Sarnoff's Music Box (The Power of Industry)

What started off as an invention nurtured by government institutions, the radio soon evolved as one of the prime sources of entertainment during the early to mid 1900's. Thanks to big businesses like RCA and adroit corporation leaders like David Sarnoff, radio was able to be seen in a new light. These amazing little "music boxes", as Sarnoff once referred to them, would mark the start of a culturally unifying force in the daily lives of politicians, entrepreneurs, and common citizens.

Radio evolved with the help of the navy and soon transfered its power to broadcasting companies. What certain companies did was allow installation of various broadcasting networks which hosted paid programming, advertising, news and live music performances. But before any of this was possible, (what was known as) "the amateurs", a select few who could assemble and operate radios, dominated the air-waves. It wasn't until radio regulation acts were passed, that broadcasting became more structured. But the most important factor in public access to the radio was the mass production of radio parts. This was possible thanks to the radio industry and Mr. David Sarnoff.

Sarnoff had a vision: that individual home owners should have access to personal radios of their own. No longer would the air-waves be manipulated by the technologically savvy or the elite. Sarnoff's prediction of revenue after selling these "music boxes" was dramatically exceeded. This was not only a marketing success but a powerful force in the formation of the radio industry. People now enjoyed music, news, politics, ads and dramas in their very own homes. As a result the radio shaped the values and expectations of many Americans. None of this would have been possible without the aid of the radio industry itself.

Below is a link to an interesting article about "The Music Box" and a photo of David Sarnoff



http://earlyradiohistory.us/1916rmb.htm

DO YOU SMELL WHAT THE MEDIA'S COOKIN'? (Cultivation Theory)

A grandiloquent spectacle of opposing forces each representing their own subjective virtues - an event so spectacular, so grandiose, so Jansenistic in nature that it can only be described by one acronym: WWE. Ah yes, the epitome of all that is dramatization. These creatures, these heathens that engage in such vehement roleplay, lurk out from the deepest and darkest psyches that are known to control the entertainment industry today. Who or what do they represent? The paragon of "manhood". How did such an image become so prominent, and almost absolute, in the hearts and minds of so many individuals? Well, to understand that, we must first understand cultivation theory.

Cultivation Theory suggests that after enough visual imprinting, usually through the media's behalf, an image or ideology can become somewhat of a reality to the public. In other words, people start developing these perceptions of what certain groups might represent or do. For example, news reports may attribute terrorist activities to a certain ethnic group or popular television shows may set certain social or physical standards for individuals. People start to believe that that's the way the world does or should work (irrelevant to the fact of whether it does or doesn't). They become delusional in a sense.

In the popular film Tough Guise, Jackson Katz goes on to say that boys are brought up in an environment that forces them to behave a certain way: a way that is acceptable to "society". But what comprises this so-called "society". Individuals spoon-fed these erroneous values and standards of what it takes to be a "man". Characteristics such as aggression, dominance, bigotry or intolerance paired along with a tall stature or muscular body is what (according to media framers) defines you as a prominent male.

DO YOU SMELLLLL WHAT THE MEDIA'S COOKIN'? A perfect example of a "tough guise" is none other than Disney's Dwane Johns-I-I mean, WWE's "The Rock".... in his former years (*ahem*). This fictional character is the manifestation of testosterone. Young lads look up to him as almost a mentor. Impressionable minds can't help but be influenced by his "strength" (pun intended) of character and muscular physique. As a result, individuals such as these consistently propagate and breed new "Rocks" that influence other infant Rocks. It's a never ending cycle.




--------
POST ASSIGNMENT: I actually like the Rock. I was merely taking a piss at him since he's such an easy example. Don't be offended Mr. Johnson seeing as how you can easily break me in two; like an egg for an omelet. Then I'd be the one who'd you SMELL COOKIN'! Ahahaha!

What the frame is going on here!?

     One prominent issue that plagues many socially, economically, and politically concerned individuals is how information is presented to the public. Because of our innate tendencies to characterize certain phenomena or people based on our schemata, we often overlook our errors in judgement towards print, audio or video. To put it simply, we're quicker to judge than we are to analyze. This can be cumbersome to our enlightenment. However, if we are persuaded to look at information in a more constructive light, our preconceptions can be shaped so that we gather insight towards certain groups of people and their circumstances. That's why it's so important to understand of the concept of framing.

     Framing is understood to be the manipulation of information to achieve influence over the recipient's perception over a certain topic, issue, or ideal. In other words, it's "the Man's" way of telling you how to think about a certain subject. And most of the time it proves to be successful. Although framing in the media is not solely at the whim of the government or big corporations, most of the time it is. As a result, we see many of the same values and preconceptions fed to the public over and over again.

     However, it is refreshing to see when directors attempt to represent social groups in a new viewpoint. This does, I believe, help us to become aware our judgments and fallacies that go along with them.

     One of my favorite directors, Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, directed "Amores Perros" - a movie about Mexican people depicting their social and economic status and, at times, the corruption of law enforcement. This movie attempts to transcend through most social castes and does its utmost to expose the barbarism that pervades the human and animal world; at times they're even intertwined. Iñárritu persuades the viewer to see how Mexican people and their problems are more complex than one would think and why sometimes they have to step outside their moral boundaries to reach their needs. It does well in deconstructing typical Mexican stereotypes even though this film may not represent every single Hispanic demographic. That being said, I believe the characters were presented very effectively and gives a small slant to what Latino culture can be like.



Being of Mexican descent and growing up around people who have been in similar situations like the characters presented in the movie, I felt this was a very powerful example of ethnic representation. However, I don't expect every Latino or Chicano to relate to the characters shown in this film. Rather, I used this example as to how framing can give a more insightful picture towards the conditions of certain Latino groups.