Technological Change: For Better or For Worse

Technological change was most vital in shaping the formation of the radio industry in the 1920s because it provided the foundation on which the industry could grow and flourish in its future developments.   Without the technology to produce the new concept of radio, industries, government regulation, and audience demand would not have been possible. 

Technological change is a process, no new development magically and instantaneously is accepted, and that still holds true today.  For radio, one of the first most notable developments came from Guglielmo Marconi with his creation of the wireless telegraph.  Its true value was only fully acknowledged after its role in the Titanic rescue, which drew the military’s attention.  The next important technological development was the use of FM (frequency modulation) radio, which broadened the radio horizon even more by providing more music at a better quality.  These are just a few examples of how technological change progresses; it advances from one new development to the next, and once it moves forward, it can never return.

Technological change impacted the evolution of the US radio system in the 1920s by bringing about change with new inventions and practices.  This evolution also provided the need for standards, and thus caused the Radio Act of 1927.  This act created a Federal Radio Commission which defined the broadcast band, standardized frequency designations, and limited the number of stations operating at night.  These changes were brought about by the invention of radio and the possibilities that came with it.  Like any new invention, growth is accompanied by concern, and while technology allowed for radio to advance, this act is a good example of the limitations that the radio industry faced in the 1920s.

I can’t help but wonder if recent technology has actually reversed radio’s growth.  Now, because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, most radio stations are in the grips of just a few owners and syndication has replaced DJs.  We are also being confronted with new types of radio: internet radio, satellite radio, personalized radio.  It seems to me that the initial charm of radio, the relationship the listener had with the DJ and the control the DJ had over the program, has faded with the newer technological advances.  The original-style radio station format is now limited to a few non-commercial stations who are at risk of extinction, and if we lose those then we will be puppets to what we hear on the radio.

image provided by do512.com

Fashionably Learned

Social learning theory helps me to better grasp the impact of images of women in advertisements as discussed in Killing Us Softly.  Under this theory, people imitate attitudes and behaviors they observe in the media.  Social learning theory dictates that our expectations of the media are said to form around outcomes of behavior, and self-efficacy influences our media behavior.  Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment displays the physical outcome that violence in the media can spur, but I think that the psychological effects are equally pervasive. 

Killing Us Softly illustrates social learning theory through Kilbourne's analysis of the objectification and exploitation of women in advertising.  Young girls see advertisements with beautiful, wealthy-looking women and aspire to look like them.  However, since most young girls can’t change their “beauty” or get rich fast, they try to emulate models’ bodies.  This would be alright, if not for the fact that today the physical norm for a model is donning a size zero with unusually lanky limbs.  Still, girls try to imitate this (often nearly unattainable) appearance.  In addition to the physical portrayal of women, their roles as associated with men’s in advertisements are subordinate and often inappropriate.  Social learning theory proves that through this, girls wrongly learn that it is acceptable to be objectified and mistreated by men.  Women of all ages can be affected by advertisements, but I believe that the most vulnerable members are young women because most advertisements portray young women.  They are most at risk for grasping onto an image and trying to gain a model’s physique and behavior. 

I found an example similar to the many that Kilbourne presents us with in Killing Us Softly.  Like so many others, this fashion advertisement portrays the woman as passive and subordinate while the men are controlling and strong.  This particular ad is a bit disconcerting because the man is literally holding the woman down while the other men watch in approval; it's hard to ignore the situation's rape-like overtone.  Kilbourne, in accordance with social learning theory, would likely argue that the message behind this advertisement is that it is okay for men to physically constrain women.  I think that girls can be affected by images like this; they might subsequently believe that men should be stronger than them and should control them.  This, of course, is totally false, but what does it matter as long as you're fashionable?

image provided by mimifroufrou.com

Hegemony and Diamond Rings

Hegemony is present in most every aspect of the media, but one outlet through which it is exceptionally prevalent is commercials. I found that Kay Jewelers commercials effectively and entertainingly prove the concept of hegemony. Hegemony is the use of media to create a consensus around certain ideas so that they come to be accepted as common sense. Through it, the ruling group is able to maintain its power and reinforce its ideology. Whether the ruling group is advertisers or television network owners, those few at the top hold the most authority. However, hegemony is not entirely one-way; rather, it rests on the public accepting the dominant ideology as normal.


From television commercials to print and radio advertisements, products are buried within the ideology of the dominant group. Hegemony puts many commercials into perspective, especially jewelry commercials. I’m sure most Americans could recognize and imitate the all-too-familiar “every kiss begins with Kay” jingle we are bombarded with every Valentines, Christmas, New Year’s, Mother’s, Father’s, Son’s, Daughter’s, you-get-the-point Day. Any holiday you can name, Kay Jewelers advertises extensively. Whether it’s a romantic commercial or a family oriented one, the theme is always the same. A piece of diamond jewelry: will make your relationship perfect, will make your partner happy, will right any wrong, is the best way to say I love you, and of course (as the jingle insists) is the way to get some action. This is certainly hegemony, because this ideal is widespread. I'm used to the notion of gift giving and specifically the connotation that jewelry-giving means the giver truly cares for the recipient. Every time I see these commercials (although I do think they are nauseatingly cheesy) I don’t find their message particularly unusual.

This commercial also connects to male and female roles and how the disparity between them persists in the media. I have yet to see a Kay commercial in which a woman sweeps the man off his feet and gives him a diamond item. Alas, dictated by stereotypes, the man is strong and handsome and the woman is pretty and easily pleased. In this particular commercial, the man makes it clear that he is the protector while the woman is passive, weak, and happy that she has someone looking after her. I certainly am reassured knowing that if I’m ever stuck in a frightening snowstorm, I can count on a diamond necklace to save me from my despair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltA50HKyM14