Shaping factors of the radio industry in the 1920s

When discussing a media as large as the radio, it is no wonder that a single factor cannot be credited for the streamlining of the industry that exploded in the 1920s.  Rather, one could argue that one factor played a larger role than others.  I believe that regulation and government intervention in the radio industry was the main force that influenced the shaping of the formation of the radio industry in the 1920s.  Most would argue that that main force was technological change, but while it is true that there would be no radio without technology, it was what the government did with this grand technology and how they used and manipulated it, that made the radio into the industry it was from the 1920s to around 1955. 

The government first became involved with the radio after the tragic sinking of the Titanic in 1912.  Although the message was late, it was an emergency call sent from a Marconi radio transmitter that brought help to the stray survivors.  The use of Marconi’s radio in such an important situation brought the device to the attention of the government and fear arose of a technology of such power being used by foreign enemies and amateurs bringing chaos to the airways.  The Navy then gained control of the technology but after WWI the government gave the radio back to the control of the public with a few strings attached.  The Radio Act of 1912 was passed forming the Federal Radio Commissions.  In 1926 the government sensed that a monopoly was forming in the industry, and the FRC forced the AT&T monopoly to sell their assets to the Radio Corporations of America, thereby forming competition.  The Radio Act of 1927 provided the government with the power to issue licensees to stations (required to have an airway), set standards that would be expected by the radio industry, and allocated the air frequencies.  The FRC later became the current Federal Communications Commissions, breaking up another monopoly (The RCA ironically; they did after all create it in a way) by forcing RCA to sell one of their networks to ABC.  The FCC assigned frequencies and licenses to promote competition, localism (awareness of news in home area), as well as prevent chaos on the airways. 

The regulation and government intervention with the radio really helped to pave the path that network radio took.  Government involvement influenced what type of shows would be aired, who would be talking, and when different shows would be heard.  This created a sense of community, and national pride, especially during WWII.  The Radio Act of 1927 was the first real intrusion of the government into the media industry, and it formed the long lasting relationship between the radio (and later many other medias such as television) and the government.

Social Learning Theory and a rise in teenage pregnancies

            Social Learning Theory is the idea that viewers mimic behaviors, styles, actions, etc. that they see in the media.  This blog post will explain in depth the idea behind the theory of social learning as well as provide a horrifying example said to be linked to the popularization of teenage pregnancies. 

The concept of the Social Learning Theory is in its simplest terms the idea that the target audiences of different media will slowly start to imitate the behavior portrayed in these media. This theory is proven daily on a basic level of what is seen as “fashionable.”  New trends catch on all the time because young girls saw a celebrity pictured in a similar outfit on a magazine cover or web blog.  Although media influencing what people wear might seem miniscule in importance, many people are worried about what this theory entails on a larger scale, in terms of actual actions and behaviors.  In essence the theory states that viewers will start to intimidate the attitudes and behaviors that they view on their favorite television shows and movies.

            Currently many parents are worried about the messages being sent to young girls through today’s more popular television shows.  Shows such as MTVs “Teen Mom,” and ABC Family’s “The Secret Life of the American Teenager,” have been said to be linked to the sudden rise in teenage pregnancies in the United States.  These television shows revolve around the topic of teenage pregnancy and have been accused of popularizing the idea of being a teenage mother.  The reality show “Teen Mom” gives young girls the idea that they can get famous by having a baby, and shows like the popular “Secret Life” give girls the false pretense that there lives can carry on like normal after having a baby.  “Teen Mom” spreads an idea that if you want your boyfriend to stick around all you have to do is get pregnant (last scene of the clip I attached).  The main character in “Secret Life” has two boys vying for her love and attention, and other girls jealous of her and her situation.   Her sister even cries in one scene wishing that the boy’s father loved her and states that he would if she had gotten pregnant by him instead of her sister.  It is all a very twisted reality because in the real world many guys would run for the hills instead of stick around.  Staying in school as a teenage mom is in reality extremely difficult, but shows make it seem like a cake walk because the parents are more than willing to watch the baby during the day.  This twisted reality that shows portray has recently led to “Pregnancy pacts” by high school girls.  The article I have attached is about a group of seventeen girls, all under the age of sixteen, that made a pact to get pregnant and raise there babies together.  Sounds like fun right?  These girls have through the social learning theory bought into these false realities of how cool and fun it is to have a kid as a teenage.  They have in essence adopted the behaviors of the star characters of these television shows.  I have attached a YouTube clip of a trailer for the show “Teen Mom” along with an article about a recent pregnancy pact made by seventeen girls at a high school in Massachusetts. 

Teen Mom Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEjiM0sESus 

Article about High School pregnancy pact:

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/pregnancy-pact-at-one-high-school-leads-to-17-soon-to-be-teen-moms-189557/  

**For some reason the article link is not working, but if you copy and paste the URL into the search bar the article will come right up!  Sorry for the inconvenience.**

A Lesson in Agenda Setting and Framing!

Agenda Setting and Framing dictate what and how people discuss the hot topics of today’s world.  This blog post will explain just what agenda setting and framing are, and includes examples of each to better ones understanding of the topics discussed.  The example of agenda setting shows how a man with no standing at all gained the attention of the world (including the President of the United States) over night, and the example of framing provides a humorous example of how framing can completely change how something is viewed by the public eye.

‘Agenda setting’ controls what the public pays attention to.  People discuss the topics that are presented in the media all around them.  There are gatekeepers that decide which stories get published and which ones do not.  People have conversations completely revolving around the lives of The Kardashians because the media has placed them in the eye of the public with reality TV shows, magazine covers, and a myriad of web blog coverage.  More people will discuss the tragedy that occurred on 9/11 on September 11^th because memorials will be everywhere, programs will be aired about the events, new graphic pictures will surface, and more all to gain the attention of the public.  It is the ‘what.’  The concept of ‘Framing’ is in simpler terms how the media presents the information they publish.  How something is framed dictates how the public will perceive the information they read about and see.  Ranging from political to celebrity news, it is a rarity to find something completely void of framing (non-biased) without the intent to present something in either a bad or a bright light.   Due to the massive presence of the media in today’s society, media has gained the power to greatly influence what we focus our attention on (agenda setting), and in turn how we think about an issue, person, movie, etc, (this is framing).

            A great example of agenda setting occurred a couple days ago when headlines hit around the nation reading, ‘WORLD WATCHES AS A GAINESVILLE PASTOR THREATENS TO BURN QURAN.’  This news story of a Florida “Pastors’” threats to burn the Quran on 9/11 was so rampant in the media that the secretary of defense and President Obama took the time to ask this man not to act.  It became a matter of national security, concerning the safety of our troops in Iraq.  The sad thing is that if looked into further this man was not a man of great influence.  Rather his “congregation” is composed of less than fifty people (a meeting that could occur inside his house).  Yet, because the press used the word ‘Pastor’ to describe this man, people were led to believe he had a sermon aired on television, a massive community of support behind him and more.  Clearly, had the press never given this man the time of day, this national security risk would have remained non-existent.  This man’s following was so small nobody would have ever even known.  Here is a link to the article that created so much frenzy http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=145224&catid=81

            A funny example of framing I found concerns how press agents working for Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign completely changed the light in which her great uncle was painted.  This was done not thorough lying, but merely through a change of words, tone, and the absence of a few facts and a picture.  It is quite humorous in the completely polar switch of how a person reading the original article would view the man and how the person reading the secondary article would see him. http://ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2007/11/political-spin-at-its-best.html