Radio politics in Czechoslovakia

Traditionally, scholars have treated media outlets in communist-controlled eastern Europe as little more than ideological transmission belts, saturated by official state ideology and rigorous censorship, which served simply to convey the correct Party Line to the population. In her examination of the workings and impact of state-run radio in Czechoslovakia from 1945 to 1969, Red Tape, Rosamund Johnston challenges this interpretation.

In Johnston’s view, the traditional reliance on a narrative of top-down censorship denies the agency of Czechoslovak Radio and of its listeners. While acknowledging that Czechoslovak Radio was controlled by the communists from 1945 on (due to their control of the Ministry of Information), she argues that the main factor in ensuring the station’s loyalty was the pro-communist sentiment of the staff itself. Above all else, this led to a vetting process in which communist radio employees saw to it that only fellow travelers were hired. This, of course, also resulted in radio content that was strongly slanted towards the Czechoslovak Communist Party, even before the party officially seized power in February 1948. However, this was not primarily the product of top-down dictates, but the active choice of the editors, broadcasters, technicians, and other staff of Czechoslovak Radio, rooted in their own choices, convictions, and commitment to the cause. In this way, Czechoslovak Radio serves as a microcosm of the broader communist seizure of power. 

At the same time, the radio network, especially its on-air correspondents, was able to establish a parasocial relationship of trust and even friendship with much of its audience, This was reflected in the tone and volume of listener mail. This feedback in turn helped influence the station’s broadcasting direction. While communist censorship and control provided the broad operating framework, both radio staff and listeners enjoyed some room to maneuver and to shape programming. 

Johnston traces the origins of the important role played by radio in Stalinist Czechoslovakia to the legacy of the Nazi occupation of 1938-45. The Third Reich relied heavily upon radio as a means of shaping and controlling Czech public opinion, and, as a result, left a fairly sophisticated broadcasting infrastructure in place for the postwar Third Czechoslovak Republic. Another key factor was the “radio revolution” of May 1945, a multi-day uprising in Prague against the retreating Germans prompted in part by an on-air appeal from the city’s main radio station. In addition, the role of anti-Nazi Czech-language broadcasts from the BBC shaped an understanding of wartime radio listening as in and of itself a form of resistance. Official Czechoslovak Radio somehow benefitted from this belief after the war, despite having toed the German line until the May 1945 uprising. 

In the wake of the war, Czechoslovak Radio played a key role in helping rebuild social connections among the Czechoslovak people. The medium provided a virtual infrastructure that partially replaced the war-damaged physical infrastructure of roads and bridges. Also, by broadcasting messages from listeners seeking loved ones lost during the war, the radio not only helped people restore previous personal connections, but also helped build new ones between listeners, and also between Czechoslovak Radio’s broadcasters and their audience. As a result, radio soon became the dominant force in Czechoslovak media from the end of the Second World War through the Prague Spring.

These new bonds between radio correspondent and listener were reinforced by radio celebrities such as Jiří Hanzelka and Miroslav Zikmund, whose reports of their travels across Africa (submitted in writing and read by others) became immensely popular in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Later on, Czechoslovak Radio foreign correspondents such as Vera Šťovíčková would also become popular, in Johnston’s view being trusted and embraced by their listeners.

Johnston notes how many of the leading radio personalities, such as Šťovíčková, became strong supporters of the Prague Spring of 1968. Having made guarded criticisms of the communist system on-air during the previous decade or so, the criticism broadcast by Czechoslovak Radio became far more biting after the regime abandoned censorship in March 1968. Topics included not only official corruption and malfeasance, but also the Stalinist show trials of the early 1950s, which were openly discussed as the fraudulent proceedings they were. Even as they expressed such previously forbidden opinions, however, the staff of Czechoslovak Radio did so out of a sense of loyalty to the communist system, not opposition. Correspondents like Šťovíčková and her colleagues were trying to improve the system, not tear it down.

The Prague Spring was cut brutally short by the Soviet-led invasion of August 1968. Among the key targets of the invasion was Czechoslovak Radio’s main broadcast facility. In the wake of the reimposition of Soviet control, the veteran correspondents such as Šťovíčková who supported the reform movement were removed from the air. A number went into exile and began working for the BBC or Radio Free Europe (RFE). With the loss of these trusted familiar voices, and the return of communist censorship, what Johnston calls the second golden age of radio in Czechoslovakia came to an end. Television would become the dominant medium in late-communist Czechoslovakia.

The single most important theme that runs through Johnston’s narrative is the importance of the personal connection between Czechoslovak Radio’s on-air correspondents and their audience. Early on she states that “all media are social media” (p. 20) and Johnston returns to this idea in her conclusion. In her view, this relationship of trust between broadcaster and listener is echoed in contemporary social media. The main difference is that contemporary users of Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and the like come to trust in and rely on those who are sharing the content, not necessarily the content creators. With some differences, this sort of “friendly exchange” is similar to that between Czechoslovak Radio and its listeners.

The main criticism to be made of Johnston’s argument in my view is in its assessment of the scope of autonomy enjoyed by both Czechoslovak radio staff and their listeners. It’s easy to allow someone a degree of autonomy when they fundamentally agree with the censors. The chapter on Czechoslovak Radio coverage of the Stalinist show trials in the Czechoslovakia of the early 1950s is where this is most evident. While capturing the brutal, top-down spectacle of these trials, Johnston chooses to emphasize the specific technical aspects of Czechoslovak Radio’s presentation, as opposed to ideology, in particular their use of edited taped excerpts. In her view, the official radio coverage was more a reflection of current standards of broadcasting techniques and technology than a unique product of Stalinism. At the same time, much of the listening audience failed to interpret these trials in accord with the dictates of the communist party. While Johnston is correct to point out the constraints imposed by technology and its ability to influence the audience, she seems to excessively emphasize their role as causative factors versus that of Stalinist ideology and conformity.

Overall, though, Johnston has made a valuable contribution to the study of communist Czechoslovakia and to the role of mass media in communist eastern Europe. Any reader interested in these topics will find this work interesting and thought-provoking.