The recent raid of free radio stalwart Radio Merlin International has led me to ponder the illegality of pirate broadcasting, and who shares the burden of responsibility for its perpetuation.
Through a stop-start relationship with shortwave free radio now into its fourth decade, I do not recall many instances of UK-based stations being apprehended by the former DTI(Department of Trade and Industry) nor Ofcom(Office for Communications) - the latter who now assume responsibilities for its very own slant on track and trace. Indeed, of the perhaps 70-80 UK stations I have heard on shortwave since 1990, it is only those whose omnipresence on the bands - Radio Galaxy that morphed into today's Merlin and UK Radio International - and the Bogusman who was caught using an international distress frequency that I can recall being apprehended by the powers that be. There will though of course have been others.
This would suggest, but is in no way certain, that a blind eye(deaf ear?) is turned to shortwave hobby broadcasters unless they stray onto frequencies that are out of bounds, or are perhaps persistent 'offenders' who have been given a certain if albeit tacit leeway by the authorities but in the end are too conspicuous by their own ubiquity. This does not though account for how free radio operators' initial come to the attention of officialdom, whether that be through the authorities doing their own band scans or reports of local interference to telecommunications equipment. There are also potential issues with aesthetic sensibilities relating to broadcasting antennas that are not necessarily subtle in their design and size.
When I younger, much younger, it briefly crossed my mind that those who wrote in to free radio operators could also be on the receiving end of visits from the authorities should letters(yes, it is that long ago) be confiscated during theoretical raids. I hadn't thought along similar lines until the recent raid of Merlin, but rather than being concerned about the senders of emails being caught up in proceedings, it is the moral argument of whether or not listeners, supposedly the lifeblood of any radio station, are perpetuating the 'crime' as much as the operator himself.
Since the dawn of humanity there has always been a tendency to only adhere to the laws of the land that suit us, with an attitude that if we do not agree with something then it is acceptable to overlook its legal demands. The argument remains that UK-based free radio on shortwave was to some degree been brought about by the BBC's hegemonic presence through its World Service output and the corporation's insistence on it remaining that way, but I have often wondered if getting a kick out of illegal broadcasting, or doing anything unlawful, would lose its appeal if all of a sudden licenses were handed out for example to those who broadcast on the 48 metre band. Is it therefore the illicit act itself and being able to circumvent the authorities that appeals, or the ability to get on the air through one's own technical mastery? I have no doubt that simply broadcasting the music which appeals to the operator is another motivation, especially if is unlikely to be heard elsewhere. If that is the reason why do some individuals set up free radio stations; what is the difference between listening to 'your music' in the comfort of your own home than transmitting it to the world? There will be an element of broadcasters who like the interaction with listeners, but I often felt that those who contacted some stations in the past were regarded as the inevitable but unwanted consequences of operating a free radio station.
What motivates listeners of free radio, pirate stations? Is it having a tenuous connection to and involvement with an illegal activity that will likely never rebound upon them? I feel my initial interest was piqued, 31 years ago this weekend, by hearing something different, but as a 14-year old I was never going to consider the reality behind what I was hearing. If I enjoyed it, how surely could any offence have been committed? Laws of the land are instituted to protect the population from each other and themselves, but by listening to pirate broadcasts I was hardly harming myself. It though can be argued that overlooking any illegal activity engenders a negative relationship with the statutes, potentially priming individuals who might in the future accept misdeeds that are regarded by society as comparatively far more serious.
How therefore one must view free radio and any interaction with its protagonists is very much an individual choice. After setting up a blog to chronicle 1990s UK-based free radio and eulogising about many of its component parts I run the risk of being labelled a hypocrite by writing this post, but instead of attempting to posit a 'do as I say not as I do' message this article is simply being put 'out there' to question our relationship with the law, and more importantly our attitudes towards it. Is it wrong to just listen to free radio without ever contacting its operators? If it sounds good and releases endorphins, how does that make it wrong? We of course can use the same tropes for almost any act, from the innocent to the most heinous, but whilst almost all illegality would be regarded as far worse than pirate broadcasting, the only way to separate a law from being a law is through the level of punishment its breaking commands. Laws as such are not tiered by their existence and severity by being included within the statute books, but are catalogued together for the purposes of being theoretically enactable legislation.
I for one am now reviewing my attitude to free radio. This isn't with the intention of being the broadcasting equivalent of nobody being more critical of smoking than an ex-smoker, but to perhaps view the scene in a more balanced way. I am though reminded that my attitude is drifting towards how my parents' reacted to the significant interest I showed in free radio during my early teenage years.
Are we as listeners therefore guilty by association? There is no crime in listening to free radio and I am not ashamed to say that in the past it gave me a great deal of pleasure, but the encouragement and the subsequent perpetuation of free radio is arguably morally ambiguous, especially for those who claim to lead a spotless life.
No comments:
Post a Comment