shaping the Radio: Government Regulation

Regulation and government intervention was pivotal in the shaping of the Radio industry because it made personal use of the Radio possible.

Regulation and government intervention in the radio works by passing laws and regulations that mediate aspects of the radio. This is done through government-established organizations. These have included the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) and the more general Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This regulation and intervention generally occurs due to perceived problems within the Radio industry.

Regulation and government intervention affected the Radio during the 1920’s by making radio possible in general. First off, the U.S. government made radio publicly available (it was restricted during World War I). Without this step, the Radio would have never become a popular media force. Another example of regulation and government intervention during the 1920’s was the Radio act of 1927. This act set up the Federal Radio Commission

(FRC). The FRC put many regulations in place. These regulations mainly concerned broadcast band, standardized frequency, and the number and hours of stations operating. Without this form of regulation, radio may not have ever taken hold in the U.S. because it would have been a chaotic unorganized mess of signals.

Social Learning from Beyonce

The social learning theory of media effects can be seen in children imitating sexual dancing, like in the case of Beyonce’s “All the Single Ladies” music video.

Social learning is a way in which the media effects society where people imitate images they see. In this theory, when people are presented repeatedly with images, they eventually start to imitate what they are presented with. In this way, society starts to reflect what is shown in the media. This makes the media a very powerful force, which is sometimes problematic when the media shows images that we don’t want society to imitate.

One of the best examples of this is in the numerous YouTube videos of small children imitating Beyonce’s dancing in her “All the Single Ladies” music video. I have embedded one of the better videos in this blog. In the video, a girl of about three years old dances along with Beyonce’s video, imitating everything, even slapping her bottom. This type of dancing, much less bottom slapping, is generally not considered normal three-year-old behavior but because of her exposure to Beyonce’s video, she does these actions anyway. It is clear that the girl has chosen to act more like the images she sees. This example very simply shows how media affects our society through social learning.

Framing

Framing is a powerful force in our Mass Media society and this can be seen especially well in the recent news coverage of the Ground Zero Mosque.

Framing is the way the mass media presents topics in order to influence how we think about them. Everyday we are presented with thousands of images that are specially crafted to incite a specific reaction or opinion within the viewers. This action of framing is a powerful tool that the mass media is not shy about using. Framing can also influence what we associate with a topic by presenting an idea or item alongside another idea or item.

This concept can be applied to the recent coverage on the ground zero mosque. There are currently plans to build a mosque near ground zero, which is a hot button emotional issue that has become even more tense due to its framing by reporters. Although there are thousands of examples of framing of this issue, I have focused on two that create a clear picture of the concept. I have provided links to two videos from different news sources, MSNBC and Fox. By watching these two videos and comparing them, the clear use of framing is evident.

To start with, the MSNBC video frames the issue in a way that makes the audience see minimal to no problems with the mosque. They do this first by presenting facts from polls with comments that make disagreeing with the building of the mosque seem unconstitutional. For example, when presenting the poll about whether or not Muslims have a right to build the mosque, it is stated that the announcer is “encouraged they agree with the constitution.” The video also frames the issue by using rhetoric that makes the mosque seem more favorable such as the 60 minutes footage that calls it a “hub of culture, a hub of coexistence.” They also call people in favor of the Mosque “progressives,” making disagreement with the building of the mosque seem very negative. The framing is even stronger when they make it into a political issue taking a “liberals” vs. “democrats” stance as opposed to a more simple “pro mosque” vs. “against mosque” stance. This makes liberals more likely to take the side of “pro mosque” because they have been stereotyped into that group. Furthermore, it is implied that people who do not agree with the building of the mosque are extremists when MSNBC uses examples of recent violent acts against Muslims. These are just a handful of the vast examples of choices MSMBC made in order to frame the story. Due to this framing, an audience member is more likely to walk away from the video with a “pro mosque” view.

On the other hand, the FOX video frames the same exact issue in a completely different way. They start out the video with a look at the exact site where a 150 year old building will be torn down in order to build the mosque. The inclusion of the “150 year old” detail is a strong example of framing in this story. It is a detail that is completely unnecessary, yet it is included to cause the viewer to make a negative association with the building of the mosque in hopes they will interpret it as tearing down something historic. Next the audience receives a “closer look” at the site which is “right around the corner” from ground zero. This emphasizes exactly how close the mosque is to the world trade center. That detail builds an emotional connection between the audience and the issue. In the last part of the video, FOX brings on a firefighter who was at the scene on 9/11 and a leader of CAIR, a Muslim organization. By having the anti mosque side of the debate represented by someone who is considered a national hero, the audience is automatically going to be more likely to take the anti mosque side. These are just some of the many ways the media’s choices frame the story. Overall, this framing makes the viewer more likely to have “anti mosque” sentiments.

Both of these news stations could have easily included very different information on the same issue or included the same information in a different light. They made their choices in order to frame the issue in the way they wanted, and therefore have their own desired effect on the viewer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQexblf8tRg

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4301094/battle-over-ground-zero-mosque/?playlist_id=87937