Radio: War of the Worlds

Go to our Media Factsheet archive on the Media Shared drive and open Factsheet #176: CSP Radio - War of the Worlds. Read the factsheet and answer the following questions:

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

The War of the Worlds radio play (1938) is adapted from the original War of the Worlds novel by H.G Wells (published in 1898). It is about an alien invasion and the ensuing conflict between mankind and an extraterrestrial race from Mars. The text has been frequently interpreted as a commentary on British Imperialism and Victorian fear and prejudice. Since then, several film adaptations have been made of the book, including the 2005 version starring Tom Cruise.

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

War of the Worlds was first broadcast on 30th October 1938. Popular myth has it 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. It is often highlighted as an early example of mass hysteria caused by the media and used to support various audience theories.

The Trenton Police Department (close to the site of the fictional invasion) 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 New York Times reported the reaction as “Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact.” The radio broadcast has also been described as being “too realistic and frightening.”

4) How did author Brad Schwartz describe the broadcast and its reaction?
Brad Schwartz suggests that “the stories of those whom the show frightened offer a fascinating window onto how users engage with media content, spreading and reinterpreting it to suit their own world views. But it’s even more important to understand how the press magnified and distorted those reactions, creating a story that terrified the nation all over again, so that we can recognise when the same thing happens today. Our news media still have a penchant for making us fear the wrong things, of inflating certain stories into false Armageddons, as they did with War of the Worlds.”

5) Why did Orson Welles use hybrid genres and pastiche and what effect might it have had on the audience?
Orson Welles first considered the media text boring. He incorporated these two techniques in order to make it more interesting. By borrowing the conventions of the radio newscast (pastiche), he is able to create real moments of shock and awe, which almost certainly account for the strong reaction it received.

By creating a hybrid form – mixing conventional storytelling with news conventions – 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?
In September 1938, one month prior to the plays broadcast, Hitler signed the Munich Agreement. Europe’s failed appeasement of Germany was viewed with much concern and for many, it seemed that another world war was inevitable. 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. Indeed, for the listeners, it didn’t sound like a play. This was further compounded by the fact they many listeners tuned into the broadcast five minutes after the start and would have missed the disclaimer. Instead what they would have heard were further interruptions, the convincing voices of experts and an eerie silence as a reporter’s words are cut off.

7) Which company broadcast War of the Worlds in 1938?
CBS

8) Why might the newspaper industry have deliberately exaggerated the response to the broadcast?
The newspaper industry may have deliberately exaggerated the response to the broadcast so that they could discredit radio as a source of news. The q930s and 1940s were considered the 'Golden Age of Radio' and newspapers were failing to compete well against them. Therefore, the newspaper industry sensationalised the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted.

“Radio is new but it has adult responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses,” said the editorial leader in the New York Times on November 1st 1938.

This is similar to how the newspaper industry views the internet as a threat now and how newspapers are always highlighting the dangers of the internet and social media.

9) Does War of the Worlds provide evidence to support the Frankfurt School's Hypodermic Needle theory?
War of the Worlds does provide evidence to support the Frankfurt School's Hypodermic needle theory to some extent because the audiences clearly believed what the media had told them and reacted according to this. However, if the story is exaggerated as it is said to be, then this case does not support the theory. It would be better at supporting the two-step flow model as some listeners suggested that they didn't believe the broadcast to be true until they heard the expert speak.

10) How might Gerbner's cultivation theory be applied to the broadcast?
Gerbner would state that the audiences that believed the broadcast are likely to have been frequent listeners of the radio.  This is because high-frequency viewers of television are more susceptible to media messages and the belief that they are real and valid.

11) Applying Hall's Reception Theory, what could be the preferred and oppositional readings of the original broadcast?
Preferred reading: audiences understand that this broadcast is constructed and is an adaptation from the book.

Oppositional reading: audiences believed the podcast was real and therefore reacted negatively.

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?
I believe that the media no longer has the ability to fool audiences in this way. This is because there are many ways of verifying something we hear, see or read on one platform. We can look it up on the internet elsewhere to confirm whether something is true or false.

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 think it has become such a significant moment in media history because of the massive hysteria it caused (or is believed to have caused) This is probably the only time in history something like that has happened. Credit can be given to Orson Welles for delivering a powerful and realistic performance.

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?
The greater example of fake news is the way newspapers reacted to the broadcast. They deliberately over exagerrated the facts and intended to misinform the public so as to discredit radio. However, Orson Welles's broadcast wasn't intended to be percieved as real. They clearly stated at the beginning of the broadcast and in the middle that this was an adaptation from the book.

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 agree with the Hypodermic Needle theory because audiences aren't passive with what they take from the media, they have the ability to think and form their own opinions. I think that there might have been a point in history where audiences were more susceptible to believing what they saw and heard. Probably when they couldn't look anything up themselves to confirm their suspicion; when there were only a few sources they could gather information from (newspapers, TV and radio only)

4) Has the digital media age made the Hypodermic Needle model more or less relevant? Why?
It has made it less relevant because of the end of audiences (Shirky) Audiences now create content themselves as well and everyone is aware of the concept of fake news so are less susceptible. Furthermore, audiences aren't passive.

5) Do you agree with George Gerbner's Cultivation theory - that suggests exposure to the media has a gradual but significant effect on the audience's views and beliefs? Give examples to support your argument.
Cultivation theory suggests that TV viewing can have long-term, gradual but significant effects on the audience’s attitudes and beliefs. I believe this to be true to a small extent. Perhaps the media has the effect of changing people's attitudes unconsciously. An example of this would have been how America voted Trump as president because of the way certain newspapers were supporting him up until the election.

The New York post is an example of a pro-Trump newspaper

6) Is Gerbner's Cultivation theory more or less valid today than it would have been in 1938? Why?
I think it is less valid today because audiences have become more sophisticated and educated than they would have been in the past.