Radio: War of the Worlds

 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?

War of the Worlds is the radio adaptation of H.G. Wells novel which narrates the story of an alien invasion and conflict between mankind and an extra-terrestrial race from Mars. The radio station had many audiences believing the fictional play as real life events taking place which resulted in 'mass hysteria' being caused by the media. 

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

War of the Worlds was first broadcast on 30th October 1938. The popular myth regarding the reaction from the audience was that the press and media over exaggerated the audiences reaction to the broadcast and that the streets of New York were actually deserted that night as well as the fact that only a small number of people listened to the broadcast. In addition, the broadcast was not just a hoax that was just sprung on the audience but it was actually a scheduled broadcast and included warnings that it was a fictional telling throughout the broadcast. 

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

The next day the New York Times over exaggerated the reaction mentioning that thousands of people called the police, radio stations and newspapers seeking advice on protective measures. As well as the fact that the broadcast disrupted households, interrupted religious services, created traffic jams and clogged communication systems. In general, the New York Times over exaggerated the audiences response to the broadcast. 

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

Brad Schwartz suggested that the hysteria the broadcast created was not entirely a myth. Schwartz argued 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. Our news media still have a penchant for making us fear the wrong things, of inflating certain stories into false Armageddons, as they did with War of the Worlds.”

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

Orson Welles used conventions of a radio newscast to be able to turn a Victorian narrative about an alien invasion that might have been considered 'boring' for an audience into some exciting radio play to create real moments of shock and awe within an audience. Orson created a hybrid form by blurring the boundaries between fact and fiction in a way that audiences have never experienced. 

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

In September 1938, 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. As a result, audiences became familiar with such interruptions and were thus more accepting of Welles’ faux newscasts at the beginning of the play. For most Americans, as for most Europeans, these were scary times which put them on edge. Many listeners believed that what they were listening to was an account of an invasion by the Germans.

7) Which company broadcast War of the Worlds in 1938?

In 1938, War of the Worlds was broadcast by the CBS Radio Network. 

8) Why might the newspaper industry have deliberately exaggerated the response to the broadcast?

The newspaper industry deliberately exaggerate the response to the broadcast as it was trying to rubbish this new medium 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. So, the papers seized the opportunity presented by Welles’s programme, perhaps to discredit radio as a source of news. The newspaper industry sensationalised the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted.”

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

The Hypodermic Needle theory suggests that audiences believe everything they read, see and hear on the Internet. 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.

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

Gerbner's 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.

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

The preferred reading of the original broadcast is that audiences enjoyed the broadcast and found it entertaining and fun whereas the oppositional reading of the original broadcast is that audiences actually believed the broadcast and were terrified that an alien invasion was actually happening despite the warnings. 

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?

I believe that the digital media landscape have changed this as now audiences can rely for news in many different media platforms instead of just radio and newspapers. Audiences are able to find out about news much better due to the Internet as well as I believe as technology evolved many audiences either don't care about news or can tell when something is fake news. 

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?

I believe the 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds has become such a significant moment in media history due to the fact that it proved the Hypodermic Needle theory that consumers do in fact believe everything they hear, see and read on the Internet and how it can lead to a major moral panic. 

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?

I believe the newspapers exaggerating the audience reaction to discredit radio is the greater example of fake news as Orson Welles did warn his audience that the radio play is all just a fiction story throughout the broadcast whereas the newspapers just exaggerated the audience reaction to purposefully try to scare off audiences from radio in order to maintain their audience. 

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?

I do agree with the Hypodermic Needle theory to a certain extent, I believe the older generation is more likely to believe everything they see on the Internet whereas younger audiences either don't bother reading the news anymore or are able to tell what is fake news and what's not. 

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

The digital media age has made the Hypodermic Needle model less relevant as there is more of an increase in influencers and social media creators than ever before therefore it could be suggested that audiences now follow 'opinion leaders' more than the news. 

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.

I do agree with Gerbner's Cultivation theory especially in young people who are exposed to the media at such a young age as the more you see these 'opinion leaders'/ influencers that become their idols the more likely they are to stand for what they believe in as in their eyes this influencer is their role model. 

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

Gerbner's Cultivation theory is more valid today than in 1938 as I believe audiences consumer media much more nowadays than in 1938 therefore it would be difficult to not spend a long time on the Internet meaning audiences are more exposed and more likely to believe the information and things they are viewing on the Internet.