By the 1960’s, talk back radio had gained its prevalence in Australia and overseas. Radio listeners had been calling up radio shows to give their opinions prior to this time, but it was the historical period of the 1960’s where ‘talkback’ or ‘talk radio’ had finally defined its self as its own distinctive radio format. This radio format relied on listeners making phone calls to the station to hopefully get on air to converse with the host and or the guests of the show. The real innovation that talkback provided to an audience was the encouragement of the masses having the opportunity to voice their opinions and address their concerns, irrespective of their gender, race, education level, or socio economical position in life. These opinions and concerns that were expressed were not always of a serious nature, as talkback had the capacity to be entertaining, as well as covering more trivial topics which lead to a more light hearted discussion.
‘By the 1960’s it could no longer be said that broadcasting was simply about ‘people listening’. (Miller, 1993: 43) The talkback format appeared to pioneer an outside community or ‘family’ with its listeners which extended into events such as parties, luncheons, tours of the studio and exclusive shopping specials. Due to the loyalty and commitment of talkback’s listeners, it is not unusual that a host may come to know callers by their names and recognise the voice of a caller before they have introduced themself. (Jones 1995: 123)
As mentioned, radio audience members had already been calling up a radio show prior to the beginning of the talkback era. This was usually to request that a song be played, pass on a message or dedication, or to express their view on the topics that the host had been discussing. This level of audience participation ultimately lead towards the creating of and the natural evolution of the format of talkback radio that we know of today. Radio stations seemed very welcoming of the talkback radio format due to it being reasonably cheap to produce. This format of broadcasting was dominantly aired on the AM band. To some, the host of a talkback radio show was seen as a journalist, activist, and a celebrity rolled into one. The popularity of the particular host was then, and still is the most integral component of a talkback show’s overall success. The audience members of these shows look to the host for advice, and often accept his or her words as Gospel. There is potential for wholesome use or evil use given the nature of this form of media communication.
Due to the potentially mass-controlling factors that the talkback format possesses, there lies a real danger to the audience as individuals. It is appropriate to say that there is sometimes a very gray area when it comes to the social, political, cultural, demographical, and even at times religious agendas of the individual host, the broadcasting network and or its advertisers and sponsors.
By the early 1970’s, it began to become apparent that women in particular were actively engaging in talkback radio participation. Most of these women were classed as house wives or stay at home mothers.
‘...The figure of the housewife was ubiquitous in the production and the reception of talkback radio during this initial period. Two-way, open-line or talkback became a venue where the housewife was encouraged to voice her opinions.’ (Tebbutt 2007: 122)
During this time in history, a former teacher and member of the Victorian Business and Professional Women’s Club, Glenda Rode-Bramanis openly expressed her views that the sorts of women who were featured on these talkback radio shows were promoting ‘deplorable attitudes’ which women like herself had fought hard to have made a thing of the past. Such comments that she reports hearing were “I’m just a common housewife” and “I’m only a housewife”. At this time, Ms Rode- Bramanis had just previously been a working woman who then actively chose to become a stay at home mother. A position she describes as a ‘professional’ wife and or mother. (Rode-Bramanis, 1974: 19) This is an example of how the talkback format of broadcasting can be used to promote certain types of social ideals or enforce already existing ones. Ms Rode-Bramanis’ concern was that an old social ideal was still prevalent even though women were meant to be in a period of social change and in an age of liberation. The benefits of the talkback format in this instance would be the access to this information (regarding housewives’ opinions of themselves) gained by the social scientist of the time, and actively concerned persons like Ms Rode-Bramanis. Up until this point in time, there would have been a much higher ratio of imagined audience/consumer commodity due to the lack of insight into this group of society (housewives) among others.
Due to the above mentioned case, I would like to argue that talkback radio is a format of media which does have a basis for debate in relation to its position as a form of participatory media and its role in potentially manipulating debate under the guise of participation. It should be noted that media planners, content writers, and the host can greatly influence the views which will be pushed onto the audience. This is an example of where talkback radio really can become the ‘opiate of the masses’. The agendas of advertisers also can hold a great influence over networks which then gets passed down to consumers/audience members. A modern day example of this sort of corporate-media behaviour is the ‘Cash For Comment’ affair which involved celebrity status shock-jock talkback hosts John Laws and Alan Jones.
‘The cash for comment affair was an Australian scandal that broke in 1999, concerning paid advertising in radio that is presented to the audience in such a way as to sound like editorial commentary. It is widely considered a breach of journalistic integrity. While the initial publicity had died down by the end of the year, it sparked major changes in the way the radio industry is conducted in Australia. (‘Cash for comment’ Wikipeidia website)(The ABC, ‘Media Watch’ website)
A question that people should ask themselves is ‘if this situation regarding ‘cash for comment’ only just arose in 1999, then how long has this sort of paid editorial production been going on in talkback radio?’ After all, this format of radio has been well established now for around 50 years and it is likely that the Laws-Jones case was not the very first, but perhaps the first that was illuminated to that degree of attention that it received. One of the reasons that this case received such attention was because of the serious nature of the type of products that were being, in a matter of speaking, subliminally promoted. A part from major companies such as Qantas being promoted through paid commentary by these hosts, the major cause for concern was that financial institutions and their products were also being promoted. Naturally, given the nature of the financial product having a potential risk, it has the potential to cause more damage to an individual listener if the venture was to turn bad, than say a relatively low risk product like a new breakfast cereal, as an example. The listeners were not made aware that they were listening to a paid presentation through hearing a disclosure statement either before or after the editorial styled advertisement spiel. These spiels
were often incorporated into conversational banter so there was no way of differentiating them from being the genuine personal testimonial of the host or it being a form of paid advertising.
‘The Australian Broadcasting Authority estimated the value of these arrangements at $18 million and found Laws, Jones, and 2UE to have committed 90 breaches of the industry code and five breaches of 2UE's license conditions. Regulations were subsequently tightened to prevent such behaviour. However, the ABA has been accused of weakness and inconsistency in enforcing these regulations.’
(The ABC, ‘Media Watch’ website)
Using this one example mentioned above, it can be said that the talkback format of broadcasting within Australia has real cases of long held ethical discrepancies due to the occasional misuse of trust, and ultimately the misuse power that a broadcasting network, its advertisers, and its host have over its listeners. Often this level of power can be used to convey purely beneficial information and positively expressed views to its audience, but it can also be used just as often to mislead, dull, repress, aggravate and persecute its audience, and sometimes without their awareness of it happening to them. Referring to the above report on estimated value by the Australian Broadcasting Authority, on these hushed advertising arrangements, it can clearly be lucrative business for the recipient of the financial compensation. If editorial-style advertising or ‘advertorial’ is to exist within the talkback broadcasting format, it makes common and moral sense that listeners know of this, therefore they will have a more informed choice when making their decisions.
Over time, the regular listeners of a radio show do become fond of and loyal to the host of their chosen show. The relationship of familiarity, nostalgia, common interests, and trust that the audience shares with its host is a homogenous one. Different networks and their respective hosts always (attempt to) cater to a certain demographic. This of course includes the scheduling of advertisements within the segment. The types of advertisements that will feature within a talkback segment, like any radio format that incorporates advertising, will be narrowly and precisely targeted to its audience. The ABC (which is a non-commercial, government broadcaster) will cater for a certain demographic of listener compared to 3AW which does feature advertisers, and so on.
Text messaging from mobile phones and the use of emails are a form of homogeneous communication now added to the conventional letter writing that listeners will do to communicate to the network or host. This is in addition to the audience actively telephoning in and actively or passively being on the receiving end of paid radio advertisements. The communication is homogenous due to the communication being reciprocal. These communication technologies which did not exist when talkback radio first emerged would now only enhance communication due to their speed and voluminous capabilities of communiqué. The mediums of feedback that can occur for a radio broadcaster in general will assist in making changes that would hopefully be an improvement for the network and for its listeners. Although the format of talkback radio imagines that a portion of its audience is a passive one, the format does rely on an active audience who are to ring in or email in order for the ‘talkback’ (and not just the ‘talk’) radio format to exist.
The talkback format of radio broadcasting established its self by the 1960’s within Australia. Fifty years on, this format of broadcasting and audience participation is still relevant regardless of changes to technology. Talkback still relies on its listeners getting on air to ‘talk back’ to their host or guest of the show. For as long as this format of broadcasting is to exist, it will always be that way. Taking into account some of the elements of the above mentioned cases, it can be said that talkback radio can provide a ‘forum environment’ for its listeners, an environment which can even be therapeutic for its audience. In particular this was noted for its female audience in the early 1970’s.
‘The ‘radio phone-in’ contributes to the governance of subjectivity as one form of an ‘apparatus within which encounters may take therapeutic form.’ (Rose 1991: 243)Today talkback radio still provides a therapeutic forum environment for its listeners if they want it to be that. This apparent benefit of the talkback format is not just limited to ‘housewives’ anymore. For this reason alone, it could be easily assumed that talkback radio is the opiate of the masses, at least the masses who listen to talkback radio.
No comments:
Post a Comment