The form of media known as radio was one of the most important factors in the modernizing of 21st Century America. It connected people across the nation through sports, news, and entertainment. It is no surprise that this new form of media was a product of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. It was Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi who created a telegraph that used radio waves to send messages in Morse code, thus creating a new era of media and industry through this immense change in technological advancement.
Developments in radio technology spawned more ideas for the radio left and right. As new advances were being made, new purposes were being made for the medium and for the industry. Also, as these new methods of using radio were being utilized, new laws were produced by the government so as to regulate the airwaves. It was on account of these great industrial progressions that the relationship between the radio industry and the government started. The industry's new purposes and methods of using radio were met with new rules, regulations, and restrictions.
As new radio technology was allowing companies to broadcast music nationwide, radio became more and more popular. New companies such as AT&T and RCA were founded, thus increasing the number of waves sent out within the broadcast band. While the Radio Act of 1912 required the licensing of transmitters, it was not very powerful in regulating the industry. With the Radio Act of 1927 came the Federal Radio Commission, which stated the broadcast band, made frequency terms regular and standard, and restricted the number of stations operating at night. This new law reduced the interference between stations.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Cultivation
The media is a great way to inform the public of whatever is happening locally, nationally, or internationally. It gives the people a certain view of the world from a different perspective, that being the subjects of the stories. While these stories may be truthful, they are not always applicable to the entire world. However, sometimes the more a person watches issues across the world being covered on the news, the more he or she feels threatened in his or her own home; this explanation of how media effects the public is called the cultivation theory.
The cultivation theory can be used to explain why folks who frequently interact with the media feel more endangered to being victimized by things such as crime. People that are affected by cultivation tend to lose sight of what the real world is like and instead use what they view on TV or movies as evidence of their beliefs. Although it may be unintentional, this is another method that allows the media to instill certain perceptions into the minds of it's audience. Sometimes, the viewer's real world experiences only reinforces the things he or she sees happening in the world; this is called mainstreaming. On the other hand, it may be that the viewer's reality only ratifies the views of the media, thus the cultivation effect is increased through what is called resonance.
Just because the streets of South Central Los Angeles may be littered with violence at times, "George" in Cooper, Texas should not have to worry about the dangers of walking to get the mail when he arrives home late. However, George's reality of being on the street late at night is cluttered with paranoia, especially since he just watched "Boyz n tha Hood". That movie's view of violence in the streets along with crime reports George sees on the news combines with his real life situation of being out late; this is mainstreaming. If George happened to actually live in Compton and he accepts the crime he sees in media, his fear of reality would decrease through what is resonance; he assumes that violent crime is the standard for the entire world so he doesn't worry.
Throughout the early 1990s, George may have been feeling the effects of cultivation because of the following media coverage:
"Boyz n da Hood" trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4sKiGkzKJo&feature=related
Rodney King Riots News Coverage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx-8R2juK3A
The cultivation theory can be used to explain why folks who frequently interact with the media feel more endangered to being victimized by things such as crime. People that are affected by cultivation tend to lose sight of what the real world is like and instead use what they view on TV or movies as evidence of their beliefs. Although it may be unintentional, this is another method that allows the media to instill certain perceptions into the minds of it's audience. Sometimes, the viewer's real world experiences only reinforces the things he or she sees happening in the world; this is called mainstreaming. On the other hand, it may be that the viewer's reality only ratifies the views of the media, thus the cultivation effect is increased through what is called resonance.
Just because the streets of South Central Los Angeles may be littered with violence at times, "George" in Cooper, Texas should not have to worry about the dangers of walking to get the mail when he arrives home late. However, George's reality of being on the street late at night is cluttered with paranoia, especially since he just watched "Boyz n tha Hood". That movie's view of violence in the streets along with crime reports George sees on the news combines with his real life situation of being out late; this is mainstreaming. If George happened to actually live in Compton and he accepts the crime he sees in media, his fear of reality would decrease through what is resonance; he assumes that violent crime is the standard for the entire world so he doesn't worry.
Throughout the early 1990s, George may have been feeling the effects of cultivation because of the following media coverage:
"Boyz n da Hood" trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4sKiGkzKJo&feature=related
Rodney King Riots News Coverage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx-8R2juK3A
Saturday, September 11, 2010
The Frame
Today, there are many different methods in which a person could be entertained or informed. Of course, many of these methods come from the media. With such a wide variety of media, such as movies, TV, the Internet, and newspapers, one would think they would be able to view a wide variety of information, opinions, and entertainment. However, what some do not relize is that the media decides what they leave out of a story and what they put into a story; this is called framing.
Framing is the concept that those who present the media can alter and morph the way it is presented. The presenter is able to mutate the implication or the notion of the story by using certain tones in his or her's choice of words. The presenter can even flat out decide what facts to include in the story, so as to illustrate the information that he or she desires or the information that he or she is pressed to illustrate. Thus, although the viewer may be told that freedom of press exists in our society, the media itself is censored constantly and often the censors are the presenters themselves.
Take for instance, one of the founders and current publisher of Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner is a outspoken liberal and has been for many years. His recent interviews for Rolling Stone include the likes of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. As one looks through RS, he or she may notice that each of the magazine's "National Affairs" articles are almost always written to support liberals and insult or criticize conservatives. The reader could presume that Jann Wenner chose "National Affairs" writers Matt Taibbi and Tom Dickinson because they are also outspoken liberals and the reader could also presume that Taibbi and Dickinson write to criticize conservatives because they desire to keep their positions as two of the magazines's contributing editors. Taibbi and Dickinson realize that the consistency of the content in their work pleases Wenner and it also fits with the other standards of RS. Therefore, Taibbi and Dickinson choose what to leave out and what to put into their stories, so as to sway the reader's opinion to the that of not only themselves, but Wenner's as well. Frankly, I only read Rolling Stone for the music articles and hardly read the political articles, but it does scare me a little that media outlets like my beloved magazine would choose to be so biased. It would seem as though a casual reader would not be able to find a "National Affairs" article depicting Democrats negatively, therefore the article would not be entirely truthful. It would seem as though Taibbi and Dickinson refuse to report objectively on the Democrats or the Republicans; because "National Affairs" is included in every issue and seen by millions, I'm sure this pleases Wenner.
Of course, RS has had articles criticizing Presdient Obama and other liberals as well, so one might say that the magazine aims to be critical of all political affairs. There was the article questioning Obama's progress as president and the article about General McChrystal, and that is pretty refreshing. However, neither of those articles were written by Taibbi nor Dickinson. Go figure. Now while I rarely read the "National Affairs" articles, I do glance over them long enough to know that most of the time, they are very one sided. I know that sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about, but anybody could see it. Further more, all of his Wenner's political donations have gone to the Democrats, so you have that as well.
Now some people might argue that Rolling Stone has an agenda to meet, and that agenda is being mostly liberal. Those people might also say that that is why the magazine has so many liberal minded articles, so that it can fulfill its duty to its mostly liberal minded readers. Good point. However, could a person suggest that Rolling Stone has a liberal agenda to meet because Wenner is a liberal. Wenner and co founder and music critic Ralph J. Gleason (died in 1975) created this magazine to encompass things they were interested in. Wenner made sure that he had mostly writers who had the same ideals he had and he surely chose want went in and what came out of his magazine. Doesn't Wenner's agenda reflect what framing he decides to use in his magazine?
Rolling Stone offers their magazine online and here are links to some of the "National Affairs" articles:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64863
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64858
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64765
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12493/64386
Framing is the concept that those who present the media can alter and morph the way it is presented. The presenter is able to mutate the implication or the notion of the story by using certain tones in his or her's choice of words. The presenter can even flat out decide what facts to include in the story, so as to illustrate the information that he or she desires or the information that he or she is pressed to illustrate. Thus, although the viewer may be told that freedom of press exists in our society, the media itself is censored constantly and often the censors are the presenters themselves.
Take for instance, one of the founders and current publisher of Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner is a outspoken liberal and has been for many years. His recent interviews for Rolling Stone include the likes of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. As one looks through RS, he or she may notice that each of the magazine's "National Affairs" articles are almost always written to support liberals and insult or criticize conservatives. The reader could presume that Jann Wenner chose "National Affairs" writers Matt Taibbi and Tom Dickinson because they are also outspoken liberals and the reader could also presume that Taibbi and Dickinson write to criticize conservatives because they desire to keep their positions as two of the magazines's contributing editors. Taibbi and Dickinson realize that the consistency of the content in their work pleases Wenner and it also fits with the other standards of RS. Therefore, Taibbi and Dickinson choose what to leave out and what to put into their stories, so as to sway the reader's opinion to the that of not only themselves, but Wenner's as well. Frankly, I only read Rolling Stone for the music articles and hardly read the political articles, but it does scare me a little that media outlets like my beloved magazine would choose to be so biased. It would seem as though a casual reader would not be able to find a "National Affairs" article depicting Democrats negatively, therefore the article would not be entirely truthful. It would seem as though Taibbi and Dickinson refuse to report objectively on the Democrats or the Republicans; because "National Affairs" is included in every issue and seen by millions, I'm sure this pleases Wenner.
Of course, RS has had articles criticizing Presdient Obama and other liberals as well, so one might say that the magazine aims to be critical of all political affairs. There was the article questioning Obama's progress as president and the article about General McChrystal, and that is pretty refreshing. However, neither of those articles were written by Taibbi nor Dickinson. Go figure. Now while I rarely read the "National Affairs" articles, I do glance over them long enough to know that most of the time, they are very one sided. I know that sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about, but anybody could see it. Further more, all of his Wenner's political donations have gone to the Democrats, so you have that as well.
Now some people might argue that Rolling Stone has an agenda to meet, and that agenda is being mostly liberal. Those people might also say that that is why the magazine has so many liberal minded articles, so that it can fulfill its duty to its mostly liberal minded readers. Good point. However, could a person suggest that Rolling Stone has a liberal agenda to meet because Wenner is a liberal. Wenner and co founder and music critic Ralph J. Gleason (died in 1975) created this magazine to encompass things they were interested in. Wenner made sure that he had mostly writers who had the same ideals he had and he surely chose want went in and what came out of his magazine. Doesn't Wenner's agenda reflect what framing he decides to use in his magazine?
Rolling Stone offers their magazine online and here are links to some of the "National Affairs" articles:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64863
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64858
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64765
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12493/64386
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)