Latin America continued to differ from other developing regions in that most of its radio stations were privately owned, competitive, and supported by the sale of advertising time. Most Latin American countries also had government-run stations, although these were dominant only in Peru, and most also had stations run by religious organizations or universities (usually Roman Catholic). Many stations operated on a 24-hour basis. After 1960 several Andean nations began to broadcast in various native languages at least a few hours a week. The number of inexpensive receivers in use greatly increased, thanks in part to growing use of transistor technology. The rapid expansion of television in the 1960s and ’1970s, however, changed radio in Latin America much as it did in other parts of the world, shifting the aural service to a secondary position in major cities. As a result, radio became more music-centred than ever before—making up two-thirds of all radio programming in Mexico, for example—as news increasingly became a service associated with television.

Asian radio continued to be a largely government-operated enterprise, paid for with license fees assessed on receivers and state subsidies. Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore joined Japan and the Philippines in operating parallel government and private radio systems. But the quality of service, let alone its availability, varied hugely from very rudimentary radio operations in a few cities in Afghanistan, for example, to highly sophisticated systems in Japan and Singapore. Taken as a whole, most programming was devoted to music or light entertainment, with government stations providing more news and cultural content. Organized school services were available in about a dozen countries, including India, Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Although controlled by the national government, All India Radio (AIR) introduced advertising in 1967 to help meet some of its operating expenses; government funds made up the annual deficit.

African radio systems—nearly all government-operated, supported in part by revenue from receiver license fees—often reflected national culture and the political regime in power, taking on a more nationalistic tone as the majority of that continent’s countries threw off most remnants of colonialism. While often used for programs providing news or aiding agriculture or education, radio could also serve political ends, providing a ready-made platform for long-winded speeches and other government propaganda. Not surprisingly, however, former French colonies often adopted many aspects of French radio, just as former British colonies copied features of the BBC in developing their new national systems. Most radio broadcasts were national, since few countries provided local or regional services—with the exceptions of Nigeria and South Africa. Given the tropical conditions, shortwave radio was widely used to avoid the static commonly found in medium-wave AM service, though it often did not cover the whole country. Throughout the continent, receivers remained scarce (fewer than 5 per 100 people), especially outside large cities.

Pressures on public-service radio

Beginning in the 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s, economic pressures on industrial countries’ traditional public-service radio operations had a telling and growing impact. While the government-supported national systems saw themselves as protectors and disseminators of a high-quality vision of national culture and pride, their survival was threatened by the growing number of commercial competitors for audiences. As public-service radio’s budgets declined, creative cultural and dramatic programs diminished as well, sometimes all but disappearing. Indeed, critics argued that the public-service stations were sounding more and more like their commercial counterparts, sometimes even accepting advertising to make up budget shortfalls. The competition was not always national: listeners in many European countries reported in growing numbers that their local stations were far more important than any national service. Nor were the changes restricted to Europe. By the 1990s Canada’s government had severely cut funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), thereby weakening the role of that network and making commercial stations with their advertiser-supported music formats more important to Canadian listeners.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) went through a series of managerial crises, shake-ups, and reorganizations after 1980 as it faced a progressively more competitive marketplace. Most notable among the changes was an expansion from three to six radio services, which by the early 1990s consisted of:

• Radio 1, which offered contemporary music
• Radio 2, with a “middle-of-the-road” (MOR) format that mixed various features and music
• Radio 3, which continued the Third Programme tradition of classical music and related cultural features
• Radio 4, the “intelligent speech” station, with a host of news, talk, drama, and documentary programs
• Radio 5 (renamed Five Live in 1994), with a live news and sports format
• Radio 6, a second more traditional popular music channel

Competitive pressures also affected public and commercial radio in the United States. As more new stations (nearly always FM) went on the air, a growing number were either losing money or making very little. Outside the largest markets, radio was often a narrow-margin business. In response to pressure by struggling station owners, commercial radio was largely deregulated by the FCC in the late 1970s, and public stations were deregulated in the mid-1980s. Licenses grew longer (to eight years in 1996 legislation), owners could control more stations, and the few remaining guidelines concerning station programs and operations were swept away.

In 1987 the FCC abandoned its long-controversial “fairness doctrine.” Originating from a 1949 decision that allowed stations to editorialize, the doctrine had offered two guidelines to radio and television stations: that they should cover issues of local public controversy as part of their public-interest obligation and that they should air varied points of view on those issues. Over the years, the doctrine grew increasingly controversial. Broadcasters felt it was an infringement of the constitutional right to free speech; no such “fairness” requirement existed for the press. Industry critics countered that the doctrine was a small price to pay, given that stations got “free” use of the radio-frequency spectrum and could select both the issues covered and the spokespersons aired.

With the end of the fairness doctrine, stations felt freer to air politically oriented and often controversial programs without fear of a government policy calling for fairness in airing conflicting points of view. Within a very few years, great chunks of AM (and some FM) station time were given over to “talk” programs featuring a host and telephone calls from listeners. The majority of these were politically conservative, making radio sound far more right-wing than the country at large. Even so, conservative radio figures (such as Rush Limbaugh) earned huge returns for the stations from advertisers eager to reach the millions who tuned in. Critics even suggested that radio’s one-sided sound may have affected some local and statewide election results. In any case, serving the “public interest” in an era of deregulation no longer required balanced programming.