Radio: War of the Worlds

1) What is the history and narrative behind War of the Worlds?

War of the Worlds, a science-fiction novel by author HG Wells, was first published in 1898. It is a story of alien invasion and war between mankind and an extra-terrestrial race from Mars.

In 1938, the world was on edge as Germany mobilised to invade Europe and populations feared gas attacks from another world war. In the weeks leading up to the 1938 broadcast, American radio stations had increasingly cut into scheduled programming to bring news updates from Europe on the chances of war. This meant Welles's use of radio news conventions had more of an impact on listeners who were unaware that it was a fictional radio play.

2) When was it first broadcast and what is the popular myth regarding the reaction from the audience?

The original broadcast was on the 30th October 1938 - the myth suggests that audience's reacted dramatically, which made this one of the earliest examples of mass hysteria.

3) How did the New York Times report the reaction the next day?

The NY Times reported it as "Radio Listeners in Panis, Taking War Drama as Fact". The radio broadcast has also been described as being “too realistic and frightening.

4) How did author Brad Schwartz describe the the broadcast and its reaction?

Brad Schwartz suggests that the show actually offered a "fascinating window into how users engage with media content, spreading and reinterpreting it to suit their own world views". 

5) Why did Orson Welles use hybrid genres and pastiche and what effect might it have had on the audience?

 He combined the conventions of radio broadcasting with the conventions of news and storyteling..He incorporated these two techniques in order to make it more interesting. By using the conventions of the radio newscast (pastiche), he creates moments of shock and awe, which  account for the strong reaction it received. This way people are more familiar with it.

6) How did world events in 1938 affect the way audiences interpreted the show?

In the run-up to the broadcast, scheduled radio reports were interrupted with emergency cut-ins, giving the audiences breaking news and updates surrounding Hitler's plans to invade and start the next world war.

7) Which company broadcast War of the Worlds in 1938?

CBS

8) Why might the newspaper industry have deliberately exaggerated the response to the broadcast?

The radio industry was relatively new at the time and newspapers were under threat as radio became a new competitor - they exaggerated the repsonse to the broadcast in an attempt to create a panic surrounding the impact of the radio industry, and cause them to lose listeners.

The newspaper industry have deliberately exaggerated the response to the broadcast so that they could discredit radio as a source of news and to create a panic around the radio industry and to make them lose listeners.The q930s and 1940s were considered the 'Golden Age of Radio' and newspapers were failing to compete well against them. Therefore, the newspaper industry sensationalised the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted.

“Radio is new but it has adult responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses,” said the editorial leader in the New York Times on November 1st 1938.

This is similar to how the newspaper industry views the internet as a threat now and how newspapers are always highlighting the dangers of the internet and social media.

9) Does War of the Worlds provide evidence to support the Frankfurt School's Hypodermic Needle theory?

The Hypodermic Needle theory suggests that consumers are "passive" in the way that they consume and react to the media. The response to the broadcast supports this theory, as masses of people believed the broadcast without cosndiering the evidence etc. 

10) How might Gerbner's cultivation theory be applied to the broadcast?

Cultivation theory suggests that the more we consume a form of media, the more susceptible we become to the effects of it. This applies to the War of the Worlds broadcast, because the more people listened to the radio and familiarised themselves with the conventions of cut-ins, breaking news and journalistic-style reporting, the more predisposed they were to believing the hoax and recording.

11) Applying Hall's Reception Theory, what could be the preferred and oppositional readings of the original broadcast?

Preferred reading - a broadcast designed to show the impact of the media and highlight the fact that you should not believe everything that you hear through the media without checking the facts and details yourself.

Oppositional reading - the broadcast was a way of taking advantage of the fears people already had, it was wrong to create such a believable hoax as it then went on to be replicated and cause the deaths of people in Quito Ecuador etc.

12) Do media products still retain the ability to fool audiences as it is suggested War of the Worlds did in 1938? Has the digital media landscape changed this?

I think that media products don't have the ability to fool audiences because there are other ways to view the same media products. We are able to tell if what we see is true or false. The audiences have become more aware of being manipulated by the media and that they are able to control them. 

Analysis and opinion

1) Why do you think the 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds has become such a significant moment in media history?

I think that it has become a significant broadcast in history because of the massive hysteria that it had on listeners at the time, and for years after. It is a demonstration of the fact that consumers can be manipulated by the media, and that media texts are constructed to evoke certain emotions and bring about a particular response.

2) War of the Worlds feels like a 1938 version of 'fake news'. But which is the greater example of fake news - Orson Welles's use of radio conventions to create realism or the newspapers exaggerating the audience reaction to discredit radio?

I think that the newspapers exaggerating the audinece reaction is more of an example of fake news. This is because even though both of these media texts were fake to some extent, the broadcast ultimately used the conventions of typical broadcast to create a realistic broadcast. The newspapers manipulated these conventions to exaggerate the effects in an attempt to encourage audience's to fear the impact of the radio.

3) Do you agree with the Frankfurt School's Hypodermic Needle theory? If not, was there a point in history audiences were more susceptible to believing anything they saw or heard in the media?

 I think that the theory may be disproved by the fact that our knowledge surrounding the audience's reaction to the WOTW broadcast stems from the newspapers and their headlines - the fact that these were exaggerated could mean that audiences were not as susceptible as we assumed to be.

4) Has the digital media age made the Hypodermic Needle model more or less relevant? Why?

It has made it less relevant because of the end of audiences (clay shirky) Audiences are now much more active and are aware of fake news.

5) Do you agree with George Gerbner's Cultivation theory - that suggests exposure to the media has a gradual but significant effect on audience's views and beliefs? Give examples to support your argument.

Cultivation theory suggests that TV viewing can have long-term, gradual but significant effects on the audience’s attitudes and beliefs. The media has the effect of changing people's attitudes unconsciously I think that this theory applies to a wide range of media products and texts and life.

6) Is Gerbner's Cultivation theory more or less valid today than it would have been in 1938? Why?

I think it is less valid today because audiences have become more educated than they were in the past.