About the Audience

About the Audience 

http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/the_rise_of_consumerism/02.ST.03/?scene=5

            A medium of media is nothing without an audience. The very definition of media is something that communicates with “with people widely”. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media). It stands to reason then that without the broad public support it received, without the wide audience that adopted it, radio would not exist as it does today, if it existed at all.

            Every medium is shaped by its audience. Radio is no different. The way the audience shapes the media is simple: They pay attention to it, but only if it meets their needs. People do not just mindlessly consume media for the sake of media; no people listened to radio because it carried the things they enjoyed. It provided a mix of escapism and news that people in the 1920’s, the early days of radio, had not previously had and it provided these things within the comforts of their own homes to boot. But of course radio broadcasters were not, nor could they afford to be, altruistic. They, along with the Ad agencies, recognized the popularity of radio as a means by which to turn a profit; a profit dependent on one thing: The audience’s attention.

            Advertising is the way radio survives in America, and became the main means for satisfying the aforementioned profit motive in 1922. This is when the AT&T station WEAF broadcasted the first commercial (Media Now). That practice, advertisers paying broadcasters to have their ads imbedded into programs, has since become the main money making technique employed by radio and later television. This is the interaction between broadcasters, advertisers, and the all important audience that has given radio the shape it has today, and the reason why the audience is the most important force in radio’s history.

What is Important?

           http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/no-mosque-at-ground-zero-protest-6-6-10-t5426.html

            What is important? Something that affects us as individuals, generates arguments, or something that affects hundreds of people who we have never met and likely never will? Or is it simply whatever happens to make the Nightly News? Based on the discussion of the “Mosque at Ground Zero” that popped up seemingly at random in my theatre class the other day I’m inclined to agree with the latter.

            This example fits nicely with the theory of Agenda Setting, which, in simple terms, states that the national news media determines the directions that political discourse takes in this country. If the news at not for a time become so saturated with the debate on whether or not an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory several blocks away from Ground Zero, how many people with no connection to the city of New York would have a.) heard of and b.) felt the insatiable urge to spout off about it? Probably a lot less people than have done so, and the debate would certainly not reached Theatre 301 here at the University of Texas in Austin. This is why the theory of Agenda Setting carries weight. The more press an incident gets, the more people talk about it and so that press has affected the direction of the political conversation to go towards a particular direction, rather than another.

            Now because I unfortunately did not have a tape recorder on me on that faithful day I’ll include another example that shows just how far from Manhattan this story has traveled. Here it is:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38816495

Yes even Miss America has something to say on this topic. Now this may not be the most perfect of examples because this actually is something of an important issue in terms of freedom of religion as well as exposing some of the vicious stereotypes we have in this country, but it does stand as proof of agenda setting because according to the media, everyone cares about this debate and because of that, everyone does. 

The Real Thing

The Real Thing

http://blog.memberhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/slogan-70cocacola1.jpg

            Coca-Cola. By all reports its one of the world’s best known brands. Now while it may not have the same implications as say, reinforcing the class divide, I think that the advertising campaigns behind the soft drink are a fantastic example of hegemony, due to the simple fact that they have not only made drinking Coke into something normal, but as the ad (from the 1969 campaign) above demonstrates, natural. Now while this may seem rather lacking in insidiousness I think it speaks volumes to the power and penetration of advertising.

            Coca-Cola, despite what the company would have you believe, is not healthy: in fact it is the very opposite. So why is it in every gas station, supermarket, and quite possibly college across the country? Because the advertising campaigns that have been going on since the turn of the previous century have all led to Coke (the thing made carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caffeine, “natural flavors” and, my personal favorite: phosphoric acid) being accepted as a natural part of the American diet. This is of course very good for the business of the Coca-Cola company, as well as the thousands of restaurants and chains (most notably McDonalds) who reap the benefits of paring the “real thing” with their food.

            Now to the at the top of the page perfectly illustrates the naturalness of the drink by using the word real in the slogan the bottom, and placing the concoction on the middle of a table laden with things that are actually nutritious. This makes the point that Coca-Cola is as natural those things, and thus a natural thing to have in one’s diet. The fact that Coke is most certainly not any of those things is why I believe this to be such a striking example of hegemony. This and all the other ads which have been in every medium imaginable have created an idea of Coca-cola that replaces the reality of the thing in order for the company, and all others with a stake in the drink to make money.