Industries and Institutional Factors in Radio

Industries and institutional factors have had a tremendous impact on radio ever since its inception as a form of mass entertainment. The larger radio network companies and record companies largely have the final say on what goes into radio programming, and (perhaps more importantly) what does not. With this position, they can enforce what can and cannot go on the radio, leaving most of the radio controlled by some higher entity than the station itself. Individual stations are subject to the final rule of industries and institutional factors.

This can be seen in the practice of payola. Payola is the term used when a record label hires an outside promoter to get their music played on radio stations, and the promoter does this by paying stations "fees" for them to play the label's songs. Though not technically legal, this is the perfect example of a record company exerting force to influence radio programming. Payola ensures that the record label's major bands get played, leaving no room for smaller artists on smaller labels to get radio play. The radio-listening public only hears what the label wants them to hear.

Here's a link to a song about the practice of payola by They Might Be Giants. It's sung from the perspective of an independent artist who paid a DJ to play his song so he could become popular.

Cultivation

Cultivation is a powerful force in media today. Cultivation theory states that those who see something in media are more likely to think that thing will happen to them. They begin to see that thing as normal, and tolerate it as a regular occurrence. This begins to change the way they view the world, as they perceive the dramatized events as commonplace. Media "cultivates" a skewed view of reality among those who consume it.

The constant media coverage of terrorism and terrorist actions, especially post-9/11, has cultivated a great fear of terrorism in some people. The consistent coverage leads people to believe that it is always happening everywhere, and that it will happen to them next. People see terrorism in the media very frequently, on the news, in movies such as the recent Salt, and TV shows such as 24. This leads then to believe it will happen to them.

For lack of a better example video, here's a montage of the character Jack Bauer from 24. To a certain degree, this shows how this extremely popular show focuses and normalizes terrorism. Also it's pretty funny.

Framing

Framing is something which can drastically change a piece of media. The way a piece of media is framed tells the consumer of the media how to think about it. Framing can slant or skew a story by selecting only certain facts to present, phrasing things a certain way or by what the piece is juxtaposed with. The people behind the media will frame a story in a manner that aligns with their thinking, in hopes that the people who consume the media will begin to think the same way. Sometimes frames are less intentional, the people behind the media simply present a story without thinking, but their personal views show through.

An example of framing can be seen with the recent media coverage of the proposed Muslim community center to be built near Ground Zero.  Many conservative media outlets are calling the center the "Ground Zero Mosque" which skews the view of the center as a mosque (which it isn't, it is a community center) and as being on Ground Zero (which it isn't, it is a couple blocks away). This is meant to stir up feelings of patriotism and lead people to think this is an insult to the America. Other media outlets reporting on the controversy cover the community center as it is, a community center and 2 blocks from Ground Zero. They site the constitutional freedom of religion as a reason that the center should be permitted to be built. Both sides are framing the stories in different ways which can greatly change the way a viewer thinks about the issue. (Personally, I think that the center should be allowed to be built, they have the constitutional right.)

Bill O'Reilly, a notable conservative pundit, covered the center by having a Muslim who opposed the mosque on his show. He agrees with her, and by putting her on the show, he frames the story to his views.


Keith Olbermann, a notable liberal pundit, uses a quote from a Holocaust survivor to cast the opposition of the center as being as hateful as Nazis. He's quick to say that he is not drawing a comparison between the Holocaust and the controversy surrounding the Islamic center, but by even mentioning it he juxtaposes the two situations which could lead people to compare them and agree with him.


Both of these videos are examples of framing. The pundits frame the reports in the ways that they do to make people believe the side that they represent.