Radio & The Government

     The formation of the radio industry can be viewed as a result of numerous historical influences, including rapid technological advances, demands of widespread audiences, and the interests of the nation's various commercial industries. While it is likely that each of these forces had a simultaneous impact on the growth of the radio industry, one force in particular seems to have carried an especially heavy influence in the medium's early history - this is the occurrence of government regulations for radio.Government regulation served to increase and improve the public's interest in radio - to magnify radio from an obscure technological innovation into an important aspect of the public's lives.
     Whenever the government regulates any particular industry, it is an indication that the industry has become significant to the lives of everyday consumers. The radio industry is not an exception; when U.S. Congress began enacting regulations on the use of radio, this indicated that radio could carry import in the field of communication. Therefore, technological innovators began to realize that the concept of radio must necessarily be applied to everyday life. Without the presence of government regulations, radio may not have gained such attention as an essential means of communication. With regulation, however, audiences are attracted to the technology, thus allowing industries to spread the technological concepts into new and widespread media.
     The Radio Act of 1912 is likely the clearest example of this phenomenon; after the disaster with the RMS Titanic in 1912, as well as various radio conflicts in the U.S. Navy, the government introduced pivotal regulations for radio operators, requiring all vessels to keep a constant radio watch over nearby ships and radio stations. Given the highly publicized nature of the Titanic disaster, this regulation launched radio technology directly into the attention of the public - suddenly, the nation realized that this new technology could make the difference between life and death abroad. It was this sense of familiarity and attention that allowed the industry to blossom beyond its base; not long after the regulations, David Sarnoff expressed his vision of the radio as a common household object, which would ultimately define the future of radio. Although the technology may have been visible to Sarnoff in many places even without government regulation, the Radio Act of 1912 doubtlessly gave radio an insurmountable amount of attention and importance; it built a bridge between technological advances and the everyday citizen, eventually allowing the public to take part in the technological invention.

Following & Controlling in the Media

     There are opposing theories concerning whether the media has strong effects or limited effects; that is, whether things such as advertisements are responsible for our culture's ideology and perception, or individuals are intelligent and rational enough to accept and interpret advertisements selectively, according to their own independent values. This issue leads to an important question in society: does the media control our interests, or does it simply follow them? From my perspective, the media exercises a certain amount of both attempted control and natural following; it pursues society's inherent interests, and then oftentimes attempts to persuade the audience of certain ideas. On the whole, however, I view the media as a self-sustained and cooperative institution; there is not one dominant force that controls all ideologies, but rather, a plethora of various beliefs that engage in smooth conversation with one another throughout the media.
     I believe that society begins as inherently intelligent and self-interested; individuals have benefits that they are naturally inclined to pursue, such as food, shelter, companionship, and resources, and in order to obtain these benefits, they seek out the most rational solution, ideally using it to advance themselves and society as a whole. It is this natural order of needs that has allowed the media to come into power; media institutions are aware of society's needs, and so they produce material that appeals to the concerns of their audience. In this way, the media is simply following the interests of the public; however, it has grown more complex as society has expanded and increased. With growing populations and communities, a number of varying ideologies have emerged, meaning an increase in the public's interests. And with so many interests in society, we cannot view one popular ideology as the unanimous truth of the population. Likewise in the media, because there are so many different messages being presented (many intended for persuasive purposes), we cannot view one as the unshakable source of control; rather, the various messages coexist in constant conversation with one another, and the viewer is free to interpret them.
     As an example, let us examine an observation made in the documentary Tough Guise: the documentary's host observes that the ideal physicality of men and women has evolved over the decades. We are shown that in the 1950s, the full-bodied Marilyn Monroe was considered the paragon of beauty, while present-day media presents women who are extremely thin; likewise for males, the documentary shows how the GI-Joe doll has evolved from a fit male figure into an unrealistically bulky action hero, complete with over-sized biceps. The documentary seems to overlook the possibility that this evolution is a result, and not merely a cause of established ideology. We know that, as time has passed, society has increasingly stressed a healthy diet and plenty of exercise; several modern interest groups condemn fattening fast-food institutions, and countless public programs remind us of the importance of fitness and physical exercise. In my personal view, these health-driven movements can very possibly be connected to the evolution of the physical paragon. This is not necessarily a negative occurrence; it is simply an example of how society's interests can converse with one another: society becomes increasingly interested in fitness and non-fattening diets, and therefore, the media appeals to the growing health interest. I believe it is important that this concept not be excluded from discussion.
     In short, I believe that individuals are presented with countless messages, and are free to make countless choices independently. It is true that many media sources attempt to persuade their audience; they desire control over those who identify with them. My conclusion, however, is that individuals are intelligent enough to scan the enormously diverse media world, and, according to their own interests, decide which concepts they are willing to 'buy' - the media may often desire control, but is not whatsoever unified.

Framing in the Media

     The media's use of ideological framing is a controversial issue; whenever an organization publishes material that can be construed as sympathetic toward any particular ideology or agenda, sparks will fly amongst well-known pundits and watchdog groups. Political reports and messages are especially common targets of criticism: we have all heard that organizations such as The Wall Street Journal or Fox News frame subject matter in a way that is sympathetic toward politically conservative ideologies, and likewise that organizations such as The New York Times or MSNBC do the opposite, framing their material in a way that promotes a politically liberal agenda. It is my personal view that this use of framing can indeed occur on both sides, and that a common tactic of framing is this: for an organization to portray its political opponents as alien and disconnected from the viewer/audience.
     When publishing any kind of material, whether it be newspaper articles, television reports, advertisements, or artwork, the creators consider who their target audience is, and this is an important aspect to consider when framing such material. If organizations know who they are addressing, then it is clearer how they should make their audience think about the issue at hand, and which side the audience will most likely take. Therefore, what organizations often attempt is to establish one side as the 'norm' - the side that the audience recognizes as their own familiar ideological base - and then to depict the opposing force as the 'oddball' - a position that the audience will not understand, and thus not support. In doing so, organizations can keep their ideological influence over the audience; rather than have the audience wander away from whatever particular belief is desired, the media continues to paint heroes and villains in the picture, thus cementing and immortalizing the various 'sides' that have risen over time.
     As I have mentioned, this can occur with any number of ideological beliefs and agendas, but as an example, I have selected an article written by the Associated Press, which, in my personal view, seems to portray a Republican economic strategy as bizarre and alien. This article explains that John Boehner, the House Republican leader, advises against tax increases for the wealthy during the recession; the article's subtitle clarifies this position, saying 'He considers it "bad policy"'. The use of quotation marks is central to the argument I am making; by placing Boehner's words in quotation marks as part of the subtitle (and once again at the beginning of the actual article), the Associated Press is conveying to the audience that Boehner's position is strange and unfamiliar. The article later reports that one of President Obama's chief economic advisers is happy that Boehner is willing to politically compromise; in the article's words, that he 'isn't willing to hold hostage an extension of tax cuts.' This particular selection of words is critical; the words 'hold hostage' characterize Boehner as a stubborn and perhaps even threatening figure due to his political agenda, and for those who would indeed oppose Boehner's political ideas, these words solidify the concept that Boehner's ideology is foreign.
     I would like to reiterate that such ideological framing can occur in any number of places; it is not the sole hobby of the Associated Press, nor is it limited to alienating Republican politicians. However, I feel that this article is a good example of such influential alienation; by establishing one side as logical and familiar, and the other side as questionable and foreign, the article can easily control how readers consider the issue.


Here is a link to the AP article, which I discovered on msnbc.com:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39131165/ns/politics/