Radio Index

Radio Introduction

Life Hacks Case Study

War of the Worlds Case Study

War of the Worlds: Case Study

Media Factsheet #176

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

• War of the Worlds was a novel written by H.G Wells, and was adapted for the radio by Orson Welles in 1938. The story is about an alien invasion from Mars, and consequentially a conflict between Earth and Mars.

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

• 1938. People believed that others flocked to the streets to witness the alien invasion, whilst many tried to evacuate their homes and made calls to the authorities and newspapers.

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

• As an example of 'mass hysteria' with people 'fleeing their homes to escape as gas raid from Mars' and that many had to be treated for shock and hysteria.

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

• He stated that it was 'not entirely a myth' and that it resembles a viral-media phenomenon, something a contemporary audience is rather familiar with, he also suggest that although the stories may be true it is important to take the exaggeration and fabrication of the press into consideration.

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

• Orson Welles uses a pastiche of news broadcasting conventions, to make the broadcast itself more realistic, the hybrid of news and sci-fi, also creates a blurring of boundaries between what's real and what's part of the story - especially in the time, where audience had become used to these conventions. This would have made them far more susceptible to believing the events of the fictional broadcast.

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

• There were a high density of broadcast interruptions bringing news of the war, or supposed attacks particularly from Europe, this meant that 'breaking news' was not uncommon and therefore may have been interpreted as real by listeners. 

Which company broadcast War of the Worlds in 1938?

• CBS Radio [Mercury Theatre]

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

• Radio was new technology, and provided news in a far more accessible and efficient way, which threatened the newspaper industry and it's monopoly in the news industry. By creating a technopanic, the newspaper industry was able to highlight the 'dangers of radio' and profit off of the fabrication of events. 

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

• I think that it arguably does, the audiences relied on radio for their news and the use of conventions and habit to gain a strong reaction from audiences would not have been as successful as it supposedly was if audiences were not at least a fraction passive. Despite this, I think that there's also a lot of other factors such as the use of professors, and named professionals and opinion leaders, which could also have an influence, making this event more of an evidence of the two-step flow model rather than the hypodermic needle theory. 

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

• Gerbner's cultivation theory suggests that the media has a gradual but significant impact on someone's beliefs and attitudes rather than behaviours, this can be referenced in relation to how the habits the audience developed regarding the news flashes, made them believe the fictitious news flashes more easily. 

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

• The preferred reading was to scare the audience, it was broadcast around Halloween, and suggests that this broadcast was meant to cause fear, anxiety and terror within the audience - a convention of both horror movies and perhaps Orson Welles way of making War of the Worlds 'less boring', this would mean that the absence of a reaction would be the oppositional reading and that the reaction, perhaps blown out of intended proportion, was a depiction of Orson Welles preferred reading.

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?

• Media products do still retain the ability to fool audiences, including the 1949 repetition in Kito, Ecuador and another instance in the 80s, this is not an isolated incident. People will always be impressionable, and as long as people exploit the habits of the general public, there will always be the ability to fool audiences, this can be seen in contemporary society through the use of 'clickbait' and the use of 'fake news' on social media. Despite the resources to fact check, and reference various sources before taking something as a truth, people are still gullible to online news and it's credibility, in recent years the clown epidemic for instance was a 'viral' trend when in reality it was far more small-scale as well as the technopanic regarding social media that's been commercialised by newspapers and traditional media.

Analysis and opinion

Why do you think the 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds has become such a significant moment in media history?

• War of the Worlds has become a significant moment in media history, not just because of the supposed hysteria that followed, but because of it's evidence as the first technopanic within the media. Even if the mass hysteria was exaggerated for the public eye, it is still an explicit depiction of how newspapers and the media have the power to warp and fabricate stories for desired audience reactions, in Orson Welles case it was to scare the audience and in the newspapers case the intention was to damage the reputation of the radio, and gain a competitive advantage. 

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 think that both are a great example of 'fake news' - Orson Welles use of radio conventions to create realistic news broadcasts, was quite literally an example of fake news, however I think that the newspapers exaggeration, and the audiences compliance when it came to discrediting radio is a greater example of fake news.

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?

• Personally, I disagree with the Hypodermic Needle theory, I believe that audience's are conscience consumers and have a far more active mindset when it comes to media consumption and susceptibility to the falsities within the media. However, when technology became revolutionised, during the early years of film and radio, I do believe that audiences were far more susceptible, since they perhaps didn't have the education or knowledge to discredit sources as we do in a modern society, however I don't believe it was a hegemonic ideology of the media being all knowing, or all factual. 

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

• The digital media age has objectively made the Hypodermic Needle model less relevant, as audiences are far more interactive, and with the introduction of social media, they can create and share information with ease. This allows false information to be discredited quicker, but also allows false information to be spread quickly, this could reinforce the ideas behind the Hypodermic Needle model. However, with sources being as accessible as they are, and the ability to validate information being a normalised and easy thing to do, I feel like this supports the idea of audiences having active mindsets and being far less susceptible to being completely passive, however the dependency on the media does raise an argument for the opposing view. 

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 agree with Gerbner's Cultivation theory, in relation to the digital media I would have to reference the concept of online feminism, the high density of liberalised views as well as the alternative online had a large influence over the 2016 US Elections, there was an outcry of tolerance as well as, the use of social media platforms to promote extremist and perhaps outdated perspectives and they both held a weight within our society, due to this I do believe that Gerbner's theory does hold some credibility within a modern day society.

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

• Gerbner's Cultivation theory is far more valid today than it would have been in 1938, due to the exposure of the general public to an array of wars, online revolutions and key social and cultural moments, this has had a gradual but significant impact on people's beliefs and attitudes in both positive and negative ways. Social media allowed people to be educated on topics outside of their personal politics, and promoted tolerance for certain issues as well as being utilised for protests etc. which links to the idea of influencing beliefs, whereas the constant high density of seemingly negative content does lend itself to the idea of 'Mean World Syndrome' and skeptical mindsets within society. I feel like this is far more valid today, in the day and age of personalised content and high density media usage, it is not an inconceivable concept to suggest that this is having an impact on our beliefs and attitudes to our society.