Many factors contributed to what became the radio industry of the 1920's. When radio first came into use, war and government activity certainly played a part in how the invention would be used. However, I think that it was the actual inventions themselves, the technological advancement of the medium, which proved to be a much more influential force overall.
Technological advancement is typically where most things, especially media, are born from. As the technology gets better, and more innovation occurs, external forces like society will change and innovate based on the new opportunities available with the new or improved technology. Essentially, the force of technological advancement drives all other factors, most of which wouldn't exist in the first place if not for technology.
In the case of the radio industry, it was shaped itself most dramatically, obviously, by Marconi's invention of radio itself. Without this absolutely essential discovery, the industry itself would not have existed. However, if radio had simply remained in this state, essentially as a wireless telegraph service, the radio industry in the 1920's would never have existed. What brought about all the other changes was de Forest's invention of the vacuum tube (or the "Audion tube" as he called it), which made the transmission of sounds beyond the simple tones of telegraph transmissions possible. Without the vacuum tube, there would have been no broadcast of music (along with many other things), which was the main centerpiece of all radio programming in the USA. The industry would have had no reason to exist in the first place.
The technology comes first. Everything else is simply a reaction to the invention.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Media, Culture, and Behavior
I think it's pretty well-established and widespread idea that media has a massive effect on culture and how we act, even if we don't realize it. Many parents try to shield their children from the media, for fear that some of the images or portrayals will have a negative effect on their growth. Though there are many specific theories of how media affects us, I think that the concept of "social learning" serves as an umbrella term for most of them. Social learning, along with the Bandura child experiment, illustrate how media can dictate our decisions and shape our personalities.
The "social learning" concept boils down to individuals imitating or shaping their personalities and opinions after something they're shown, sometimes without even realizing it. Women and girls may begin be affected by the images of ultra-thin, inhumanely beautiful women in advertising (as shown in Killing Us Softly), and try to imitate them because they think that this is what is normal or beautiful. Boys and men may begin to think they must be aggressive or intimidating to be a real man due to portrayals of machismo in the media, as was explored in Tough Guise. There are a myriad of possibilities of how someone could be affected by the media, but these are fairly basic and the easiest to recognize, I think.
In this experiment carried out by Albert Bandura in 1961, children were shown a video of a woman punching, kicking, and throwing an inflatable "Bobo" doll, and then put into a room with the same doll. The study found that the children were more likely to do violence against the doll, in some cases in the exact same manner, after watching an adult after watching the videos. The children who watched the same video that ended with the adult being rewarded for attacking the doll were even more likely than others to attack. The conclusion was that this was social learning at work. The children were imitating what was shown to them, thinking that it was acceptable behavior. This, like the examples shown in Killing Us Softly and Tough Guise, simply and clearly illustrates how social learning occurs. Though children are without question more impressionable than adults are, the media still has entirely different sets of images, more subtle than those in this experiment, that would have a similar affect on adults.
The "social learning" concept boils down to individuals imitating or shaping their personalities and opinions after something they're shown, sometimes without even realizing it. Women and girls may begin be affected by the images of ultra-thin, inhumanely beautiful women in advertising (as shown in Killing Us Softly), and try to imitate them because they think that this is what is normal or beautiful. Boys and men may begin to think they must be aggressive or intimidating to be a real man due to portrayals of machismo in the media, as was explored in Tough Guise. There are a myriad of possibilities of how someone could be affected by the media, but these are fairly basic and the easiest to recognize, I think.
In this experiment carried out by Albert Bandura in 1961, children were shown a video of a woman punching, kicking, and throwing an inflatable "Bobo" doll, and then put into a room with the same doll. The study found that the children were more likely to do violence against the doll, in some cases in the exact same manner, after watching an adult after watching the videos. The children who watched the same video that ended with the adult being rewarded for attacking the doll were even more likely than others to attack. The conclusion was that this was social learning at work. The children were imitating what was shown to them, thinking that it was acceptable behavior. This, like the examples shown in Killing Us Softly and Tough Guise, simply and clearly illustrates how social learning occurs. Though children are without question more impressionable than adults are, the media still has entirely different sets of images, more subtle than those in this experiment, that would have a similar affect on adults.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Hegemony in the UK!
The existence of "Hegemony" is a criticism that I find is quite commonly leveled at major news organizations in the western world, so it's an important thing to understand. Though it is perhaps a less subtle example than other publications might offer, I think that a recent government spending article in the Daily Mail, a major newspaper in the United Kingdom, effectively illustrates the ideological homogeneity that defines the application of a Hegemony.
A Hegemony is essentially the control of information and ideas by a dominant class in a society, which secures their position and allows them to remain dominant. Through this control, the dominant class, in a way, creates and defines what reality is for all the lower classes, who go on operating within this framework, the benefits of which mostly belong to the dominant class. Since they've grown up accepting that this framework is reality, the lower classes give their consent to allowing the Hegemony to continue.
In the Daily Mail article about government job cuts I have chosen for an example, the headline reads,"200,000 public jobs ALREADY axed after massive government spending cuts". The word "already" being in all-caps in the headline seems like an attempt to tell the reader that they should be outraged. The decidedly one-sided article reinforces the impression that the Daily Mail is framing the issue in an unfavorable light, as it only provides quotes from those against the cuts, such as one in particular from a person who says the cuts will cause "widespread misery".
Again, though it is executed in a less subtle and sinister way than is generally assumed, the article does clearly show that the Daily Mail has its own agenda and attempts to control the public's reaction to certain issues.
-Philip
A Hegemony is essentially the control of information and ideas by a dominant class in a society, which secures their position and allows them to remain dominant. Through this control, the dominant class, in a way, creates and defines what reality is for all the lower classes, who go on operating within this framework, the benefits of which mostly belong to the dominant class. Since they've grown up accepting that this framework is reality, the lower classes give their consent to allowing the Hegemony to continue.
In the Daily Mail article about government job cuts I have chosen for an example, the headline reads,"200,000 public jobs ALREADY axed after massive government spending cuts". The word "already" being in all-caps in the headline seems like an attempt to tell the reader that they should be outraged. The decidedly one-sided article reinforces the impression that the Daily Mail is framing the issue in an unfavorable light, as it only provides quotes from those against the cuts, such as one in particular from a person who says the cuts will cause "widespread misery".
Again, though it is executed in a less subtle and sinister way than is generally assumed, the article does clearly show that the Daily Mail has its own agenda and attempts to control the public's reaction to certain issues.
-Philip
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
First RTF 305 Blog Post
With this birth of this RTF 305 blog, so shall a new movement begin. It is the dawn of a new era, a revolution is awoken, it is Morning in America, etc.
-Philip Woodbury
-Philip Woodbury
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)