Demand in the Design

The early 20th century marked a turning point in American media history, as both technological advances and the determination of new, innovative uses for it created a medium that rose to dominance during the 1920s: radio. What was originally an advancement of a communication form already in existence, morse code, grew and developed into the "Radio Music Box" originally conceived by David Sarnoff, as described in "Media Now." In turn, its convenient nature allowed it to become a household object, and thus spread its popularity across the nation.

Technological advancement as a driving force finds its foundations in the concept of innovation in general. By creating more efficient and more advanced means of carrying out the motions of everyday life, these things gain popularity within social spheres. Originally, the radio was considered to be a "wireless telegraph" when it was first invented in 1896 by Guglielmo Marconi. Intended to further mobilize the telegraph system, it allowed radio stations to broadcast and receive messages from ships at sea that were beyond the reach of the usual wires. However, what began as a technological advancement for morse code as a means of relaying messages gained technological advances of its own — De Forest's vacuum tube that allowed for sounds like music to be broadcast, for example — that allowed it to become its own medium.

Once the technology had blossomed into full development, Sarnoff's idea helped radios find their way into American homes. From there, what the technological advancement that had brought into the spotlight triggered a chain reaction of events that, set off by those original sparks of innovation, allowed radio to become so influential during the '20s. The concept of entertainment embedded with commercials as a source of funding led to the music, shows and variety that piqued the public interest. Soon the demand of the audience led to the need for supplying more radios and more radio content, thus allowing it to rocket to the powerful influence it held during that era.

MTV and the Cultivation of Stereotypes

The widespread significance mass media holds in modern life has become, to a recognizable degree, an influencing factor in the thoughts and opinions of not just the U.S., but also of societies across the globe. It has raised concerns for some, possibilities for others and neutrality on other accounts. Above all, the attention it has received from its importance has garnered interest into the inner workings of the influence it exerts on populations and the individuals that comprise it. 
With these theories on the science behind the media in mind, one can approach phenomena in news and in everyday life from several varying angles, in a hope to better understand the full power of the forces behind it. One such concept, known as cultivation theory, can be applied, for example, to a late 2009 dispute between members of the Italian-American community and popular television station, MTV, that received coverage from several news sources.

The idea behind cultivation is this: people with strong exposure to certain mediums like television are more likely to view the scenarios and situations depicted within it as commonplace and, perhaps most significantly, as reality.

An article appeared on FOXNews.com last November, in which MTV reality show, Jersey Shore, came into accusations of depicting Italian-Americans in a negative light and encouraging Americans to stereotype the group as a whole. The story featured two national Italian-American organizations, UNICO National and the National Italian American Foundation, both of which were seeking the cancellation of the show.

In his interview with the news organization, UNICO National President Andre DiMino, expressed his dissent with MTV's decision to air the show despite the concerns that came out during the program's promotional phase: "They're trying to sweep it under the rug, this very outward and blatant stereotyping that they're advocating. I'm going to determine what our next steps are going to be. We just can't remain silent. We've lived through 'The Sopranos' when we were all gangsters and thugs, and now we're being portrayed as buffoons."

The concept behind the concerns of these groups becomes clearer when the cultivation theory is incorporated into the mix: it would mean that, once Jersey Shore became widespread, Americans would apply the concept of spray-tanned, party-loving, self-proclaimed "guidos" to all Italian-Americans, and as a result damaging the reputation of the group. A commercial for the show can be viewed below:

This is explored further in another story that appeared in TIME in December of last year. In it, the opinion of English professor Gina Barreca, who worked on a series of essays examining the portrayal of Italian-Americans in HBO's The Sopranos. She stated that the "Guido subculture," as it is referred to in TIME, that is featured on Jersey Shore is "a celebration of ignorance.

As likely obvious from its current large viewership, Jersey Shore is still being aired, and has even entered into its second season. While, at this point, opinions on whether or not the show has actually caused a negative impact on the nation's image of Italian-Americans are still greatly varied, it is clear that the concerns that were and are still being raised as well as the idea of the "nation's image" itself can be explained and better understood through the concept of cultivation theory.

Stories into the Spotlight: Agenda Setting in the Media

One of the concepts of the relationship between media and society that caught my attention was agenda setting. Through understanding the meaning of this as a link between media coverage and the public opinion, it allowed me to better assess a story that had caught on to much popularity for a short time over the summer: a dispute between Bill O'Reilly and Jennifer Aniston. By being introduced to the concept of agenda setting, I was provided with information for a better understanding of something that confused me with the amount of coverage and attention it received.
Agenda setting, at its core, is defined as the action taken, consciously or subconsciously, by a person or group that has the power to influence the public agenda and the topics that are considered important at a certain period in time. "Media Now" details this concept, stating that in the political sphere, for example, well-covered candidates and other figures may push to the forefront topics that they find important, or in some cases useful to their cause, prompting more on the subject to appear in both the media and everyday life. The converse is also possible, due to the inevitable fact that the media, as a body with a finite number of stories that can be covered on a day-to-day basis, has the power to select which concepts and events take prominence for that day, week, season and beyond. 

This concept of the media selecting what stories will be featured and, in turn, talked about and regarded with importance, brings to mind a week in early August where a media member — or, truly, a group — initiated what seemed to be a chain reaction of stories covering a singular event and topic for discussion. While this certainly cannot be regarded as the only instance of the media bringing an instance that would've otherwise been overlooked into the spotlight, it was one that struck me as somewhat odd: the short fascination with something of a dispute between Bill O'Reilly and actress Jennifer Aniston.
It began as O'Reilly showed a clip on his FOX News show of a recent interview with Aniston over her upcoming movie in which she plays a single woman who chooses to have a child on her own using artificial insemination. In the interview, she states that times are changing and that there is no reason why a woman wishing to have a child should have to have a man in her life. He responded to this clip by declaring, among other things, that her message is "destructive to our society." This brought much more attention to both himself and the promotional interview Aniston was featured in, and as a result, things snowballed further as pop culture news sources among other news channels began focusing in on this with the angle that a feud was occurring between them, with headlines often featuring how his comments "slam" hers, and, when she was later asked about his words, hers as "shooting" back at him. 
What began as a single, small interview as a promotion for a film suddenly became a story that was covered on dozens of celebrity blogs and news channels, one of which is shown below as a still from CNN's take on the incident, courtesy of the HLN channel on YouTube:





 While this has no political ties, the concept of agenda setting does seem to help explain what exactly happened in this case. The main focus of many stations covering the argument appeared to be about Aniston and O'Reilly disagreeing, and less about what they were actually disagreeing about. However, further into these stories it comes to light that the coverage of the argument between them drew a lot of attention to the role of men in modern families, as well as on pregnancy and childrearing in single women and teenaged girls.