War of the Worlds: Blog tasks
Media Factsheet
Read Media Factsheet #176: CSP Radio - War of the Worlds. You'll need your Greenford Google login to download it. Then answer the following questions:
1) What is the history and narrative behind War of the Worlds?
Orson Welles’ 1938 radio play is an adaption of H.G. Wells’ novel of the same name, first published in 1898. It tells the story of an alien invasion and the ensuing conflict between mankind and an extra- terrestrial race from Mars. The text has been frequently interpreted as a commentary on British Imperialism and Victorian fear and prejudice. The book has been adapted for both radio and (several) films, including the 2005 version starring Tom Cruise. It was also famously turned into a best-selling musical album by Jeff Wayne in 1978 (recently updated by Gary Barlow as a touring stage musical).
Broadcast live on 30th October 1938, popular myth has it that thousands of New Yorkers fled their homes in panic, and all across America people crowded the streets to witness for themselves the real space battle between earth and the Martians.
The Trenton Police Department (close to the site of the fictional invasion) received over 2000 calls in less than two hours, while the New York Times switchboard received 875 calls from concerned listeners wanting to know where they would be safe. Such hysteria was caused by Welles’ clever adaption of the story, reporting on the events through faux newscasts, and presenting the narrative in a way that has been described as “too realistic and frightening.” The following morning newspapers across the country revelled in the mass hysteria it had caused. The New York Times headline read, “Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.”
Author Brad Schwartz in his 2015 book ‘Broadcast Hysteria: Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds and the Art of Fake News’ suggests that hysteria it caused was not entirely a myth. “Instead it was something decades ahead of its time: history’s first viral-media phenomenon.” He argues that “the stories of those whom the show frightened offer a fascinating window onto how users engage with media content, spreading and reinterpreting it to suit their own world views. But it’s even more important to understand how the press magnified and distorted those reactions, creating a story that terrified the nation all over again, so that we can recognise when the same thing happens today.
His version of War of the Worlds reworks a Victorian narrative about an alien invasion (which he considered “boring”) and turns it into an exciting radio play through his use of pastiche. By borrowing the conventions of the radio newscast, he is able to create real moments of shock and awe, which almost certainly account for the strong reaction it received. By creating a hybrid form – mixing conventional storytelling with news conventions – Welles blurred the boundaries between fact and fiction in a way that audiences had never experienced.
In September 1938, one month prior to the plays broadcast, Hitler signed the Munich Agreement annexing portions of Czechoslovakia and creating the ‘Sudetenland’. Europe’s failed appeasement of Germany was viewed with much concern and for many it seemed that another world war was inevitable. At this time, both the radio networks, including CBS, frequently interrupted programmes to issue news bulletins with updates on the situation in Europe.
At this time, both the radio networks, including CBS, frequently interrupted programmes to issue news bulletins with updates on the situation in Europe.
8) Why might the newspaper industry have deliberately exaggerated the response to the broadcast?
It has been suggested that the panic was trumped up by the newspapers to rubbish this new
medium which it viewed as a huge threat. “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. Professors Jefferson Pooley and Michael J Socolow writing in Slate magazine in 2013 state: “How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America’s newspapers. Radio had siphoned off advertising revenue from print during the Depression, badly damaging the newspaper industry.
Orson Welles’ broadcast is frequently cited as an example to supportv passive audience theories, such as the Frankfurt School’s ‘Hypodermic Syringe Theory’. This states that audiences consume and respond to media texts in an unquestioning way, believing what they read, see or hear. This might be true of the audiences of the 1930s, unfamiliar with new media forms like radio, but in the modern age it carries less weight. It is questionable as to how far most of the audience were actually duped by the broadcast. As has been noted, those who ‘bought into’ the idea of an invasion, may well have been influenced by external factors such as the social and political context of the time. It was not impossible to believe that a foreign power was invading
American soil in 1938.
Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory might offer a more accurate explanation of the audience’s behaviour in response to the radio broadcast since it emphasises the longer-term effects that media texts have upon audiences. Based on his research into television viewing, cultivation theory states that high frequency viewers of television are more susceptible to media messages and the belief that they are real. Heavy viewers of TV are thought to be ‘cultivating’ attitudes that seem to believe that the world created by television is an accurate depiction of the real world. Applied to War of the Worlds it could be argued that an audience familiar with the frequent interruptions to radio shows over the weeks leading up to the broadcast did not question the faux invasion broadcasts during Welles’ production.
Stuart Hall’s Reception Theory is useful when considering how the audience for War of the Worlds interpreted the text (as either fact or fiction). He argues that audiences might read a media text in different ways. The dominant or preferred reading by the audience is the one intended by the creator of the text. However, a person might read it in an oppositional way depending upon factors such as their age, gender or background. For example, a young male is likely to ‘read’
page three of The Sun as a bit of harmless fun (the preferred reading), whereas a female might regard it as offensive. Hall also suggests that readings of a media text might be negotiated. This is an acceptance of the preferred reading but modified in a way that reflects the audience’s
own position, experiences and interests.
The 1938 and 1949 radio broadcasts of War of the Worlds clearly had the power to deceive at least some of the listening audience, but could any media product create such an impact today? Are audiences too sophisticated and media-literate to be fooled by a similar stunt? In the late 1990s, and inspired by Orson Welles’ 1938 broadcast, two young filmmakers made the low budget film The Blair Witch Project. Supposedly made up ‘found footage’ shot by three student filmmakers who go missing while shooting a documentary about a local legend (the Blair Witch), the film sparked debate among audiences as to
whether the footage was actually real. However, given that audiences received the text in a movie theatre (or on video and DVD) it is unlikely to have fooled the audience in quite the same way – or with the same authority – as a series of radio news bulletins.
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?
As it showed how easy the media are able to manipulate and trick the audience. The way that they were able to contrast the radio into to tricking people which lead to over 2000 calls to the police just proved that the audience are easily manipulated when it comes to constructed media pieces
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 New York times makes it way more believable.
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?
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?
the audiences of the 1930s, unfamiliar with new media forms like radio, but in the modern age it carries less weight. It is questionable as to how far most of the audience were actually duped by the broadcast. As has been noted, those who ‘bought into’ the idea of an invasion, may well have been influenced by external factors such as the social and political context of the time. It was not impossible to believe that a foreign power was invading American soil in 1938.
Stuart Hall’s Reception Theory is useful when considering how the audience for War of the Worlds interpreted the text (as either fact or fiction).
Heavy viewers of TV are thought to be ‘cultivating’ attitudes that seem to believe that the world created by television is an accurate depiction of the real world. Applied to War of the Worlds it could be argued that an audience familiar with the frequent interruptions to radio shows
over the weeks leading up to the broadcast did not question the faux invasion broadcasts during Welles’ production.
6) Is Gerbner's Cultivation theory more or less valid today than it would have been in 1938? Why?
Stuart Hall’s Reception Theory is useful when considering how the audience for War of the Worlds interpreted the text (as either fact or fiction). He argues that audiences might read a media text in different ways. The dominant or preferred reading by the audience is the one intended by the creator of the text. However, a person might read it in an oppositional way depending upon factors such as their age, gender or background. For example, a young male is likely to ‘read’
page three of The Sun as a bit of harmless fun (the preferred reading), whereas a female might regard it as offensive. Hall also suggests that readings of a media text might be negotiated. This is an acceptance of the preferred reading but modified in a way that reflects the audience’s
own position, experiences and interests.
Comments
Post a Comment