Technogical Determinsm in Radio

Without many crucial technological advances made in the early 1920’s, the development, and prolongation of radio, as we know it today, would be completely different.

According to the theory of Technological Determinism, technology is the driving force behind social and cultural changes. Simply put, as technology develops we develop. Not the other way around. This applies not just to radio, but also to many other facets of media today. For example the invention of Internet and smart-phones allows us access to information and means of communication at all times of the day. The development of affordable TVs led to families owning more than one, and therefore watching more television in general.

In terms of Radio, the most important technological advancement was quite possibly the vacuum tube. This allowed for the transmission and reception of sound, voice, and music. This way, by the 1920’s, radio could be used by stores to advertise goods, news outlets to transmit bulletins, schools and churches to publicize their beliefs, and eventually, as David Sarnoff envisioned, the broadcasting of music. Technology developed further however, and as Technological Determinism would suggest, the invention of television in the 1940’s led audiences to shift their focus towards visual entertainment.

Here's a gret PBS page about the technological development of radio:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rescue/sfeature/radio.html

Cultivation in American Television

After studying the theory of Cultivation in terms of television’s effect on its viewers, it becomes clear that television has a direct influence on people's thoughts towards society.

The Cultivation theory argues that exposure to mass media creates a new set of opinions that are generally constant with the beliefs of others who view mass media. To simplify for this argument; according to the theory of Cultivation, people who watch a lot of television, tend to have similar (often incorrect) views to other frequent television viewers. This is because the media provide a consistent message to their viewers. These opinions can involve gender biases, racial stereotypes, and misconceptions towards violence.

An excellent example of this would be a study conducted by N. Signorielli and M. Lears, in 1992. They studied the effects of television in terms of the manifestation of gender roles among young children. Researchers asked the children which chores they thought boys should do, which chores girls should do, and which chores both genders should do. They found that the children who watched more tv had views more consistent to the ones presented in American television; such as, boys should mow the lawn and fix things around the house, and girls should do the dishes and help cook. It’s hard to ignore the obvious effects television had on these young children and their thoughts regarding gender.

Here's a link to a summary of Signorielli and Lears' study:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6486/Cultivation-Theory-and-Media-Effects.html

Framing in New Media

            In today’s world, the media’s ability to ‘frame’ issues leads to the provision of biased information to an unknowing audience.

            Framing is the act of shaping the way people think about an issue or person. New media uses this technique to virtually control public opinion. We are subtly supplied with films, television shows, newspaper articles, and other forms of media all with their own opinion and agenda. This opinion is unsuspectingly transferred to its audience—practically changing how the audience thinks. Competing opinions generally produce competing media, both of which have the intention of influencing its viewers’ perspectives.

                       

            American politics provides us with countless examples of framing. In 2008, leading up to the presidential elections, Barack Obama made a considerable speech about race. Using the responses made by just two media sources, we can see exactly how framing works. The New York Times—a typically liberal media source—published an editorial the next day that compared Obama’s speech to Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural address. After talking about the pressures on Obama leading up to the speech, the article said, “It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.” On the other hand, just hours later, Fox News aired a reaction to the speech saying, “This cannot be good for the presidential campaign, and it cannot be good for his own campaign.” These are two tremendously different reactions to the same speech. Why? Because they both have an agenda of trying to frame their viewers into thinking the same way they do—the way their either conservative or liberal benefactors want them to.  

Here's a link to a transcript of the original speech: http://obamaspeeches.com/E05-Barack-Obama-A-More-Perfect-Union-the-Race-Speech-Philadelphia-PA-March-18-2008.htm

Here's a link to the NY times reaction: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Here's a link to Fox News' reaction: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339250,00.html

Here's a link to a great video that touches on the same issues "Killing us Softy" did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U&feature=related