The first ‘commercial’ went on the air on 28 August 1922—ten minutes of station WEAF's radio time sold to a real-estate developer—yet not only Sarnoff but Herbert Hoover, the Secretary of the Department of Commerce, was opposed to advertising.
Today, news outlets and entertainment sources rely on advertisers to purchase ad spots to provide their funding. Do you think the media has become too commercialized?
Sceptics talked of ‘the novelty of radio wearing off’, but in the words of a writer in the Scientific American, ‘broadcasting has become so popular and its possibilities are so great that it can never become obsolete’.
Seeing as this statement was made around the 1920s, radio has surpassed being a novelty. Do you think radio will continue to stand the test of time?
important than point-to-point communication.
It is interesting to see the beginning of broadcasting being used for point-to-point communication as said in the reading, to being an outlet for multitudes of information. As technology advanced, broadcast adapted to society's needs.
the National Wireless Association, attacked the idea of government monopoly as ‘high handed and unjustified’.
I feel this is fair because governmental monopolization could be dangerous and infringe on the first amendment rights of citizens. What is your take on this?
broadcasting represents a job of entertaining, informing and educating the nation, and should therefore be distinctly regarded as a public service’.
I feel like this is an incredibly efficient definition of broadcasting. Do you feel the current broadcast field holds true to this?
The war itself seemed to have produced the final jolt.
What do you think the war brought to changing the social pattern of broadcast usage that was not possible before? How did war change society's outlook on these devices?
Broadcasting would never be left to the scientists.
Do you feel this is fair? Is this still true today?
The surprise is that there were still so few people who saw its possibilities.
Before knowing the success of radio, many were hesitant to trust the abilities of this new media. Do you think their reactions reflect how people feel about new media today? Does our generation have more early adopters?
In Eckersley's view the war was chiefly important in radio history
This excerpt intrigues me because compared to how we use radio today, it makes me wonder how we as a society went from using radio for war communications to how we use radio now. Do you think we use radio more or less efficiently than what radio originally was created for?
When war was imminent they were able to contact the scattered and vulnerable ships of the German mercantile marine; when war was declared they were able at once to begin broadcasting military and naval communiqués.
I find it extremely interesting that broadcasts of widespread communication began for war purposes. This reminds me of how telegraph lines were created to help communicate efficiently during the Civil War. If it wasn't for war, do you think these technologies would've been introduced sooner or later?
This record shows that the average time required is, with a surprisingly small variation from week to week, eight minutes and fifteen seconds
How does this hold up to the fact that some boys walk up to 19 miles? I would want to see more background information for clarification on how exactly the boys' travel locally. Who dictates when the time to walk, catch a car, or local fare?
If a boy in this business does have a holiday, he usually has the satisfaction of knowing that a good day's work and a day's pay have already been set down to his credit.
They really incentivize them to the core to have them work for a day off! Can their hard work not be commended just because?
If the average time becomes greater than this, the superintendent at once concludes that some of the boys are becoming dilatory, and he examines the whole record to find out who are the lazy ones, and calls them to account.
This is kind of crazy! Keeping tallies on their absence from delivery, comparing times, and having them travel long distances. This seems like a cut-throat sort of business.
office are made so as to get from each boy the best service possible.
It is obvious the company holds the handful of boys they hire to a strict standard. That may seem too rough for the boys, but the seriousness of the job aligns with the sophistication and hard work they're looking for in their offices.
In the first place, the boys are not paid by the day or week, but so much for each message
I think this is almost unfair due to how many miles they walk (no less than 19 miles is still hard labor) and the customer service abilities the boys would have to have. Yes, this may be a way to incentivize things, but they still are doing a job that requires adequate pay whether just a boy or not.
Around the turn of the century, the availability of telephones in homes as well as businesses meant that people became more accessible day and night. Computer, beeper, cell phone, and fax technology are further expanding the scope, the ability, the necessity of instantaneous communication to the point where there is often no clear distinction between work time and leisure time. From Benjamin Franklin’s adage that time is money, to the oft heard expression today that timing is everything, we can gain an intuitive understanding of the increasing prominence of “time” as a social construct in modem society.
I agree- while having advanced technology in different shapes and forms is great for completing necessary tasks, but means we're always plugged in and have a hard time finding a time when we are truly disconnected. This reminds me of hustle culture when bringing up "time is money" because people give away all their time and then some to afford to live, but in return they are letting time dictate their life.
“time”, in a sense, was more in control, dictating people’s actions, rather than people dictating action.
This is an interesting way to put this. We function around departure times, school times, work hours, meal times, store hours, business hours, etc. While we may have the ability to dictate how we manage our time, we often have to stick to some sort of schedule or routine based on time itself.
American society is familiar with the ideas of a “work week” and a “school year”
I found this paragraph incredibly interesting because after using this to organize my life into these time units for all these years, it seems shocking to me that some groups function with different circumstances. This makes me wonder- how would we function without any organization of time?
self-winding, synchronized clocks, and regulating these by hourly signals of time correction
This paragraph made me think about how truly amazing it is how the telegraph, for example, relies on so many other external or environmental factors. Different fields such as astronomical observations and railroad systems aided in the production of communication for the telegraph and regulating synchronized clocks. What are more modern-day examples of this? What first comes to mind for me is how restaurants for example rely on ingredients from external forces to operate such as farmers or sourcing for produce. Restaurants need different meats from across the globe from farmers again, fishermen, or vendors.
the application of telegraphic technology to time had the effect of standardizing time, making it subject to more precise management (thus making it a tool of corporate management in the interest of gaining profit through better organization and use of time)
I learned of the history of the telegraph in a course called cyberspace & society. The telegraph was understood as the first communication device to send precise messages to a wide area. From this viewpoint of the text, I never considered how the telegraph also impacts time management by providing some sort of schedule or framework.
In our changing economy, there is concern about job futures in most fields. Historical training is not, however, an indulgence; it applies directly to many careers and can clearly help us in our working lives.
This text has made it clear that studying history can be beneficial for an abundance of reasons such as knowledge, assessing arguments, writing skills, and understanding of society's beginnings.
Its study helps create good businesspeople, professionals, and political leaders.
I wish the reading provides actual examples of how history presents itself in these occupations. Can anyone think of any examples?
it does teach the need for assessing arguments, and it provides opportunities to engage in debate and achieve perspective.
I think this is a valid point but is there ever a point where these debates can be harmful?
History should be studied because it is essential to individuals and to society, and because it harbors beauty.
I find this reasoning more adequate to what the true meaning of studying history is, not to measure knowledge.
. For instance, one of the reasons history holds its place in current education is because earlier leaders believed that a knowledge of certain historical facts helped distinguish the educated from the uneducated;
I find this incredibly interesting because while this seems like a good idea, it does not seem very probable now.
Both programs and advertising spots reinforced the same consumerist lifestyle:
Advertisements truly can dictate consumer behaviors especially when it comes to trends. In what ways today do ads reinforce consumerist lifestyles? An example I can think of in ads on social media that are based on your interests.
power of the media.
Sometimes it is insane to sit back and think about how media has been engulfed in our everyday lives, and how the media has taken over after decades. We use the media for entertainment, news, education, connection, etc.
Does history happen without you, or do you play a role in deciding what history is?
I find this question intriguing because it is something I never considered before. I think each person has a role in deciding what history is. While it may seems that are are billions of people in the world and like our lives can feel insignificant at times, but we each play a role in someones life which impacts someones history.
“You shall see the connection if it kills you, Henry! You have had a mistress—I forgave you. My sister has a lover—you drive her from the house. Do you see the connection?
It is obvious with more information in the story that Henry is being hypocritical.
He doesn’t see the connection between his own adulterous affair
It seems that Henry's personal life and selfishness are getting in the way of everyone else's feelings.