The influence of radio is far beyond our scope of knowledge. For a device that seems only to talk at us, radio creates an experience undoubtedly affecting everything from our daily rituals to our perceptions of our experiences. Radio is a powerful form of media that creates an intimate experience, affects emotion and perception of external events, and widespread captivation through a domestic experience.
Jo Tacchi notes the domestic atmosphere that listening to the radio creates. The listener can feel an intimate relationship with radio. Despite the fact that a wide array of people listen to the radio, listeners often feel as though they are being singled out and directly spoken to. I often feel like this during advertisements, particularly ones in which the DJ reads a script about a particular product. I specifically remember one advertisement when DJ was talking about dog food. Although she was only marketing the dog food, she spoke about her personal routines after work, her own dog, and her general concern for her dog’s health. During the commercial, I felt as though she were directly talking to me, as I was driving to work and she sat in a studio probably 30 miles away. I found the commercial really effective in the way that they created this imaginary conversation (silent on my part) between the listener and the DJ.
The radio can be effective in that way: it convinces the reader that the communication is not, in fact, one way and that the radio is not talking “at” you, but rather conversing with you. How do you think radio builds that relationship, or trust, with listeners? Does the intimacy of radio stem from their manipulation of the audience or our submission due to the “domestic” environment?
In radio’s ability to connect with us and create an intimate experience, it also affects our emotions and reactions to the external world. Kaplan notes how Israel radio is able to communicate new stories and celebrate holidays by playing music of a particular mood. More than anything, Kaplan stressed how the radio acts to “shape a national culture.” He explained that beyond a private experience, radio can be used differentiate the significance of current events and unite citizens through shared emotions. Something as simple as playing only a mildly sad song can devalue the importance of a recent news story and place people at a similar interpretation of an event.
In Tacchi’s article, however, she did not discuss the functionality of the radio as much as the relationship formed with it. She describes the radio as a “friend” and as a tool for a “soundscape,” creating a ritualistic texture in the listener’s life. In this way, Tacchi embraces how each person has their own subjective view of the radio: she noted how everyone observed, or listened, to the same noise but experienced it differently. Do you think that Kaplan would agree? When Kaplan says “public mood,” do you think he acknowledges the loose definition of public and variety of experience? To what degree can radio unite as a public or a nation?
Likewise, in David Bathrick’s article, he discusses the captivation of a “national audience” through the radio program “Wunschkonzert.” Superficially, both Tacchi’s and Bathrick’s articles note “domesticity” and “networking private and public experience.” Bathrick’s purpose of domesticity defers from Tacchi’s though. In the context of Bathrick’s argument, the Nazis strove to create the domestic environment to transform the aggression of war “into the solidity of a deeper kind of Volksgemeinschaft.” In sum, Wunschkonzert served as an environment of moderation that did not challenge the status quo or encourage intellectualism. Domesticity does not imply comfort in this case, but rather intellectual simplicity to relate to the greater German population. Wunschkonzert’s domesticity was an indication of censorship and manipulation to paint a modified picture of social and political life. Currently in the US, the FCC regulates the radio stations. Would you argue that the FCC encourages the domesticity that Bathrick describes, one of censorship of harsh realities, or that Tacchi describes, one of simplicity and comfort? Which domesticity do you experience most when you listen to the radio (depending on the type of station)?
17 comments:
I believe Kate is correct in her idea that the radio host is conversing rather than talking at the listener, particularly during advertisements said by them. I believe that trust in radio is almost exclusively set up by each individual listener. The listener has learned to trust the radio host to the point where they have developed this own relationship with them. Tacchi notes in one part of his writing that “listeners will mentally switch off, or zone out from, what they are not interested in, rather than physically switch stations.” This demonstrates that even if the ad is not interesting to them, the relationship has developed that forces an individual to just tune out what is said rather than no longer listen to the host they trust. Furthermore, I believe Kaplan’s logic can still broadly fit in with Tacchi’s argument of individual experience. Kaplan did not delve in to specific people’s thoughts at particular sounds or songs, but rather gave a broad sense of how people felt when they heard them. Tacchi says “radio can also reinforce a routine.” In this sense the routine is that the sad songs played after a terrorist attack or during a certain holiday cause these certain feelings in the listener’s minds. The listeners still have this national identification in a sense that they all know why the sad song is being played, but each individual might have their own personal memory or feeling to that song. This makes both Kaplan and Tacchi’s arguments valid.
-Kyle B
I agree with Kyle in that both Tacchi and Kaplan’s pieces explicate a truth about radio even as one emphasizes its intimacy and importance to the individual in his or her daily routine, and the other address its ability to foster a “national” consciousness and collectivity. I am very intrigued by this capacity of radio to impart both an individualized message and enforce a sense of commonality among listeners. What I found most interesting however, was the power radio songs had to not only shape and conform to the external environment, but then in doing so, to place limitations on their usage. As Eran, a music programmer from Kol Yisrael noted in Kaplan’s piece, “ ‘This country is really twisted, because when people hear a song by Chava Alberstein they think something has happened. We’ve had these really beautiful songs that were simply appropriated for tragic circumstances, songs that used to be really beautiful and turned into songs of mourning, of traumatic situations in the country…’” The idea that a radio DJ or programmer’s act of fostering collective “mood shifting” and appropriating particular songs for particular emotionally charged situations is a double-edged sword is interesting. Songs and artists are can serve as valuable tools for the creation of the “imagined community,” but they seem to do so at the expensive of that song or artists ubiquity. Playing Chava Alberstein’s music for tragic events has limited the playability of her ‘beautiful’ music, something I think is unfortunate. Tacchi notes too the ability of radio songs to conform strongly to an individual’s external circumstances, for instance the woman whose station preferences have changed according to the four romantic relationships she has been in throughout the last year. It seems to me this intimacy, the ability for radio songs to produce such a strong reaction and linkage with emotional events in life, comes at price.
--Sarah Schulman
I think that Kaplan's view of radio as a driver of collective, national sentiment is indeed different from Tacchi's view of radio as an individualistic experience. I would say that the distinction lies in the intent of the radio programmers themselves. Tacci talks about radio sound as a texture; From that of a background sound to that of a foreground sound. This change in texture is driven by the way the listener "uses" or hears that sound- passively or actively. Kaplan argues that Israeli radio programmers have the ability (and the important role) of making their listeners active by playing songs that are intended to create a certain feeling or mood. This happens in Israel quite frequently with radio paying respect to holidays, commemoration days, and emergencies. So, the listeners are often "forced" to bring radio sound into the foreground of sounds. Kaplan says of memorial days, "The majority who choose not to participate in the ceremonies and carry on with their daily life nevertheless encounter the uniform memorial music wherever they go and thus are exposed to the same commemorative mode and mood nonetheless." Even for those who might want to put radio in the background, they cannot. In this way, a truly national experience is created and expected. Tacci, on the other hand, says, “One of the ways in which almost all of my informants talked about radio use was as a ‘background’ to activities in the home.” He says that many of his informants used radio to “cover up…silences” and create “an alternative activity or a distraction.” These listeners are not expected to have their mood reflect a national one; rather, they are allowed the freedom to listen in much more varying degrees of activeness and feel a way that reflects their own personal mood.
--Paulina Goodman
The discussion of the conversation with radio, advertisement in particular seems to really highlight Tacchi’s concept of making “listening to the radio a social activity, in that it can act to reinforce sociality and sense of social self, and at the same time has the potential to fill perceived gaps in one's social life” (Askew 242). As noted in previous posts the actual one way message through the medium of radio becomes social and enacts a sociality physically impossible for the isolated individual, in this case in the action of driving alone. I would also agree that Tacchi’s notion of personalized listening experience is not at odds with Kaplan’s contention about public mood and response. Rather, Tacchi’s emphasis on subjective interpretation and individual choice, related to a great extent to personal experience and memory (for instance Gretta’s shifting musical taste in conjunction to her experience of different relationships), corresponds to the creation of united public listening when the experience and memory is shared at a national level. If personal experience has an impact on the feeling associated with particular music then it makes sense that collective experience would breed unanimity of feeling with respect to such dedicatory broadcasts. Moreover Tacchi mentions the traditional African "Juju music, with voices, guitars, and talking drum amplified at high decibel levels... which conditions the behavior of participants in Yoruba neo-traditional life-cycle celebrations” (Tacchi 249). This example which he marks as declaring “cultural consolidation” can be easily compared to the ritualized and commemorative use of radio on Israeli radio which Kaplan discusses.
I agree with the other posts that the radio is conversing with the listener rather than talking at the listener. I do not think that Kaplan and Tacchi’s pieces – and thus their viewpoints – must be separated. As Kyle astutely concluded, their overarching theses are entirely compatible and fit together nicely, especially through the concept of trust. I liked this idea of trust in the radio, specifically that it stems from the feeling of the radio as a friend. Building off of that concept, perhaps there is a certain feeling of comfort in the radio. This comfort stands to explain why people do not change the channel when the information does not pertain to them. Comfort would also explain Tacchi’s concept of “social silence”. One of his subjects, Sue, describes social silence. She blasts the radio “because it clears things… to clear your mind of what’s bothering you and put something else in there… I find it therapeutic” (244). This line resonated with me more than any other section of this week’s reading. This therapeutic, comfortable feeling is an overarching reason why people relate so strongly to the radio as a “friend”.
To switch gears slightly, I found Kaplan’s piece relatable to our discussion last week with newspapers. Someone raised her hand in class this week and stated that radio differs from the media of newspaper because the consumer and the producer are following along in real time. In other words, radio seems more realistic and more truthful. I completely agreed with this statement – the portrayal of news, discussion, and music is more fluent in real time via the radio. I think Kaplan’s piece, however, closes the gap between radio and newspapers. It seems that “mood shifting” for the radio is almost what bias and selective reporting is for newspapers.
I also agree with the above posts, and I really liked how the pieces came together nicely, giving specific examples of how the radio does affect listeners and their moods. I'm not sure if "mood-switching" for radio as Jillian commented is the same as what bias is for newspapers, because there are different radio stations that one's bias will direct a listener to chose from, which I believe could be compared to the newspaper reading conclusions in that, the music you listen to or the talk shows you like tell something about you and your identity; are you old? do you like political talk shows, sports radio etc. However in Kaplan's paper he said that the majority of the radio stations were geared toward participants associated with "Zionist culture." So it may be harder for minorities to express their identities through radio stations, like they can through newspapers and magazines.
I also feel like radio stations are not listened to in each individuals own time and place the way a newspaper is read in each individuals own time and place. So I think it is important when Tacchi says that "listeners will mentally switch off, or zone out from, what they are not interested in, rather than physically switch stations,” because this suggets that people have a greater attachment to the voice of a certain talk show or song instead of a greater attachment to the radio station itself. For newspapers, I think people have a greater attachment to the newspaper "brand," as Peterson said,that they select and not the voice of the writer or journalist in an article from the newspaper. When people read a newspaper, they read it in their own voice, but the radio has control over the voice heard by the people. So I believe that it is easier to get across an emotion or tone through the radio, as Kaplan showed by how the radio sets a slower, sad mood within the public on the Israeli Memorial Day, and also how Bathrick described that the "Wunschkonzert" provided "folksy humor and familiar musical oldies" to invoke a more positive view of the WWII war front, and brought together Germany through these views (invoking a sense of "national family").
Like Jillian and Kyle, I would also have to agree that the arguments made by Tacchi and Kaplan do not necessarily need to be separated. Although trust does seem to be an important part in the experience one has with the radio (particularly, as Paulina points out, in the article by Kaplan), I found myself wondering what occurs when one listens to the radio for lack of trust. That may sound absurd, but take for example a radio that is very provocative such as Glenn Beck—I have listened to it before (even though I do not trust him at all) just because I am interested in the techniques he uses to manipulate people’s opinions and skew their perspectives on contemporary sociopolitical issues.
Dr. Pandian pointed out in lecture that often it is not what is said that is important to radio, but the way in which it is said. I think this observation is fascinating when we consider the Kaplan article; it brought up the way in which songs are presented and how that could be used to affect ‘national sentiment’. It seems to me Glenn Beck does the same thing but instead of creating a mood of mourning or alarm as the Israeli radio did, he fosters discontent and anger in his followers. As I attempted to listen to his show from an objective standpoint politically, I found myself filled with irritation and eventually even rage—feelings which he likes to direct towards the current government. I would encourage all of you to try doing the same because it really sheds new meaning upon the Kaplan article after having experienced such deliberate emotional manipulation firsthand.
Intellectualism tends to attempt to foster objectivity, so it is interesting to me that talk show radios are still so provocative. Granted, not all members of our society seek to be intellectuals but nevertheless it seems to go against what could be defined as a ‘positive social norm’ in psychology.
I found all the readings to be fascinating, but the one I enjoyed most was probably the Bathrick article. I thought it was interesting (towards the beginning) when the author was describing Germany's efforts to make their political message "less obvious and overbearing." The thing that came to mind immediately was a commercial I had recently seen for a 9/11 special on television. This commercial featured celebrities talking about their role after 9/11 and how it was important for them to support the country or give the country strength in rough times. Their intentions were debatable because in my opinion, most of what celebrities do are actually selfish acts or acts done for attention/popularity, but nevertheless, I drew a connection between the two. Additionally, the Bathrick article drew my attention to the fact that radio can be used not only for entertainment but manipulation (but made to seem only "informative"), and going off of what Sarah mentioned about the intimacy of the radio, it makes radio even more convincing since (like that clip we watched in class from Annie) the listeners often feel as if they're being directly addressed, which is frequently the point.
While reading the Kaplan essay, I couldn't help but compare last week's discussion on national identity and Kaplan's idea of "sharing a strong sense of common identity" through print and radio, just like Jillian stated. In both mediums, readers and listeners [respectively] feel connected to an "imaginary community" because both print and radio create "simultaneity-in-time," or the delivery of news in real-time (which is updated in real-time). However, progressing through the article, Kaplan argues that "live" radio broadcasts happen in the moment whereas newspapers print stories at least a day later. I also agree with Jillian in that live radio does seem to be trustworthy because it offers the most current news and listeners are willing to trust it because the announcers, hosts, and DJs are talking to YOU, the listener. Furthermore, Adam Smith's theory on human's self-interest made me wonder: does this trust in radio translate in audiences? I believe so: radio hosts must appeal to listeners and make them feel comfortable listening to them in order to secure an audience. While this may seem pessimistic, Tacchi's research-especially with Trisha- reveals that people share "their passion with other people" by listening and participating with the radio. This creates an "imaginary community" where listeners from all over are able to bond over topics, events, or the music at hand.
-Geena St. Andrew
I agree with previous posts in that the radio effects peoples mood and overall perspective of a specific subject. From personal experience, hearing a radio announcer talk about something in particular most of the time makes me take their side and the fact that millions of people are listening to this same thing is crazy to think about. Tacchi's view as seeing the radio as an individualistic really supports how he explains that the radio has a certain foreground texture as well as a background texture all depending on how the listener takes it and interprets it.
Looking at the radio and the effect it has on a persons life and overall ruitine is an interesting perspective to look at. As Paulina said, certain songs are created for tragic circumstances and they are often heard first on the radio, and with the amount of people who listen to it at any given time its going to have different effects on different people. So many people listen to the radio ruitinely that it can often change the views of certain listeners on that subject.
Looking at what Sarah said, I agree that artists who make it to the radio often create their own imagined community, and often can change the appearance or thoughts on a particular artist, either good or bad.
Zach P
I agree with Kate about how a radio can almost seem to have a conversation with you while you are listening to it. Advertisements are the most obvious example of the radio sounded very convincing. Tacchi said it best when he said the radio is almost like a "friend" when listening to it. Because you trust your friends, radio ads are structured to make you feel comfortable with the person talking, so that ultimately you will buy their product. Jillian brings up an interesting point about the comfort level of the radio station you consistently listen to. When you drive your car, you typically have one or two radio stations that you listen to. And more often than not, you will keep that station on during commercials even if you have no intention of listening to the commercial. It is almost a claim of loyalty, that this is "your" radio station. I thought it was also interesting when Kaplan noted that in India during the holidays they play music on the radio to get people in the holiday spirit. During the month of December most radio stations play strictly Christmas and Chanukah music to get Americans into a similar mood.
I also agree that radio is conversing with the listener and feel this makes sense with my own personal experiences with the radio. Good radio hosts are the ones that make you feel like you know them and are almost there talking with them. i agree with sarah in that the linkage between songs and personal events is unavoidable. tacchi talking about how people will tune out mental rather than physically switch the station i dont feel is as accurate. people change the radio station physical as often as they would sit through the commercials. Also, the people who actually listen to the ads must be taken into account here as well. Especially if it is ads performed by the host. Tacchi's idea of trust between the listener and the host can cause someone to automatically listen to the ads because its the voice of their favorite host. The concept of the radio developing a sense of routine is an interesting topic many people can associate with. People have their preferences when listening to who delivers the traffic report. Commuters all have to stay on top of traffic weather they listen to an ipod or cd. Hearing the same hosts every morning doing the same routine absolutely can give a strong sense of routine as well as a sense of developing a relationship with the host. Kaplan's theory's of people associating songs with memories or experiences based on what happened or what they were doing when listening to the particular songs.
I agree with Kyle in that, according to Tacchi, the radio acts to connect with people on both a social and personal level. It allows each individual to engage in an intimate relationship. Each and every listener feels as if they are taking part in a two-way conversation, a give and take if you will, rather than a stranger speaking at you. I also like what Jillian said when she refers to the feeling of the radio as a “friend.” I can recall countless situations where I needed to clear my head; and in most instances I accomplished that by simply tuning to my favorite radio station. Bathrick reinforces Tacchi’s idea saying, “Wunschkonzert” was not meant to, “challenge the audience”; but rather instill a positive mentality in its listeners as someone we might call a friend would. As we might have mentioned last week, local newspapers use this strategy as well by printing articles that possess few or no challenges to the intellect of the individual. Kaplan explains how the radio is often used as a way of shaping a particular emotion such as at a memorial service or a tragic event in which sad music is played that coincides with the slow and sad feelings that the individuals listening have to burden. Although the song is heard by large masses and each listener hears it in their own way, it brings each person's past relating memories and experiences to mind. Supporting Paulina, I agree radio is often used for therapeutic means. Many people use radios as a way of “dimming the silence” and filling in the empty space they feel around them at lonely times. I personally listen to the radio from time to time in order to fall asleep if I am stressed out at night.
-Kyle K
I would like to briefly add to Sarah’s sentiment that minorities might have a more difficult time expressing their identities through radio. Kaplan notes that “only three regional stations have chosen to focus on distinct differentiated communities”, but in the United States, there is a preponderance of radio stations that are owned by ethnic minorities, mainly African-American or Hispanic (source: Radio Market Rankings: http://www.arbitron.com/home/mm001050.asp). What differences in the conditions between the Israeli and American cultures of radio do you think contributes to this discrepancy? Does the type ‘domesticity’ and conformity advanced by radio in these two countries play a role?
I also had a slightly different interpretation from Sarah about Tacchi’s comment regarding mentally switching off radio stations rather than physically changing the station. I actually read that statement to support the idea that the attachment that a person forms would be stronger with the radio station as a unit as opposed to the individual talk shows or music playlists that are broadcast on that station. Since people do not change the station but rather zone out the content they are not interested in, wouldn’t that imply that the loyalty to the station would be stronger than the attachment for a certain talk show or song? To expand upon this, I would also argue that radio contributes to a shared sense of time and space in a country, although perhaps not as much as newspapers. Consider the common radio practice of broadcasting ‘weather and traffic on the 8’s’. People all tune in at the same time for a shared experience, whether the relief in finding your route home is secure, or frantic detouring when there is a crash involving multiple vehicles on the outer loop of the beltway.
However, I agree with Sarah’s outlook on the ability for emotional content to be transmitted over the radio as opposed to the newspapers. One needs only listen to the pathos employed by a radio spot soliciting donations for the current famine in Somalia to understand that the radio can connect to the listener in ways that the newspaper are unable to due to the restrictions of the media.
While reading the comments, I started to think about not only radio's nature to be both intimate and wide-spread, but also its evolution in relation to time. Bathrick's article discusses the innovative quality of radio in Germany in the early 20th century. It served to connect a formerly disconnected nation and create a " National German Family". In Israel, radio serves a more complex purpose of creating and supporting expected moods of its listeners. Though the articles refer to different countries, Israeli radio culture seems like a logical evolution of radio. It encourages more than just a national identity, but now a national sentiment. While reading Tacci's article, I began to think about the role of radio as a soundscape in my own life. In today's 21st century world, radio seems to become more of a background to our multi-tasked lives.
I also began to think about the "tune-in" nature of radio and its implications, especially in our time. Today, everything in our world is accessible. We can find any song, any movie, any podcast in seconds (not that any of us illegally download…). Basically all of our forms of entertainment are now On-Demand. So when one turns on the radio, he or she is really becoming a passive listener. While the experience may be intimate, we let go and let the radio come to us, we let it take us for a ride. There is something great in knowing that your favorite song just came on the radio by chance, rather than just plugging in your ipod and turning it on. While our world today is so interconnected, the radio can reconnect us to a simpler time that brings with it an appreciate for simple, shared moments.
The discussion of the conversation with radio, advertisement in particular seems to really highlight Tacchi’s concept of making “listening to the radio a social activity, in that it can act to reinforce sociality and sense of social self, and at the same time has the potential to fill perceived gaps in one's social life” (Askew 242). As noted in previous posts the actual one way message through the medium of radio becomes social and enacts a sociality physically impossible for the isolated individual, in this case in the action of driving alone. I would also agree that Tacchi’s notion of personalized listening experience is not at odds with Kaplan’s contention about public mood and response. Rather, Tacchi’s emphasis on subjective interpretation and individual choice, related to a great extent to personal experience and memory (for instance Gretta’s shifting musical taste in conjunction to her experience of different relationships), corresponds to the creation of united public listening when the experience and memory is shared at a national level. If personal experience has an impact on the feeling associated with particular music then it makes sense that collective experience would breed unanimity of feeling with respect to such dedicatory broadcasts. Moreover Tacchi mentions the traditional African "Juju music, with voices, guitars, and talking drum amplified at high decibel levels... which conditions the
behavior of participants in Yoruba neo-traditional life-cycle celebrations” (Tacchi 249). This example which he marks as declaring “cultural consolidation” can be easily compared to the ritualized and commemorative use of radio on Israeli radio which Kaplan discusses.
-Stephanie Curtin
Post a Comment