75 Years Ago, 'War of the Worlds' Started a Panic. Or Did It? (2013)
slate.com
slate.com
Pretty much it was not panick inducing (with a few exceptions) and everyone went home like the previous day. It wasn’t till days (and years) after that the papers made it seem like it caused pandemonium.
> The newspaper industry sensationalized the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted."
I think I got that idea from Movies/TV as a kid in the 80s/90s. It was a very common and prominent theme. The hero(ine) was very often a print journalist. Think e.g. Teri Hatcher's Lois Lane in the 90s.
But when I was a student in communication you learn really quickly that it has seldom been like that over the last 160 years. Sex, Blood and Sport sell (and Scandals). This is the three S rules.
Early french newspaper from the industrial revolution (circa. 1860, Paris) were already promoting and enforcing short and concise sentences. And a populist and demagogic style to sell more.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Petit_Journal_(newspaper)#D... and others.
I like the idea that there is some hard-nosed blue collar people out there trying to speak truth to power but it seems that they speak for power because it pays.
And don't mention that one co-worker is living an adopted second persona to seduce and/or spy on a fellow reporter. Also, his immigration status and all the forms he must have faked to get his job and file his taxes. If Clark Kent was real he would almost certainly be locked up somewhere.
Worse by conventional journalistic standards. But since the 60s we've had "New Journalism" and so-called "Gonzo Journalism", were the journalist meddles with their subject, and even reports on himself...
A few owners sadly own large parts of the media and push an agenda, but I really do not want to imagine a world where newspapers don't exist anymore. They are not perfect and its easy to criticise articles after the fact, but its incredibly difficult to pump out timely and relevant news.
There often is no single truth but rather many perspectives and I don't think we can expect a journalist paid a barely livable wage and working long hours to keep up the highest quality standards every day all day.
Please have some respect for the role this media plays, holding authority to account and getting by and large useful and correct information to the public. That doesn't mean you need to trust every written word, but comments like yours that newspapers are not/don't try most of the time to be honest and fair is simply not correct or fair.
As you said, a few owners control virtually all of corporate media. And those owners are not unbiased. And those owners and the people they hire in management have agendas. And that trickles all the way down to the newsroom floor, just like it does in any company.
At any rate, journalism needs a business model revamp for the 21st century. Substack is part of the answer, but other things need to be tried too.
Yellow journalism was the norm in the past. We lived through a unique and fairly amazing era.
“. ..But we’re still jackals. We can befriend you for years, and then bite off your arm just as you’re offering us a treat. We can’t help it. It’s the nature of the job. At the highest levels, like Watergate, it’s about digging for the truth, no matter what corrupt government official it hurts. At the basest level, when even the crummiest scandal erupts, you have to repeat the accusation, even if you know it’s untrue or half-true, in order to explain the truth — no matter how much you may personally like the source you’re hurting.”
[1] https://donaldgmcneiljr1954.medium.com/nytimes-peru-n-word-p...
I'm of the opinion that these recent takes on the coverage of the event are themselves a bit of an over-correction: there may not have been national pandemonium, but there were certainly examples of confusion and panic among listeners.
Is there any documentation of that actually happening, though? How many calls were they responding to? Remember also that this is before the internet, if you wanted more info about something, calling the police is one of the few things you can do.
Plus, an author writing an autobiography has a vested interest in trying to build the story up.
I really doubt police in 1938 kept track of every time they left the station (especially if it turned really mundane) and same thing goes for phone calls.
Best we can do is trusting someone's memory, which is not really reliable.
I disagree, we can do a lot better than just blindly believing, aka "trusting", any claim just because it was made by someone in the past.
First off, in a time when it was common to broadcast all kinds of shows on the radio, including variety shows, readings of novels, and plays/dramas, I find it rather dubious that a large number of people panicked and thought there's an actual alien invasion rather than just assuming it's another show.
It also wasn't the only thing on the radio at that moment. The linked article mentions that a far more popular comedy variety show was broadcasting at the same time, so again, a huge number of people just panicked and thought aliens were invading, even though they could turn their dial and see only one station was talking about it.
Finally, where are the first hand accounts? Where are the accounts of people who panicked, or who's family members, friends, or neighbors were panicking?
Given all of this, I think what's likely is that the broadcast raised some eyebrows at the time (some people perhaps called the police for more information), and was later blown out of proportion for publicity reasons.
One thing might make a difference here, War of the Worlds was structured as a news broadcast rather than a narrative.
* https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2003/fall/war...
I remember back in Germany I turned on the TV one night, not knowing what was going to be on. What I heard was various news broadcasters talking about the Soviet union attacking West Germany. Tanks were rolling over the borders between East and West Germany, fighter jets in the air. All with accompanying video material of actual tanks rolling and all that and narrowly averting nukes being fired. All of it was actual news material, including the news anchors, nothing was fake recorded.
I was quite confused for some time until I figured out that it was a "ZDF History" episode that specifically cut together various news broadcasts to make it look like they were remembering "that time when the East attacked the West" and that they were trying to show how easy it is to "change the past" this way or even make people think that this was actually going on, if this had been broadcast live in the evening news instead.
And this is way before deep fakes.
Besides, English has an unknown pronoun, it’s “they”
Orson Welles didn't write an autobiography, did he? All I can see is unfinished memoirs, unpublished?
"Question: When were you first aware of the trouble caused?
Welles: Immediately after the broadcast was finished when people told me of the large number of phone calls received."
Note he's not even confirming he spoke to someone who would know if there was a 'large number of phone calls'.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/shootout-with-marti...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073454/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_That_Panicked_Americ...
https://aldianews.com/articles/culture/social/other-war-worl...
Most people can’t even see edits in movies. Fixed vs. portable equipment is on another level.
Individuals can be clever but as a herd we humans are bloody daft on average. I use the word daft deliberately, rather than stupid. For example there are people who genuinely believe that Bill Gates is attempting to track them via a device that is implanted via a vaccine.
I would hope that I might be given a chance to rip their mobile (cell) to shreds. I remove the GPS related stuff. Then I try to fit those bits down the barrel of a needle. The battery (cell really) would probably get stuck.
I doubt whether I'd have questioned production techniques, were I there at the time. The very act of watching the goggle box is to often suspend disbelief. I watched Doctor Who in the 70s and onwards. Buck Rogers (in the 25th C). Old Star Trek. etc. I saw Star Wars E1 or 4 or whatever, the first time around.
I'm not sure how I'd have reacted to a martian invasion on the wireless back in the '50s.
That would not convince anyone that believes in the conspiracy, since of course Bill Gates would not use an off the shelf GPS chip, he created an all new needle-sized chip in his secret laboratory.
It's impossible to fight a conspiracy based on magic technology by presenting facts since in their mind, that magic technology already exists even if they don't fully understand how it works.
ID2020 and similar projects have been things pushed for many years, including by Bill Gates himself. They have been pushed to establish a universal ID, as well as to track vaccinations.
As expected though, on topics on which the lay person won't have a solid grasp of, parts of the message get distorted as it is shared between laypeople. Instead of "providing means to present unified ID and keep track of vaccines recevied by means of epidermal identity chip", it becomes "literally a chip in the vaccine".
Back to my original point. Have you not heard of the coming Vaccine Passports? There is no point to them if not to track and verify if people have taken the relevant vaccinations. The first wave of these "passports" probably won't be issued by chip (more likely to be phone apps or smart cards), however they will definitely be used to track movement and identity to control the spread of COVID.
To deny this is happening strikes me as odd. Especially when vaccine passport trials are already up and running across the world.
Neither! It was a cover story for the incident when the Lectroids from Planet Ten smuggled their team (John Parrot, John Bigbooty, John Nolan, John O'Connor, John Small Berries, et al) into Yoyodyne. Saw a doc on this [1] back in the eighties. Welles was hypnotized for the coverup.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Buckaroo_Ban...
Especially ugly in modern times when it comes to defaming people - a juicy memorable accusation becomes the truth, and anything proving it wrong is not nearly as viral or interesting.
> The night the program aired, the C.E. Hooper ratings service telephoned 5,000 households for its national ratings survey.
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._E._Hooper]:
> Compared to the earlier Crossley ratings, Hooperatings had the advantage of not depending on respondents remembering what they had listened to earlier in the day. However, they still only sampled an urban rather than rural population. They also failed to account for the millions of households at the time which had a radio set but no telephone.
Seems like the answer is somewhere in the middle.
https://americanliterature.com/author/mark-twain/short-story...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(1938_...
Wow. Well if they're not going to listen enough to notice that it's Martians, not Germans, they're not going to hear the part about it being fiction.