How Government Control Can Lead to Censorship in All But Name
In the December 11 episode of “CBS Sunday Morning” was a segment on the Smothers Brothers. The show, which was wildly popular and one of my favorites, lasted from 1967 to 1969, when it was abruptly canceled. But nothing in the segment made it clear why it was canceled. You might have got the impression from the way they told the story and from Jane Pauley’s intro, that it was because of the Smothers Brothers’ edgy treatment of the Vietnam war.
But that wasn’t it. Here’s what Thomas Hazlett writes in his 2017 book, The Political Spectrum:
Licensees [radio or television] tend to comply not only with the explicit rules of the license but also with policy makers’ implicit demands—”regulation by raised eyebrow.” This has allowed officials to sidestep even the weak form of the First Amendment applied to broadcasting–and be happy to do so, as it enhances their clout. When, in 1969, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour joked about drug use and criticized U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, it drew criticism. But when the comics singled out for mockery Senator John O. Pastore (D-RI), the powerful head of the Senate Commerce Committees (overseeing the FCC)—he was awarded a “Flying Fickle Finger of Fate” by special guest Dan Rowan—the show never aired. Despite the series’ popularity, CBS abruptly canceled it. No government ruling ended the program. It did not have to.
Basically, when you give government officials discretionary power, you can expect that many of them will use it.
My guess is that Lee Cowan, the person doing the interview, either doesn’t know the history or wanted to maintain a narrative in which President Nixon, the president at the time, was the villain. (One part of the segment showed Tommy Smothers making fun of Nixon.) Arguably, Pastore had way more power over CBS than Nixon had.
READER COMMENTS
Monte
Dec 19 2022 at 11:25am
An excerpt from the book, “Dangerously Funny: The Uncensored Story of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour”:
The assault on comedy (and reason) continues today from a different quarter. From “Humor in the Woke World: Harmful or Hilarious” (Berkeley Political Review, November 30, 2021):
Wokeness may eventually insanitize us all.
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 19 2022 at 11:30am
David: This leads to one question: Why does it seem that regulatory agencies (or their heads) have more arbitrary power in the US than in other Western countries?
David Henderson
Dec 19 2022 at 1:41pm
I’m not sure I agree with your premise.
Pierre Lemieux
Dec 20 2022 at 1:01pm
David: Can we find in any other “liberal” country a case similar to the one you are citing?
nobody.really
Dec 19 2022 at 11:49am
David Wise, The Politics of Lying: Government Deception, Secrecy, and Power (New York: Random House, 1973):
P. 252-3.
P. 256.
P. 252.
Billt
Dec 19 2022 at 1:31pm
As a side note, Nixon was on Rowen and Martin’s Laughin. He does a 5 second cameo where he says “Sock it to me?” Pretty funny.
MarkW
Dec 19 2022 at 1:48pm
Basically, when you give government officials discretionary power, you can expect that many of them will use it.
My simplified sense is that first the expansion of cable TV and then the birth of the Internet (temporarily it turned out) rendered the FCC’s licensing power largely moot as available channels of information exploded. But then the dominance of a few large tech companies made the problem worse maybe than it was in the late 60s as the federal government has been engaging in censorship-by-proxy using a lot more than raised eyebrows with Twitter (as we now know for certain) and very likely with Facebook and the rest. It seems like one step forward and two steps back (since the currently stronger of our two political tribes doesn’t see large-scale censorship-by-proxy as problematic but rather as a good and necessary ‘democratic’ check on otherwise ‘unfettered’ free speech).
Jim Glass
Dec 19 2022 at 4:20pm
I really enjoyed the Smothers Brothers. You can still see a lot of them on YouTube. Moving on…
~~~~
the dominance of a few large tech companies made the problem worse maybe than it was in the late 60s
In the late 60s there were three network news sources. Three. 1-2-3. I remember well. All operating together under the FCC’s “Fair Use Doctrine” to keep their licenses. And they copied each other the way “I Dream of Jeannie” copied “Bewitched”.
Today there are a gazillion news sources on line. You can get everything from Putin News live from Russia and Xi News live from Beijing to Libertarian News & Opinion right here, among other places. You can open your own live news channel on YouTube (providing reruns to viewers on demand) – and get paid for it – as millions of independent, individual people have done. On every subject from Flat Earth Science to Physics at CERN, Ukrainian war daily update, etc, etc, etc. etc, & … etc. And as have countless independent organizations from the US Army War College to every economic think tank of every ideology … the numbers boggle.
You can even see the formerly censored and cancelled Smothers Brothers! And you are seriously saying all this is “worse maybe” than all of 1-2-3?
Do what I just did, run a Google search for pre-2020 election day references to “Hunter Biden laptop”, see how many zillion times it was reported. This was “suppression”? By the “high tech media monopoly”? Talk about defining terms down! As the song went “Paranoia will destroy ya'”.
“Thinking things were better in the old days is a terrible illness” — Jean Shepherd.
MarkW
Dec 20 2022 at 6:38am
In the late 60s there were three network news sources. Three. …. Today there are a gazillion news sources on line.
Then, as now, there were a ‘gazillion’ news sources other than FCC-licensed and regulated TV (and radio) stations. In particular, newspapers then were far more numerous with far-greater readership and impact. There were also underground newspapers. Even newsletters had some real influence (including, as I understand it, in the early libertarian movement of the 70s).
That said, even with all of the alternative forms of communication, government control/influence of the major channels was and is very important and impactful. It appears quite likely that the (plainly unconstitutional IMHO) coercion by the FBI of Twitter and other tech and media companies flipped a close presidential election. I am far from a Trump supporter — I thought (and still think) that both Trump and Biden are terrible human beings and manifestly unqualified for office (any office — from president on down to county drain commissioner). But I also think that the FBI’s successful censorship-by-proxy efforts affecting the outcome of a presidential election is one of the worst government abuses in U.S. history. And half the people in the country don’t care because of how much they dislike Trump (and also Elon Musk). It would be as if half didn’t care about Watergate because they despised McGovern (as most obviously did given the 1972 election outcome).
As Lily Tomlin (of Rowan & Martin rather than the Smothers Brothers) once said, “I try to be cynical but it’s hard to keep up”.
Jim Glass
Dec 20 2022 at 8:13pm
“In the late 60s there were three network news sources. Three. …. Today there are a gazillion news sources on line.”
Then, as now, there were a ‘gazillion’ news sources other than FCC-licensed and regulated TV (and radio) stations.
Gee, I was there, how’d I miss them all?
In particular, newspapers then were far more numerous with far-greater readership and impact.
Oh, I remember them. Apart from the NYT, WSJ and WaPo, which had independent resources, they all relied on the same basic news feeds, AP & UPI, plus from the NYT, WSJ and WaPo. Same as the TV network news relied on. Plus they did local reporting of course, sports, weather, crime, school board votes.
And all newspapers were local of course. It’s not like you could sit down, look at your TV, and read all the newspapers in the country. Like you can today. So “many” newspapers in the country did not mean more than a couple for you.
Any other independent news sources? Hmmm… I do remember short-wave radio…
There were also underground newspapers.
And what does the word “underground” mean to you? One on your list I do remember, the East Village Other. I could get a copy if I happened to be in the East Village, and if they all hadn’t been dumped from its kiosk into the trash to make room for Chinese food menus. It was pretty good at covering rock clubs and porn connections. As to its independent reporting of the news of the nation and world … more local rock clubs and porn.
Aw, c’mon … you yourself are posting on a libertarian web site for all the world to see, making your points by showing “in the street” interviews from Russia(!) via YouTube, and years-old Onion classics via the Wayback Machine. Good for you!
Yet you somehow claim there is less independently available information now with the Internet than there was back back in the 1960s, because back then there was the likes of the East Village Other. And you could have gotten your views out to the world back then by … trying a letter to the editor?
C’mon, get some perspective, appreciate life when it gets better. It’s good for your health and happiness. Will help you enjoy the holiday season.
MarkW
Dec 20 2022 at 9:14am
Do what I just did, run a Google search for pre-2020 election day references to “Hunter Biden laptop”, see how many zillion times it was reported. This was “suppression”?
Oh, yes, it definitely was suppression. Elections can be turned not on keeping information away from news junkies, ‘infovores’ and motivated partisans. As you say, one way or another, they’ll be able to get the news they actively seek out. But election outcomes can be influenced by keeping information away from the less motivated, ‘low information’ folks who make up most of the swing voters in an election.
What’s more, the FBI’s unconstitutional maneuverings were not limited to mere suppression. They also engaged in actively promoting disinformation (propaganda) to discredit the information should people hear of it. So along with hearing something about the Hunter Biden laptop (which I assume large majorities did), they also heard about 50 intelligence officers signing a letter indicating that the laptop was likely to be ‘Russian Disinformation’. This was intended to (and surely did) lead many people to ignore or disregard the information found on the laptop (implicating Joe Biden — aka ‘The Big Guy’ in the pay-for-influence schemes). This ‘Russian Disinformation’ lie was also used as a pretext to help convince Twitter and others to go along with the successful censorship-by-proxy efforts.
Jim Glass
Dec 20 2022 at 9:40pm
“Suppressed” a million times! In print and on video, right before your very eyes. Starting on the Front Page (several times) of the New York Post, in America’s media capital, and out of the President of the USA’s own mouth how many times?
The ghost of George Orwell is getting annoyed at you. He really didn’t like people who change the plain meaning of English words to make a political argument.
Yes — and even those who are trying to get away from politics have its election year news pounded onto them by the Internet, their Facebook buddies, the front page of the NY Post, Wall Street Journal, Hannity and Fox News over and over, plus the NY Times, Wapo, MSNBC et. al. all responding to them — did you look at those links?
Ok then, in addition to the Hunter story being, ahem, ‘buried’ by all the above…
Did TRUMP himself, and his RNC campaign, pound out “Hunter Biden Laptop! Crime! Hunter Biden Laptop! Criminal!” over and over, as a major campaign issue? Spending millions of dollars doing so? (As the subject was being “suppressed”? Please, c’mon. Orwell chokes.) If you don’t remember that, look at the links. Or let’s check your friend Wikipedia…
When the President of the USA publicly uses information to fuel an all-out political campaign attack on his enemies, there is no way on the gods’ good Earth that you can call that information “suppressed” (without referring to your advisors at the Ministry of Truth).
Now, if you are saying that in spite of all their efforts and campaign money spent, Trump, the RNC, Fox News etc., and all their minions somehow didn’t reach the ‘low information, swing voter’, that’s on them, they deserved to lose.
But what you really seem to be upset about is that while Trump and Giuliani and then right-side media proclaimed “Crime Family! Crime Family!”, CNN, CNBC, the NYT and the left-side media unjustly pooh poohed it all, “Nothing to see here folks, move along, let’s talk about something else.”
But that’s not anybody “suppressing” a dang thing, the word for that is: “bias”. In the USA, stark media bias goes back to 1796 when the Albany Federalist and Schenectady Democratic-Republican spit at each other for each denying what the other deemed critical amid Adams-Jefferson (the truly dirtiest election campaign in USA history). And it’s been ever so ever since. That’s politics.
I know you wanted CNN & CNBC to say: “Dems and liberals, we know how you feel, but the laptop shows Hunter is such a crook you gotta consider voting for Trump for the sake of the country.” And they didn’t say that.
Well, I know a lot of liberals who wanted Fox to say: “Repubs and conservatives, we know how you feel, but Trump paid off a porn star to hide his cheating on his wife, mocked John McCain for being a prisoner of war, has hired more felons than all other presidents in US history combined, and has already been impeached twice – you gotta consider voting for Biden for the sake of the country”. And they didn’t say that either!
Which is true media bias in action. Bias, not suppression.
When the President of the USA goes ranting about a fact time-after-time through a presidential campaign, that fact has not been “hidden from the knowledge of ‘low information voters'” or anyone else. Get real.
All the important facts that were really suppressed … you don’t know about!
MarkW
Dec 21 2022 at 9:24am
I know you wanted CNN & CNBC to say: “Dems and liberals, we know how you feel, but the laptop shows Hunter is such a crook you gotta consider voting for Trump for the sake of the country.”
Not in the least. CNN, the NY Times, the WA Post are partisan news organizations that have long given up all but the pretense of objectivity. I expect nothing else at this point. But they are breaking no laws having a partisan bent.
No, what I want is was the FBI not to be engaged in illegal, unconstitutional censorship-by-proxy and not to be engaged in spreading political propaganda (“Russian Disinformation!”) for partisan reasons. (I would also very much like for the officials who were responsible to face legal consequences, but I realize that is probably a pipe dream).
In one point you should agree with me. I think the FBIs efforts were blatantly illegal. You think they were completely ineffective (‘gazillions of search results!’). So can we agree that the FBI should never do anything like this again?
As for the rest of your blast — I think you’ve reached the ‘pounding the table’ point of the debate.
steve
Dec 21 2022 at 1:06pm
Where is the proof that the FBI interfered. I read the Taibbi and Weiss articles and didnt see any. What I saw was that the FBI sent out warnings to be aware of misinformation. Nothing that said they should not publish Hunter Biden stories or even any references to it.
In reality there were not a million stories but someone actually counted and there were about 3000 stories in the media. The story was not suppressed. Evidence has to count for something.
More broadly, agree on the Smothers Brothers as they were awesome. It doesnt sound like there is any evidence as to whether it was criticizing Pastore or Nixon which was the terminal event. I would guess both.
Steve
Jim Glass
Dec 19 2022 at 4:38pm
I had to look it up…
~~~
Tommy and Dick Smothers present…
“This is the show that supposedly got us fired”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbdAVIKtiHY
(They say the David Steinberg sketch did it.)
JoeF
Dec 20 2022 at 8:11am
This Time magazine article (https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,901314-1,00.html) from 1969 indicates that it was widely known then that the Steinberg bit was just the pretext, while the Pastore jokes were the real reason for censorship. The article is also interesting for referring to Pastore as the “Mrs. Grundy of the Senate Communications Subcommittee.”
nobody.really
Dec 21 2022 at 2:30am
Interesting stuff; thanks to all. Yet ultimately I read only opinions about what led to the cancelation of the Smothers Bros. show. I cannot imagine who could speak authoritatively on the issue of causation other than the network executives at the time–and then, I could easily imagine not trusting their account.
So the Pastore thesis strikes me as plausible. But so does the thesis that the show generated a lot of grievances with the network over time, that the network made multiple efforts to resolve differences, that the show creators repeatedly failed to conform to agreements and understandings (especially regarding production schedules), and that the combined effects of all this finally broke the camel’s back.
That said, I don’t know anyone who disputes the larger thesis that licensed broadcasters ABC, CBS, and NBC felt constrained by government in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and this feeling influenced broadcast decisions.
Comments are closed.