The slate article addresses the opposing view to the PBS documentary. If I look into what I have learned in english class thus far I know the significance of avoiding a single story. The PBS documentary is a perfect example of how a single story can morph and convince readers/viewers opinions on an event. After watching the documentary I assumed everything that I had heard was true. Little did I know I was missing a huge part of the story that is crucial for the study of the World of the Wars. I wish that the documentary had talked about the exaggeration that reporters had added to the event. Unfortunately due to the growing popularity of the radio cast americans began to lie about the fact that they had seen the broadcast. All of these issues lead to the myths surrounding the broadcast and why the viewers of the PBS documentary have been misguided.
The PBS documentary of Orson Welle’s “War of The Worlds” was either an example of clever satire, or yet another source of media stretching the truth to boost its ratings. If PBS was just using its own documentary to show its viewers how gullible they can be sometimes by having the people of the present day believe the hysteria of the 1930’s then it did a great job. The documentary proves exactly what the legend of this play does, people will believe anything if you make it sound real. This documentary sounds real with actors testifying their own accounts and plenty of statistics, so if it was just being satirical to prove a point, then bravo PBS. On the other hand, if PBS just exaggerated the already stretched truth to make this event seem like a national emergency, then there is a problem. As a network, PBS is regarded as a trustworthy source, but if they are going to go around spewing statistics without confirming them, this may put a dent in their reputation. For their sake, I hope it is an example of media satire.
The PBS documentary is good and tells the story of those who were panicked, but according to the Slate article, there was another side to the story. In fact, only 2% of 5000 households were even listening to the broadcast, and of those many thought it was a prank. This article provides reasons why news stations today are blowing the event out of proportion, such as to benefit the news companies and to convince people that news needs to be regulated. However, these writers might be in denial. This event makes some people embarrassed by how gullible Americans were and couldn’t believe it happened, therefore blaming it on the widespread stupidity of Americans. Considering that, the PBS program was well done and gave good background such as what was happening with World War II. I think they portrayed what the panicked people did very well, but did it without accounting for the many people who didn’t believe in it.
After reading the Slate article, I have come to the conclusion that the PBS documentary is dramatized and inaccurate. I agree with Slate’s argument that the PBS documentary “can’t resist the allure of a myth”. This documentary ignores and overlooks hard statistic, prioritizing dramatic accounts to make it more interesting. In other words, PBS distorts the facts to make the documentary entertaining. Based on reliable information, the actual event was probably much smaller, affecting much fewer people than the documentary claimed. Thus, the PBS documentary does a disservice to the population by bombarding them with exaggerated accounts of the “War or Worlds” broadcast.
Yet compelling and interesting, the PBS seemed to have major flaws and inaccuracies in their documentary War of the Worlds. As the C.E. Hooper rating service reported that on the night the program aired that 2% of 5,000 households were listening to Orson Welles program. Also, the financial difficulties in that time period seemed to lure newspapers to use the “devastating radio event” as their headline. Radio had damaged the newspaper industry. So, newspapers used the terror caused by Welles to discredit the radio. According to W.Joseph Campbell, the broadcast quickly disappeared from the front pages just after a day or two. Furthermore, several CBS affiliates pre-empted Welles’ broadcast for local commercial. Most people didn’t hear the broadcast. Predictably, lots of people claimed to have listened to the broadcast as time passed on. The PBS documentary seemed to display the myth about this radio program since it was exciting and displayed the power of media.
After The Slate’s article de-meriting the PBS documentary on Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds my opinion still remains that War of the Worlds was a fantastic radio broadcast worthy of being remembered. The Slate argued that newspapers over-exaggerated the public’s response, making it out to be much greater than it actually was. However, if the broadcast was able to dominate newspaper headlines for a few days straight, it does have enough of an effect to be remembered. The Slate legitimized their arguments by saying PBS did not have enough hard evidence to validate any of their arguments. Yet The Slate doesn’t back up any of their claims with any hard evidence either. Their entire argument is trashing the evidence PBS uses but they never give any new evidence of their own to bring any new ideas to the table or lead people to a new conclusion on the broadcast.
Additionally, The Slate claims that the reason newspapers were so eager to write about War of the Worlds was because the newspaper industry had lost sponsors and advertises to radio so they took this opportunity to show how untrustworthy radio was. Ironically, this is exactly what The Slate did to the PBS, so you must question their ulterior motives before swallowing everything they have to say.
Even though PBS’s documentary on Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds radio play makes a very believable argument that the broadcast generated panic across America, Slate’s article easily poked holes into its evidence. PBS showed how they felt that the October 30, 1938 radio program created terror to possibly millions of Americans, using actors to portray the opinions of authors of letters about the play. This use of seemingly personal portrayal cleverly showed how easy it is to believe what the media tells you. But besides that success, the documentary used vague information that other sources, such as an article by Slate could disprove. PBS favored myth over fact, choosing to exaggerate the reaction of the public to Orson Welles’ program, so that it seemed as if all of America was in fear and horror over invading Martians. In reality, less than 2% of surveyed households actually listened to the broadcast, let alone were in terror because of it. The story of the mass terror has been proven to be only a legend, enhanced by the media to be just that, a story.
I can’t believe I was duped. Just like people in 1938 apparently bought into the War of the Worlds broadcast on CBS, I thought the exaggeration of the panic was real. After reading the slate review, I realize how and why the networks would use such hyperbole about the public reaction. Despite there being some benefits to lying about the extent of it all these years, I don’t know why it is still being exaggerated and revisited. I believe 75 years later CBS would be able to let it goooooooo. It shouldn’t be celebrated like a national holiday, how one guy made the American public apparently look THAT stupid. Why should it be remembered? If I was living at the time, I would try to repress the memory of the whole thing. Maybe if I didn’t listen to the broadcast, or knew it to be a joke from the start, the memory might bring a smile to my face :). A moment as embarrassing as this should not have such an inveterate effect on the media.
After watching PBS’s American Experience documentary on the famous so called panic caused by Orson Welles’ 1938 broadcast of “The War of the Worlds,” one cannot help but notice a terrible irony - the program examining how a radio show deceived the public is deceiving the public itself. The documentary, complete with convincing actor portrayals of terrorized citizens, front pages stories from newspapers, and scenes from a 1957 TV show portraying the event, is a bit short on hard facts. In fact, the documentary primarily relies on a report by Hadley Cantril, whose work grossly exaggerated the number of likely listeners that the broadcast reached. The reality is that the broadcast didn’t terrify the whole nation, and even if you only consider the people who were listening the radio at the time, only a miniscule percent were listening the broadcast. The producers, to their credit, gave a passing acknowledgement that the media may have sensationalized the event. The documentary itself is, in fact, quite well made. If only the story were true. I will admit I was about as fooled the the documentary as the documentary made the American people out to be. Perhaps there is some truth at least to the message of the documentary, if not the factual content - the American people can be deceived - if not by a CBS radio play, then by a PBS “documentary.”
The slate article addresses the opposing view to the PBS documentary. If I look into what I have learned in english class thus far I know the significance of avoiding a single story. The PBS documentary is a perfect example of how a single story can morph and convince readers/viewers opinions on an event. After watching the documentary I assumed everything that I had heard was true. Little did I know I was missing a huge part of the story that is crucial for the study of the World of the Wars. I wish that the documentary had talked about the exaggeration that reporters had added to the event. Unfortunately due to the growing popularity of the radio cast americans began to lie about the fact that they had seen the broadcast. All of these issues lead to the myths surrounding the broadcast and why the viewers of the PBS documentary have been misguided.
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteStrongly disagree
DeleteDisagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteAgree
Deleteagree
Deleteagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteThe PBS documentary of Orson Welle’s “War of The Worlds” was either an example of clever satire, or yet another source of media stretching the truth to boost its ratings. If PBS was just using its own documentary to show its viewers how gullible they can be sometimes by having the people of the present day believe the hysteria of the 1930’s then it did a great job. The documentary proves exactly what the legend of this play does, people will believe anything if you make it sound real. This documentary sounds real with actors testifying their own accounts and plenty of statistics, so if it was just being satirical to prove a point, then bravo PBS. On the other hand, if PBS just exaggerated the already stretched truth to make this event seem like a national emergency, then there is a problem. As a network, PBS is regarded as a trustworthy source, but if they are going to go around spewing statistics without confirming them, this may put a dent in their reputation. For their sake, I hope it is an example of media satire.
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteStrongly Agree
DeleteAgree
Deleteagree(ish)
Deleteagree
Deletedisagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteThe PBS documentary is good and tells the story of those who were panicked, but according to the Slate article, there was another side to the story. In fact, only 2% of 5000 households were even listening to the broadcast, and of those many thought it was a prank. This article provides reasons why news stations today are blowing the event out of proportion, such as to benefit the news companies and to convince people that news needs to be regulated. However, these writers might be in denial. This event makes some people embarrassed by how gullible Americans were and couldn’t believe it happened, therefore blaming it on the widespread stupidity of Americans. Considering that, the PBS program was well done and gave good background such as what was happening with World War II. I think they portrayed what the panicked people did very well, but did it without accounting for the many people who didn’t believe in it.
ReplyDeleteDisagree
Deleteagree
Deleteagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteDisagree
Deleteagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteAgree
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePBS documentary rant: Lame fame
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Slate article, I have come to the conclusion that the PBS documentary is dramatized and inaccurate. I agree with Slate’s argument that the PBS documentary “can’t resist the allure of a myth”. This documentary ignores and overlooks hard statistic, prioritizing dramatic accounts to make it more interesting. In other words, PBS distorts the facts to make the documentary entertaining. Based on reliable information, the actual event was probably much smaller, affecting much fewer people than the documentary claimed. Thus, the PBS documentary does a disservice to the population by bombarding them with exaggerated accounts of the “War or Worlds” broadcast.
disagree
DeleteAgree
Deletestrongly agree
Deletedisagree
Deletedisagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteYet compelling and interesting, the PBS seemed to have major flaws and inaccuracies in their documentary War of the Worlds. As the C.E. Hooper rating service reported that on the night the program aired that 2% of 5,000 households were listening to Orson Welles program. Also, the financial difficulties in that time period seemed to lure newspapers to use the “devastating radio event” as their headline. Radio had damaged the newspaper industry. So, newspapers used the terror caused by Welles to discredit the radio. According to W.Joseph Campbell, the broadcast quickly disappeared from the front pages just after a day or two. Furthermore, several CBS affiliates pre-empted Welles’ broadcast for local commercial. Most people didn’t hear the broadcast. Predictably, lots of people claimed to have listened to the broadcast as time passed on. The PBS documentary seemed to display the myth about this radio program since it was exciting and displayed the power of media.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Slate article's point that the PBS broadcast was exaggerated. <- that's my first sentence
Deleteagree
Deletedisagree-ish
Deleteindifferent (just kidding I agree)
DeleteMmmmmm, Chewy! Not. I Disagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteAgReE
DeleteDisagree
DeleteAgree
DeleteBy Olivia Gieger
ReplyDeleteAfter The Slate’s article de-meriting the PBS documentary on Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds my opinion still remains that War of the Worlds was a fantastic radio broadcast worthy of being remembered. The Slate argued that newspapers over-exaggerated the public’s response, making it out to be much greater than it actually was. However, if the broadcast was able to dominate newspaper headlines for a few days straight, it does have enough of an effect to be remembered. The Slate legitimized their arguments by saying PBS did not have enough hard evidence to validate any of their arguments. Yet The Slate doesn’t back up any of their claims with any hard evidence either. Their entire argument is trashing the evidence PBS uses but they never give any new evidence of their own to bring any new ideas to the table or lead people to a new conclusion on the broadcast.
Additionally, The Slate claims that the reason newspapers were so eager to write about War of the Worlds was because the newspaper industry had lost sponsors and advertises to radio so they took this opportunity to show how untrustworthy radio was. Ironically, this is exactly what The Slate did to the PBS, so you must question their ulterior motives before swallowing everything they have to say.
agree
Deletedisagree
Deleteagree
Deletedisagree
DeleteStrongly Agree
Deletedisagree
DeleteDisagree
DeleteBy Caterina Baffa
ReplyDeleteEven though PBS’s documentary on Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds radio play makes a very believable argument that the broadcast generated panic across America, Slate’s article easily poked holes into its evidence. PBS showed how they felt that the October 30, 1938 radio program created terror to possibly millions of Americans, using actors to portray the opinions of authors of letters about the play. This use of seemingly personal portrayal cleverly showed how easy it is to believe what the media tells you. But besides that success, the documentary used vague information that other sources, such as an article by Slate could disprove. PBS favored myth over fact, choosing to exaggerate the reaction of the public to Orson Welles’ program, so that it seemed as if all of America was in fear and horror over invading Martians. In reality, less than 2% of surveyed households actually listened to the broadcast, let alone were in terror because of it. The story of the mass terror has been proven to be only a legend, enhanced by the media to be just that, a story.
agree
Deleteagree
Deletestrongly agree
Deleteagree
Deleteagree
Deleteagree
DeleteBy Colin Emerson
ReplyDeleteI can’t believe I was duped. Just like people in 1938 apparently bought into the War of the Worlds broadcast on CBS, I thought the exaggeration of the panic was real. After reading the slate review, I realize how and why the networks would use such hyperbole about the public reaction. Despite there being some benefits to lying about the extent of it all these years, I don’t know why it is still being exaggerated and revisited. I believe 75 years later CBS would be able to let it goooooooo. It shouldn’t be celebrated like a national holiday, how one guy made the American public apparently look THAT stupid. Why should it be remembered? If I was living at the time, I would try to repress the memory of the whole thing. Maybe if I didn’t listen to the broadcast, or knew it to be a joke from the start, the memory might bring a smile to my face :). A moment as embarrassing as this should not have such an inveterate effect on the media.
none of the above
Deletedisagree
DeleteAgree
Deletedisagree
Deletedisagree
Deletedisagree
Deletedisagree
DeleteThanks everyone for the support!
DeleteAfter watching PBS’s American Experience documentary on the famous so called panic caused by Orson Welles’ 1938 broadcast of “The War of the Worlds,” one cannot help but notice a terrible irony - the program examining how a radio show deceived the public is deceiving the public itself. The documentary, complete with convincing actor portrayals of terrorized citizens, front pages stories from newspapers, and scenes from a 1957 TV show portraying the event, is a bit short on hard facts. In fact, the documentary primarily relies on a report by Hadley Cantril, whose work grossly exaggerated the number of likely listeners that the broadcast reached. The reality is that the broadcast didn’t terrify the whole nation, and even if you only consider the people who were listening the radio at the time, only a miniscule percent were listening the broadcast. The producers, to their credit, gave a passing acknowledgement that the media may have sensationalized the event. The documentary itself is, in fact, quite well made. If only the story were true. I will admit I was about as fooled the the documentary as the documentary made the American people out to be. Perhaps there is some truth at least to the message of the documentary, if not the factual content - the American people can be deceived - if not by a CBS radio play, then by a PBS “documentary.”
ReplyDeleteOH MY KEENAN
DeleteI strongly agree by the way
Deleteagree
Deleteagree
Deleteagree
Deleteagree
DeleteAgree
Deletedisagree
Deleteagree
Delete