History of the Media

Written by David Pakman

When wererepparttar forms of media created? When did advertising first show up? Who ownsrepparttar 125869 media?

Creation ofrepparttar 125870 various forms of media


Newspapers & Magazines ~ 1880 *

Movies ~ 1910 *

Television ~ 1945 *

Cable Television ~ 1980's *

Satellite Television, Internet, Digital Communication ~ End ofrepparttar 125871 20th century

In 1920, radio was first developed, primarily for use byrepparttar 125872 military, strictly for sendingHistory ofrepparttar 125873 Media - Old Radios messages from one location to another. David Sternoff,repparttar 125874 then-president of RCA, first hadrepparttar 125875 idea to sell radio sets to consumers, or what were then called radio receivers. However, consumers needed a reason to buy radios, so RCA wasrepparttar 125876 first to set up radio stations all overrepparttar 125877 country. Between 1920 and 1922, 400 radio stations were set up, starting with KBKA in Pittsburgh. Stations were also set up by universities, newspapers, police departments, hotels, and labor unions.


By 1923, there were 600 radio stations acrossrepparttar 125878 United States, and $83 million worth of sets had been sold.

The biggest difference in radio before and after 1923 was thatrepparttar 125879 first advertising was not heard onrepparttar 125880 radio until 1923. RCA atrepparttar 125881 time was made up of four companies:


AT&T *

General Electric *

United Fruit *


United Fruit was one ofrepparttar 125882 first global corporations, and one ofrepparttar 125883 first to advertise onrepparttar 125884 radio. The AT&T division of RCA first thought about selling time onrepparttar 125885 air to companies, which markedrepparttar 125886 start of "toll broadcasting." WEAF wasrepparttar 125887 first station to operate this way, causing widespread outrage, and accusation of "pollutingrepparttar 125888 airwaves."

Because of this controversy,repparttar 125889 practice of selling advertising time was called "trade name publicity." Sponsors linked their name with a program onrepparttar 125890 air, rather than advertising a specific product in a 30 second "commercial" as we know it today.

Why did AT&T decide to experiment with charging companies for air time?

AT&T was not making any money from broadcasting atrepparttar 125891 time since they only made transmitters, not receivers. They only made money when new radio stations boughtrepparttar 125892 equipment required to broadcast. They did not make money from consumers buying radios.

AT&T also startedrepparttar 125893 practice of paying performers for their time onrepparttar 125894 air, rather than only volunteers, which was standard practice for radio content up until that point.

The first radio network

In 1926, RCA set uprepparttar 125895 first radio network, NBC. They decided it was more effective and efficient to produce shows in New York City, and then linkrepparttar 125896 main radio station with stations all acrossrepparttar 125897 country, connected by AT&T (another RCA company) phone lines. (Now television networks are linked by satellite to their affiliates).

This wasrepparttar 125898 beginning ofrepparttar 125899 network affiliates system. The ideal network makes sure everyone inrepparttar 125900 country is capable of listening to their signal. NBC atrepparttar 125901 time had two philosophies:


Radio content was a "public service," whose function was to sell radios. *

Radio content was designed to generate income from advertising.

History ofrepparttar 125902 Media In 1927,repparttar 125903 second network was formed. It was CBS, started by William Paley. Paley wasrepparttar 125904 first to think that networks could make money strictly from advertising, not even getting involved inrepparttar 125905 sales of radios. Like AT&T, CBS did not make radios. Fromrepparttar 125906 start, they made their money from selling advertising.

The rising of radio networks causedrepparttar 125907 Radio Act of 1927 to be passed, which establishedrepparttar 125908 FRC, or what is now known asrepparttar 125909 FCC, to allocate broadcast licenses. The need for such an organization was brought on byrepparttar 125910 fact that airwaves are limited resources, and broadcasting itself is a scarce public resource. Byrepparttar 125911 1930's,repparttar 125912 structure of radio have been set byrepparttar 125913 commercial format, although advertising never dominated radio like it would television later on.

Inrepparttar 125914 1920's and '30's, radio programs were divided into two groups. Sponsored shows, which had advertisers, and unsponsored shows, which did not. The radio station paid forrepparttar 125915 unsponsored shows. The sponsored shows, onrepparttar 125916 other hand, were created entirely byrepparttar 125917 company sponsoringrepparttar 125918 show; advertisers were totally in charge ofrepparttar 125919 radio station's content. The content became advertising. Radio setrepparttar 125920 precedent for television, in thatrepparttar 125921 same companies that controlled radio early on went on to control television.

Soon thereafter, television inheritedrepparttar 125922 structure of radio. Inrepparttar 125923 '40's, duringrepparttar 125924 rise of television, RCA also held a monopoly on all television sets sold. By 1945-1955, advertising had taken over all of television. Television was organized aroundrepparttar 125925 premise of selling things. The entire television industry was creating a political atmosphere of suspicion and fear. Senator Joseph McCarthy,repparttar 125926 founder of McCarthyism, which was based onrepparttar 125927 fear of Communism, andrepparttar 125928 HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee, began to question people involved in television about their beliefs and associations.

What affected television in its early stages?


Politics (McCarthyism / HUAC). *

Blacklists: From almostrepparttar 125929 inception of television, many writers, directors, and actors were considered to be pro-Communist and/or un-American.

Certain topics were totally off-limits atrepparttar 125930 time for television, particularly issues of race relations inrepparttar 125931 1960's. Overall, networks were not happy withrepparttar 125932 political situation for television inrepparttar 125933 1960's, both in terms ofrepparttar 125934 blacklists, and ofrepparttar 125935 fact that when every show had one sponsor, that sponsor controlledrepparttar 125936 entire program. Networks preferred to controlrepparttar 125937 program, by way of moving to multiple sponsors/advertisers, where networks would retain control ofrepparttar 125938 show, and advertisers would buy time in betweenrepparttar 125939 programming.

Inrepparttar 125940 1950's, networks decided to eliminaterepparttar 125941 practice of sponsors controllingrepparttar 125942 shows with a move to spot selling, or advertisements between programs, as we know it today. What causedrepparttar 125943 move to spot selling?


Discovery of fraud inrepparttar 125944 quiz shows on television. Quiz shows were extremely popular atrepparttar 125945 time, and were liked byrepparttar 125946 networks,repparttar 125947 sponsors, andrepparttar 125948 viewers alike. It turned out, however, that quiz shows were largely fixed. Charles Van Doren on "21" became a huge star due to his repeated wins, until it came out thatrepparttar 125949 whole thing had been fixed. Inrepparttar 125950 case of "The $64,000 Question,"repparttar 125951 owner of Revlon was personally hand-selectingrepparttar 125952 winners and losers onrepparttar 125953 show. 2.

Voters are to Blame for Bad Politics

Written by Terry Mitchell

When I was growing up, I actually considered a career in politics. I quickly changed my mind, though, when I discovered that there was way too much politics involved in it. Obviously, that's a play on words, but I get funny looks from people when I tell them that. However, I am completely serious. The politics of running for and holding elective office is influenced too much byrepparttar politics of power, influence, and money. But whose fault is it that such a condition exists? I believe voters have no one to blame but themselves. As a voting public, we have become entirely too sophisticated for our own good. Many of us have made a habit of voting pragmatically, i.e., voting forrepparttar 125868 person we think hasrepparttar 125869 best chance to win instead ofrepparttar 125870 person we most agree with. We complain about wishy-washy politicians who won't give us straight answers, yet when people who say what they really think run for office, we dismiss them as being "loose cannons." When any candidate makes a statement that's evenly slightly out ofrepparttar 125871 mainstream, it is considered such an egregious act that he or she either becomes marginalized or is forced to drop out ofrepparttar 125872 race. What's left is a bunch of cautious and robotic weenies with their fingers inrepparttar 125873 wind - people who form their decisions based on polls and focus groups. We say we want candidates who are different, but not too different. We say we want new ideas but we shun candidates that seemrepparttar 125874 least bit precocious. Therefore, we end up withrepparttar 125875 kinds of candidates we've always had. I've often heard voters comment on candidates by making statements like "I couldn't imagine her being elected" or "he sends shivers down my spine." Most people will automatically exclude any candidate who would fit those kinds of descriptions. But should they? Sometimes good candidates come in packages that might be a little different or even a bit scary. By disqualifying those types of candidates, we could be missing out on some potentially great leaders. I wonder how many of today's sophisticated voters would consider someone like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt too much of a "nut" to be elected. We like to sayrepparttar 125876 issues arerepparttar 125877 important things to us. However, many of us vote based on personalities. For example, we will decide on a presidential candidate based on who seemsrepparttar 125878 most "presidential" (whatever that means). We are also too concerned about meaningless ceremonial issues. For example, I bet some people wouldn't vote for an unmarried man for president because of their concern aboutrepparttar 125879 absence of a first lady. We also put too great of an emphasis on superficial issues such as aesthetics, i.e., how someone looks. Richard Nixon may have lostrepparttar 125880 1960 election because he didn't look as good on TV as John F. Kennedy during their debate. We also stress a candidate's education a little too much. Education is important, but it's not everything. Some of smartest people inrepparttar 125881 world never attended college. However, many of us wouldn't consider someone for any office higher than dog catcher unless he or she had at least a Bachelor's degree.

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use