Blog #4: The Evolution of the Radio

     Within the history of the radio, technological change has helped to shape it greatly. These changes improved the radio by increasing the distance in which they can broadcast, creating more uses for the radio, making them small enough to keep in each and every home, and with the formation of industries like RCA it helped regulate the radio and turn it into a successful media format. The end result of all of this change is the radio we all listen to today.

       The way that technological change works is as years go by our technology advances. People invent new ways to solve everyday problems, or they take inventions and improve upon them. When a creation is improved it gains multiple new uses. The radio changed in this exact way. For example Guglielmo Marconi created the radio telegraph system, a new kind of telegraph capable of transatlantic transmission. This new telegraph helped him to establish the British Marconi and American Marconi two way radio businesses. One of the biggest impacts this invention had was it's use during the Titanic incident. It is said that the Titanic used this radio to report their disaster in 1912. The man who was said to have relayed this fateful message was the same man who would later develop the commercial radio industry, David Sarnoff.

       Sarnoff was the director of the RCA (Radio Corporation of America), and his corporation would later create radios that people can keep in their homes. Before these radios were mainly used as two-way communicators during WWI, but by the end of the war radios were returned to the public and their use would change yet again. By 1922 their were over 500 radio stations and radios became for sell for everyday use. Soon almost every household would have a radio and families would gather around it and listen to their favorite programs. Amongst these stations there featured live music, heroic tales and adventures, and news of the goings-on in the world around them. Even though the television replaced it as the a main media source around the 1950s, radio still prospered as a source of music, and secondary source of entertainment and news.

       From distress transmitter, to two-way radio, to an entrainment source in the household; the radio has evolved greatly throughout American history. In fact if not for the radio, would anyone have thought to create televisions and computers? I believe that radio was an important stepping stone in technological evolution, and without it we might not have the luxuries we have today.

Blog #3: Can Media Make Us More Paranoid?

When I was a child I would always try and watch movies with my parents, regardless of the content. They would check out a movie every weekend, and I plead with them to let me watch it. They would always say no because the movies they rented were rated R, but that didn't stop me. I would wait abut ten minutes until they got situated on the bed and sneak back into the room. I would crawl until I got to the foot of their bed, and then I would lay underneath it, face the TV and enjoy the rewards of my deception. I don't really remember most of them, since the plot of grown up movies were boring and hard to follow for a four year old. However, there is one movie that I remember so vividly that it still gives me goosebumps to this day. One night as I crawled into my spot under the bed I noticed the tone of the movie this night was a lot darker. Before I knew it I was watching in the middle of “Salem's Lot”.

I was immobilized with fear as I laid there and prayed for it to end, but unfortunately for me it was a long movie. Later that night I could not sleep. I was too afraid that a vampire would come knocking on my window and ask me to let him in. I threw my blanket around my neck and laid awake hoping my blanket alone would be enough to stop the blood suckers from getting me! Even to this day I still sleep like that. I am not still afraid of vampires, but if I don't cover my neck just so I get those same goosebumps I got when I was four. This irrational fear I had of vampires can be better explained using the cultivation theory.

The cultivation theory explains that people who are overexposed to violent media can develop the unrealistic mind set that “This can happen to me”! While it is true that violence does exist in the real world and innocent people can become victims, it is not likely that they will. Children who watch violent programs on TV will become more paranoid about being exposed to violence themselves. Like if they watch a gang movie in which a character is shot to death, they will believe that this could happen to them as well. In movies like “Final Destination” character's die in common everyday situations, but in over the top and ridiculous ways. Movies like this make people much more paranoid about these every day situations (such as working out at the gym, or going to a tanning salon) thinking that they might die as well. In my case I watched a movie about vampires and became irrationally paranoid of a creature that does not even exist. In reality the chances of me being attacked by a vampire are about as likely as walking outside and being randomly shot to death, or triggering a random chain of events that eventually leads to me getting my head sliced off.

(The link below are a collection of scenes from the Final Destination movies. These are very graphic, so if you have a weak stomach do not watch them. I provided the link to show how ridiculous and unlikely these deaths are, and yet somehow they make you scared to leave your house.)

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ6WKRTV34I)

It is truly amazing that media can have such an effect on us. Even when we grow up and learn that monster's aren't real, there are still other things that television can teach us to be afraid of. How do we change this mind set? Well, I believe if we accept that media for the most part is fictional, then we can accept that we are generally safe from violent crimes and murder. As for me, I cope by covering my neck while I sleep. Yes it might be stupid to you, but when the vampires rise up and take power we will see who has the last laugh.

Blog #2: Coke or Soda? The concept of Hegemony

About 9 years ago I went to a restaurant with my Grandfather in Pueblo, Colorado. Once we were seated our waiter walked up to us and asked, “What would you like to drink”? I answered, “I'll have a Coke”, to which he responded, “Diet or Regular”? I was a little confused so I said, “Ahh a Sprite”. Our waiter then laughed and asked “What made you change your mind”? I said “Um I didn't, I said I wanted a coke and for it to be a Sprite”. He laughed once again and said to me “You must not be from around here. We refer to it as 'Soda' or 'Pop' here. But for future notice, Coke is a brand of soda, not it's entirety”. I felt so stupid after that interaction, and since then I've made sure to say soda instead of coke. But that begs the question of why we say coke to refer to all soda in general, as if it is not a brand and instead just another term for it. Countries like Afghanistan, the UK, and the United States all use the word 'Coke' as slang for soda, so this is something that has become quite dominant in the world. I believe the answer for this can be find thanks to the concept of Hegemony.


(The link below is a map of the US and there areas in which 'coke' is used)
http://popvssoda.com:2998/

Hegemony is the capacity of the ruling group that enables it to maintain its power and reinforce its ideology. In other words it is the way that one person, thing, or idea gains and maintains dominance over anything else. Hegemony has four characteristics that give things like the word coke dominance. Its control comes through consent, which means that people are not forced or tricked, but willing follow. The term Coke is not forced on people, we simply just use it as a 'slang' word. This moves into the second characteristic, the term becomes common sense. Because we refer to all sodas as coke it becomes common sense. “I'll take a coke and make it a Dr. Pepper!” We don't find anything strange about that sentence, even though we technically just asked for two different soda brands. The third characteristic makes it seem that this dominant ideology is natural. The forth characteristic of hegemony is that this is an ongoing process, however it is not permanent. So perhaps if I keep correcting people about Coke, we can all be on the same page about sodas.