Tuning In During the Twenties
[1]
Modern
broadcasting began to develop after
the First World War. Before 1920, radio was simply a useful way to send electrical signals ashore from a |
ship at sea, or, from one "ham" operator to another.
The new technology associated with movies and airplanes was already developing rapidly by the time soldiers started returning from European trenches |
in 1918. The vast potential
of the airwaves, therefore,
had scarcely been touched.
[2]
[1]
Then a vice president of Westinghouse,
looking for a way to make the transmission of radio |
signals more
profitable, decided on a two-fold
strategy. [2] First, he would entice an audience with daily programming of great variety. [3] Second, he would sell this audience the radio receivers necessary |
to listen to this
entertainment. [4] The plan succeeded
|
beyond anyone's
expectations.
[3]
The
federal Radio Division in Washington, D.C.,
|
was created to license
stations, because it had no
power to regulate them. Broadcasters multiplied wildly, some helping themselves to the more desirable frequencies, others increasing their transmission |
power at will. Chaos means
things were out of control.
[4]
Yet
even in the midst of such anarchy,
|
some commercial possibilities and organizations
saw clearly of a medium whose regulation seemed imminent. In 1926, RCA paid the American Telephone & Telegraph Company one million dollars for station WEAF in New York City—and NBC was |
born. Years
later, the Radio Law of 1927
was
|
enacted. It authorized it's control
for licensing and of
policing the broadcasters.
[5]
|
The
RCA executives who created the
powerful NBC network were right to see that sizable profits would come from this new medium. |
Even in 1930 for
example an hour's advertising
on
nationwide radio to forty-seven cities cost $10,180. Advertising turned broadcasting into an industry, and the untapped potential of the airwaves |
began to be realized.
|
SOCIAL SCIENCE: This passage is adapted from Leonard W.
Levy's Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self Incrimination. (©1968 by Clio Enterprises Inc.). |
Community
courts and community justice pre-
vailed in England at the time of the Norman Conquest [1066]. The legal system was ritualistic, dependent upon oaths at most stages of litigation, and permeated |
|
5
|
by both religious and
superstitious notions. The pro-
ceedings were oral, very personal, and highly con- frontative. Juries were unknown. One party publicly "appealed," or accused, the other before the community meeting at which the presence of both was obligatory. |
10
|
To be absent meant
risking fines and outlawry. After
the preliminary statements of the parties, the court ren- dered judgment, not on the merits of the issue nor the question of guilt or innocence, but on the manner by which it should be resolved. Judgment in other words |
15
|
preceded trial because
it was a decision on what form
the trial should take. It might be by compurgation, by ordeal, or, after the Norman Conquest, by battle. Excepting trial by battle, only one party was tried or, more accurately, was put to his "proof." Proof being |
20
|
regarded as an
advantage, it was usually awarded to the
accused party; in effect he had the privilege of proving his own case. Trial by compurgation consisted of a sworn state- ment to the truth of one's claim or denial, supported by |
25
|
the oaths of a certain
number of fellow swearers.
Presumably they, no more than the claimant, would endanger their immortal souls by the sacrilege of false swearing. Originally the oath-helpers swore from their own knowledge to the truth of the party's claim. Later |
30
|
they became little
more than character witnesses,
swearing only to their belief that his oath was trust- worthy. If he rounded up the requisite number of com- purgators and the cumbrous swearing in very exact form proceeded without a mistake, he won his case. A |
35
|
mistake "burst"
the oath, proving guilt.
Ordeals were usually reserved for more serious crimes, for persons of bad reputation, for peasants, or for those caught with stolen goods. As an invocation of immediate divine judgment, ordeals were consecrated |
40
|
by the Church and
shrouded with solemn religious mys-
tery. The accused underwent a physical trial in which he called upon God to witness his innocence by putting a miraculous sign upon his body. Cold water, boiling water, and hot iron were the principal ordeals, all of |
45
|
which the clergy
administered. In the ordeal of cold
water, the accused was trussed up and cast into a pool to see whether he would sink or float. On the theory that water which had been sanctified by a priest would receive an innocent person but reject the guilty, inno- |
50
|
cence was proved by
sinking—and hopefully a quick
retrieval—guilt by floating. In the other ordeals, one had to plunge his hand into a cauldron of boiling water or carry a red hot piece of iron for a certain distance, in the hope that three days later, when the bandages were |
55
|
removed, the priest would find a
"clean" wound, one
that was healing free of infection. How deeply one plunged his arm into the water, how heavy the iron or great the distance it was carried, depended mainly on the gravity of the charge. |
60
|
The
Normans brought to England still another
ordeal, trial by battle, paradigm of the adversary system, which gave to the legal concept of "defense" or "defendant" a physical meaning. Trial by battle was a savage yet sacred method of proof which was also |
65
|
thought to involve
divine intercession on behalf of the
righteous. Rather than let a wrongdoer triumph, God would presumably strengthen the arms of the party who had sworn truly to the justice of his cause. Right, not might, would therefore conquer. Trial by battle was |
70
|
originally available
for the settlement of all disputes
but eventually was restricted to cases of serious crime. Whether one proved his case by compurgation, ordeal, or battle, the method was accusatory in char- acter. There was always a definite and known accuser, |
75
|
some private person
who brought formal suit and
openly confronted his antagonist. There was never any secrecy in the proceedings, which were the same for criminal as for civil litigation. The judges, who had no role whatever in the making of the verdict, decided only |
80
|
which party should be
put to proof and what its form
should be; thereafter the judges merely enforced an observance of the rules. The oaths that saturated the proceedings called upon God to witness to the truth of the respective claims of the parties, or the justice of |
85
|
their cause, or the
reliability of their word. No one gave
testimonial evidence nor was anyone questioned to test his veracity. |
