Radio: War of the Worlds (1938)

Go to our Media Factsheet archive on the Media Shared drive and open Factsheet #176: CSP Radio - War of the Worlds. Our Media Factsheet archive is on the Media Shared drive: M:\Resources\A Level\Media Factsheets - you'll need to save the factsheet to USB or email it to yourself in order to complete this at home. Read the factsheet and answer the following questions:

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

 

It was an adaptation from H.G Wells' 1898 novel.

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

30th October 1938.
The audience reacted dramatically and 1 out of 12 liteners thought that it was true.

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

"Radio Listeners in Panis, Taking War Drama as Fact"- shows the histeria behing the WotW

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

Schwartz indicates that reporting on the impact of the broadcast was not solely exaggerated ; he means that the effect it had was in fact an instance of a "viral-media phenomenon." He indicates that the show actually provided a "fascinating window into how users engage with media content, spreading and reinterpreting it

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

It was because it heighten the effect that it had on audiences. Also radio was very popular.

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

It was the time when people knew that something is going to happen. The war was something obvious so the show was really bad timed.

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?

At the time, the radio industry was relatively new and newspapers were under threat as radio became a new competitor-they exaggerated the response to broadcasting in an attempt to create a panic surrounding the radio industry's impact, causing listeners to lose out.

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

It definitely had the evidence of that, the effect on the audience was very strange, but we can't forget about what people were expecting at that time

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

It's simply applied to the hyper-needle theory as it says that the audience will consume anything that is said in media as true, which happened in case of the Was of the Worlds show.

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

The preferred is definitely the idea of people actually recognising that it's a show and the events aren't real.
The oppositional is what actually happened. People thought that it was real and started to panic.

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?

 

There are still a lot of things like that that we see on  the internet, but it's more from the 'digital influencers' that e.g. shows photoshoped pictures on their profiles which fools the audience in believeing that that's a normal standard for a person.

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?

It show the impact of media when people are very easy to believe anything that the media say. It represents the idea of something impossinble becoming possible only through media and showing how easly infliuenced people are.

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?

The newspapers that exaggerate the reaction of audinece are more like fake news. This is because although both of these media texts were somewhat fake, the broadcast eventually used typical broadcast conventions to produce a realistic broadcast

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?

There's definitely a part of it that I agree with, but in XXI century is less likely to see such impact on an audience because we're getting more and more aware of just how fake the news can be.

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

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.

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

I think it's a little less valid, but only because media chenged the way that they contriol or 'injest'  the information to the audience. Not people are stuck being self contious and the materialism is what in injected to their brains through social media. People also wat to be relatable and to be seen , they went attention and that is the weaknes of today's audiences- that they watch but also create.