is celebratory of autocracy and that, perversely and perfidiously, argues anti-fascism to be a threat to autocracy as a preferred system of streamlined government in which checks and balances are discarded and in which oppositional forces and alternative voices are denounced as deleterious and traitorous.

I had been meaning to write about the weaponization of the FCC in the wake of the cancellation and temporary or partial silencing of late night talk shows critical of the Trump administration; but for some reason, and via a route too tedious to trace, I happened, quite fortuitously, as it turns out, on a script for a radio play by poet-journalist Norman Corwin, the unofficial โ€œpoet laureateโ€ of US radio during the early to mid-1940s.

I have already devoted a dozen or so posts to Corwin and his work, including plays as diverse as โ€œA Man with a Platform,” โ€œMy Client Curley,โ€ and โ€œSeems Radio Is Here to Stay.โ€   

To this day, one of the most rewarding acknowledgments of my scholarly pursuits, such as they are, remains receiving word from Corwin expressive of his approval of my academic writings on him.

Although I have discussed many of Corwinโ€™s writings for radio in Immaterial Culture, I had somehow failed to show up for his โ€œAppointmentโ€โ€”a play first produced on 1 June 1941 as part of the cycle Twenty-six by Corwin.

Continue reading “โ€œIt gets something off my chest, doesn’t it?โ€: Keeping Norman Corwinโ€™s โ€œAppointmentโ€ย (1941) Because Liberty Wonโ€™t Keep in the Heat of Hatred”

Together . . . to Gaza? The Media and the Worthy Cause

The British Broadcasting Corporation has had its share of problems lately, what with its use of licensee fees to indulge celebrity clowns in their juvenile follies.  Now, the BBC, which is a non-profit public service broadcaster established by Royal Charter, is coming under attack for what the paying multitudes do not get to see and hear, specifically for its refusal to broadcast a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for aid to Gaza.  According to the BBC, the decision was made to โ€œavoid any risk of compromising public confidence in the BBC’s impartiality in the context of an ongoing news story.โ€  To be sure, if the story were not โ€œongoing,โ€ the need for financial support could hardly be argued to be quite as pressing.

In its long history, the BBC has often made its facilities available for the making of appeals and thereby assisted in the raising of funds for causes deemed worthy by those who approached the microphone for that purpose.  Indeed, BBC radio used to schedule weekly โ€œGood Causeโ€ broadcasts to create or increase public awareness of crises big and small.  Listener pledges were duly recorded in the annual BBC Handbook.

From the 1940 edition I glean, for instance, that on this day, 29 January, in 1939, two โ€œscholarsโ€ raised the amount of ยฃ1,310 for a London orphanage.  Later that year, an โ€œunknown crippleโ€ raised ยฃ768, while singer-comedienne Gracie Fieldsโ€™s speech on behalf of the Manchester Royal Infirmary brought in ยฃ2,315.  The pleas were not all in the name of infants and invalids, either.  The Student Movement House generated funds by using BBC microphones, as did the Hedingham Scout Training Scheme.

While money for Gaza remains unraised, the decision not to get involved in the conflict raises questions as to the role of the BBC, its ethics, and its ostensible partiality.  Just what constitutes a โ€œworthyโ€ cause? Does the support for the civilian casualties of war signal an endorsement of the government of the nation at war? Is it possible to separate humanitarian aid from politics?

It strikes me that the attempt to staying well out of it is going to influence history as much as it would to make airtime available for an appeal. In other words, the saving of lives need not be hindered by the pledged commitment to report news rather than make it.

Impartiality and service in the public interest were principles to which the US networks were expected to adhere as well, however different their operations were from those of the BBC.  In 1941, the FCC prohibited a station or network from speaking โ€œin its own person,โ€ from editorializing, e.g. urging voters to support a particular Presidential candidate; it ruled that โ€œthe broadcaster cannot be an advocateโ€; but this did not mean that airtime, which could be bought to advertise wares and services, could not be purchased as well for the promotion of ideas, ideals, and ideologies.

The broadcasting of Franklin D. Rooseveltโ€™s fireside chats or his public addresses on behalf of the March of Dimes and the War Loan Drives did not imply the broadcasters’ favoring of the man or the cause.

On this day in 1944, all four major networks allotted time for the special America Salutes the Presidentโ€™s Birthday. ย Never mind that it was not even FDRโ€™s birthday until a day later. The cause was the fight against infantile paralysis; but that did not prevent Bob Hope from making a few jokes at the expense of the Republicans, who, he quipped, had all โ€œmailed their dimes to President Roosevelt in Washington. ย Itโ€™s the only chance they get to see any change in the White House.โ€

A little change can bring about big changes; but, as a result of the BBCโ€™s position on โ€œimpartiality,โ€ much of that change seems to remain in the pockets of the public it presumes to inform rather than influence.


Related writings

Go Tell Auntie: Listener Complaints Create Drama at BBC
Election Day Special: Could This Hollywood Heavy Push You to the Polls?

Choice Words; or, When a Mac Crashes (Again!)

In written communications, I generally refrain from cursing. I am not sure why so many web journalists feel compelled to express their emotionsโ€”even their apparent lack thereofโ€”in terms referring to certain uses of the male sex organ or the issue of our daily excretions. I gather that both spell relief, as does the act of swearing. We all have to get it out of our system once in a while; and I am not one to recommend mealy-mouthing the unsavory by resorting to equivalents of a truculently tossed paper napkin; such disingenuous substitutions have been the curse of radio drama.

Back in 1938, for instance, a production of O’Neill’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Beyond the Horizon met with a storm of protest when it was broadcast over NBC’s Blue network. As Francis Chase Jr. recalls in his Sound and Fury (1942), the FCC forced an affiliate in Minneapolis to justify such language under the threat of refusing to renew its license after a single listener complaint about exclamations of “Hell,” “Damnation,” and “For God’s Sake.”

To be sure, I am under no obligation to act in the public interest; and somehow I cannot bring myself to avail myself of defused verbal missiles like โ€œdarn,โ€ โ€œdratโ€ or โ€œshucksโ€ (the last of which I, as a German, would have trouble pronouncing during moments of distress). That said, I donโ€™t hold with those who believe that mentioning acts of penetration renders the thought expressed more penetrating. If I censor myself here, it is because I am trying to come to grips with whatever has me by the throat as my hands flit across the keyboard, erasing as much as they produce.

I do not have to recreate verbatim what escaped my lips some time ago, as long as I manage to capture the feeling of that moment. Writing it down does not just mean getting it out; to me, it must also mean getting over it. It is a chance to let go of something rather than to let oneself go all over again and make a display of the discharge. Writing is the process of cleaning up, which is not to say that it is the concealment of disorder. Posture and composure become especially important when life seems to be in the very process of . . . decomposing.

What has been breaking down of late is the non-matter of my online existence. Another Mac has crashedโ€”and that a mere three months after the previous wipeout (as lamented here). Never mind that I have learned little since the last incident and that many a souvenir has gone down the virtual sewer. What I noticed is that the crashes occurred while using iRecord, the software with which I copy audio files on the web. As a lover of radio programs, I use it quite a lot. Make that past tense.

To have oneโ€™s computer hard disk erased in the attempt to store what is fleeting is beyond โ€œironicโ€ (another word I dislike). It is a rotten business, being shipwrecking for one’s love of the airwaves. The phrase โ€œblistering barnaclesโ€ comes to mind. Indeed, most of Captain Haddockโ€™s celebrated curses will do nicely just now.