War of the Worlds: Blog tasks

1) What is the history and narrative behind War of the Worlds?
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.

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

It was first broadcast live on 30th October 1938, a popular myth was 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 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.

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

4) How did author Brad Schwartz describe the the broadcast and its reaction?
He states how the effect it had was an example of a 'viral media phenomenon', also going onto how the show offered a 'fascinating window into how users engage with media content, spreading and reinterpreting it'.

5) Why did Orson Welles use hybrid genres and pastiche and what effect might it have had on the audience?
Welles' version of WOTW reworks a Victorian narrative about an alien invasion 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 certainly account for the strong reaction it recieved. By creating a hybrid form, Welles blurred the boundaries between fact and fiction in a way that audiences had never experienced.

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

7) Which company broadcast War of the Worlds in 1938?
War of the Worlds was broadcast by the CBS Radio network. Founded in 1927 CBS Radio was one of two network radio stations broadcasting to the nation.

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. 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?
This theory states that audiences consume and respond to media texts in an unquestioning way, believing what they read, see or hear. This is true of the audiences of the 1930s as most listeners immediately believed this story and jumped to multiple conclusions.

10) How might Gerbner's cultivation theory be applied to the broadcast?
Gerbner's Cultivation Theory may 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. 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?
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. I think the preferred reading was for the whole thing to just be seen as a big joke that people could enjoy as a source of entertainment however the oppositional may be that the radio show was trying to make people panic and terrified, especially if they hadn't listened to the disclaimer at the start.

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? 

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?

I believe it is such an integral part of media history as it was the first time we've seen media be able to fully control the minds of such a large audience, and showed how easily people can be swayed into believing anything by media sources as they are the main sources of all types of news. I think it was very revolutionary because it showed how far media and technology had come.

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 greater example of fake news was the newspapers exaggerating the audience reaction to discredit radio as they purposely went over the top and it was their mission to give out false information to the public so that radio could be discredited. In addition there was a clear disclaimer at the start of the radio broadcast so that people would know it was all a big joke and that it wasn't their intention for it to be perceived as real.


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 don't fully believe in the Hypodermic Needle theory as people were obviously able to come up with their own ideas instead of just straight away believing everything the media supplies them with. Also, many audiences were at the point where they could recognise real from fake therefore they wouldn't be as susceptible to believing everything. However, I think back when there were limited media sources people had no other option instead of believing what they heard as they had barely any sources to rely on.


4) Has the digital media age made the Hypodermic Needle model more or less relevant? Why?
I think it has definitely made the theory less relevant as audiences can now easily differentiate reality from fake-reality because of how the growth of social media and technology has made them much more aware, opposed to the audiences from years ago.


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 believe this is partly true because the more you listen to media sources on a day to day basis the more likely you are to believe in what they say as it has become somewhat part of your daily routine and the things they say may sound more true as you go on. therefore all this constant exposure to media does have a gradual but significant effect on audience's views and beliefs.

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

It is probably less valid in today's age because of how audiences are becoming more educated and are less susceptible to believing everything they hear in the media. However media has risen to new heights therefore people may sometimes fall for certain things because of how media is constantly changing/evolving