I spent a while this morning hunting for the full text of Brecht’s article about radio from 1932 – the one where he points out that’s there’s no technological reason why radio should be a mass medium rather than a peer-to-peer form of communication. While are most radios crippled so they can only receive and not also send? Not because of technological necessity, anyway. Brecht wrote:

[R]adio is one-sided when it should be two-. It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out. So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life, a vast network of pipes. That is to say, it would be if it knew how to receive as well as to transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as hear, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him. On this principle the radio should step out of the supply business and organize its listeners as suppliers. Any attempt by the radio to give a truly public character to public occasions is a step in the right direction.

I’m a little disappointed, really, upon looking this up, that the original article isn’t longer than the measly two pages I found – why didn’t Brecht mention ham radio? Why couldn’t he have, oh, I don’t know, done some awesome brechtian theatrical intervention involving epic theatre and Verfremdungseffekt and peer-to-peer radio.

Imagine Lonelygirl15 with Verfremdungseffekt. What would Brecht, alive today, have done?

(Read below the fold if you want to follow my hunt in the library for the original source for Brecht’s essay. No more lonelygirl musings, unfortunately)

I found the text online pretty easily, with the title “The Radio as an Apparatus of Communication”, but I wasn’t sure I had the full text. Finding the original – well, in translation to English as I don’t read German – was not so easy. Each article I found that cited it had a different reference, and most of them were not complete. Finally I found a reference to a similarly-titled article, “Radio as a Means of Communication: A Talk on the Function of Radio”, in the journal Screen 20 (3/4), pp 24-25, 1979. My library doesn’t have Screen that far back though, and it’s not available electronically, so I’ll have to wait to get a copy. Then, leafing through anthologies of Brecht’s writing I found it: “The Radio as an Apparatus of Communication”, in Willett, John (ed.), Brecht on Theatre, New York: Hill and Wang, 1964. 51-53. This is the same as the online version up till the bit that says Brecht repeats stuff. It skips the three last paragraphs in that version, and instead includes the last two paragraphs in Walkerart’s version. And whereas the Walkerart version gives the original German source as [“Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat” in Bjitter des Hessischen Landestheaters Darmstadt, No. 16, July 1932] the book gives it as “Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat” in Bl‰tter des Hessischen Landestheaters, Darmstad, No. 16, July 1932. Which looks more correct.

Ah well. It’s that paragraph I cited above that’s most relevant to blogging and the internet, anyway, so no matter if I can’t find a strictly authoritative version.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “brecht suggested radio should be peer-to-peer communication

  1. Christian Mogensen

    Two-way radio is better known as Ham Radio. Permission to transmit is licensed under international rules. Some of the basic networking protocols in use today have their origin in the Ham radio community. (The ALOHA radio protocol inspired Ethernet)

    The problem with allowing general public use of the airwaves has to do with limits: limited bandwidth, limited number of users per frequency without interference. Too many users talking at once will turn into mush – that’s why you need a lot of infrastructure to make it possible for thousands of people to use radios at once. You may know these modern 2-way radios as “mobile phones”.

  2. Jill

    Yes, I wondered why Brecht didn’t mention ham radio – I hadn’t really thought about the SCALE of it all, though. And I like the idea of thinking of mobile phones as today’s two-way radios!

  3. A Memorable Fancy » Radio

    […] Jill brings up Brecht‚Äôs idea that radio should be, as she says, peer-to-peer, rather than a mass medium, which brings up some reflections from me. […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.