Audience Demand and the Shape of the Radio

To be fair, there were many different factors shaping the development of radio in the 1920s. To develop tunnel vision and only focus on one would grossly oversimplify the industry's complications. However, that being said, out of all the factors, I believe audience demand was the most crucial to radio's development in the 1920s, as without it, none of the other factors would have a lasting effect; audience demand sustains the industry.

Audience demand is something of an amorphous concept; difficult to describe in concrete terms. On the surface, it's exactly what it sounds like: what the audience demands from its media. This has a powerful effect on all media industries. For this topic, radio will be focused on. Is there demand for a country music station? One will surely pop up. Does demand die down for hip hop? The local hip hop station may very well go out of business or be forced to radically alter its playlists and style. Although the industry suits would no doubt love it, it is not always possible to tell the audience what they want. Media bows to audience demand.

Audience demand had a very blunt, direct effect on the development of radio in the 1920s. As it was a fledgling industry, those in charge were still looking for ways to turn radio into a profitable venture. They settled on a system that is intimately familiar to us today. Advertisers paid to have their ads carried on radio programs. This was revolutionary for the time. However, there was one unknown factor: would audiences reject radio if it featured too much advertising, rather than constant programming? This is where audience demand came into play. This was a brand new medium, and audiences wanted to eat it up, no matter what. If it had advertisements, so be it. A necessary evil for one of the most exciting inventions people had ever seen. Audience demand was strong enough to propel the advertising-based model forward, shaping not just the radio of the 1920s, but the radio of all decades to come. Audience demand created the radio format we still have to this very day.

No images for this entry. I just couldn't find any interesting ones about radio, and I certainly didn't want to dip into generic images! At least the post actually has a title this time!

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

Based only on the above trailer, would you see Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World? You certainly wouldn't be alone if you said no. Despite almost universal praise, the movie was a box office flop. What could cause a quality film, already well on its way to becoming a cult classic, to be such a failure financially? I think the social learning theory can at least partially explain what factors worked against Scott Pilgrim, most notably in regards to its lead actor and its subject matter.

The social learning theory is a complicated concept, with two primary components: that users imitate attitudes and behavior, and that users select media based on expected outcomes of behavior. The first component is self-explanatory, but the second can be more confusing. For most people who saw The Last Airbender, the outcome was a feeling of complete disappointment, and anger at having wasted money on the film. Users will then expect the same outcome from M. Night Shyamalan's next film and be wary of it, or avoid it altogether. This is a learned expectation, and represents quite a hurdle for any media to get over.

A very similar expectation can be applied to Scott Pilgrim's star, Michael Cera. Cera got his start playing the awkward teenager George-Michael Bluth in the beloved television show Arrested Development. After the show ended, Cera crossed over to film... where he seemingly played the same awkward teenager in every role. It may have worked for him in Juno, but for many people, the shtick was wearing thin. By the time Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, Year One, and Youth in Revolt rolled around, almost everyone had had enough. Unfortunately for Scott Pilgrim, the expected outcome of seeing a Michael Cera film had become negative. In much the same manner, the film itself had to fight the stigma of being a "video game movie." Despite being based on a comic book, the film made no attempt to hide its overt video game influences. As such, many instantly dismissed it as another Mortal Kombat or Resident Evil. Scott Pilgrim has almost nothing in common with those films, but years of experience cause viewers to expect a negative outcome from "video game movies." The social learning theory played against the film, and it couldn't rise above the expectations attributed to it.

The images used in this post can be found here:
http://www.comicsbeat.com/2010/03/19/the-scott-pilgrim-movie-poster/
http://www.zath.co.uk/scott-pilgrim-rocks-the-universe-like-no-other/

My personal expectations played against Scott Pilgrim. I had the chance to see it for free at the San Diego Comic-Con, but I refused. This is easily my biggest regret of the summer.

Framing Mass Effect

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU

Several years ago, the above video became infamous among Internet message board users for the blatant falsehoods being presented as news. I think the concept of framing clearly applies to this Fox News report, as it's obvious the executives at Fox have very negative opinions of Mass Effect and video games in general; opinions they want their viewers to adopt as well, which helps me understand the tactics they use in this report.

But first, the term "framing" must be elaborated upon. Framing is the natural continuation of the concept of agenda setting. Agenda setting is the media's attempt to tell us what to think about, by focusing on certain topics and disregarding others. Through framing, the media takes it one step further and tells us how to think about these topics. This can be accomplished in any number of ways, from sensationalist reporting, to yellow journalism, to misrepresentation of facts, to a clear bias favoring one particular side of an argument, to many, many more. All of the above, however, can be found in the Mass Effect news report.

With framing in mind, I can more easily comprehend the different components of this report. For example, the image above, with its sensationalist "Sexbox" pun, and outright lie "New video game shows full digital nudity and sex." The truth, in this instance, is secondary to the idea that this game is evil, and is corrupting American youth, and that's what Fox News wants viewers to think. Perhaps most laughable is Fox's attempt to appear fair and balanced, by bringing Geoff Keighley, who actually played Mass Effect, into the debate. He presents the actual facts regarding the game, but is casually dismissed, and even laughed at when he rightfully asks if the other members of the debate have even played the game. Essentially, Geoff, a "game expert," is portrayed as a joke. He, too, is framed in a very deliberate manner. All of this, every element of the report, is part of the framing process, of telling viewers what to think about Mass Effect.

The image used in this post is pulled directly from the video, but can be found here:
http://www.xboxoverdose.com/tag/fox-news-mass-effect-controversy/

Could this blog post be considered my attempt at framing your thoughts on Fox News? I don't have an answer; I just consider that a very deep thought.