3 ms·

> "War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346/75-years-ago-war-of

> "War of the Worlds" aired on radio in America in 1938 and caused mass panic. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346/75-years-ago-war-of-the-worlds-started-a-panic-or-did-it https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/30/241797346... > "Far fewer people heard the broadcast — and fewer still panicked — than most people believe today. How do we know? The night the program aired, the C.E. Hooper ratings service telephoned 5,000 households for its national ratings survey. 'To what program are you listening?' the service asked respondents. Only 2 percent answered a radio 'play' or 'the Orson Welles program,' or something similar indicating CBS. None said a 'news broadcast,' according to a summary published in Broadcasting. In other words, 98 percent of those surveyed were listening to something else, or nothing at all, on Oct. 30, 1938. This miniscule rating is not surprising. Welles' program was scheduled against one of the most popular national programs at the time — ventriloquist Edgar Bergen's Chase and Sanborn Hour, a comedy-variety show."

noduerme 4y ago
Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? How many people watched the Senate hearing on yellowcake sourcing in Nigeria and metal tubes being sent to Iraq being a clear sign of Saddam Hussein's intent to build WMDs? Think anywhere close to 2%? It sent the country to war. What % of people do you need to panic to generate a pretty bad outcome? And by the way, why are you defending the idea of scaring the fuck out of the population with made-up lies on mass media?
- Jedd 4y ago
  > Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? I suspect parent's point is that the story is a myth, and is demonstrably wrong. The suggestion, and this [0] Slate article repeats it, that it was a ploy by newspapers of the day to discredit radio as a source of reliable information. I also recall it coming up on QI (BBC) a few years back. The rest of your invective doesn't invite a response. [0] https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-worlds-panic-myth-the-infamous-radio-broadcast-did-not-cause-a-nationwide-hysteria.html https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-wo...
  - noduerme 4y ago
    "War of the Worlds" is the classic example, like shouting fire in a crowded theater - which also is, I know, not the true delineation of free speech considered by the Supreme Court. Take these as cultural touchstones or even fables which many of us in America still refer to in service of illustrating a moral (in the Aesopean sense), and so take the reference in the spirit in which it was meant. Maybe I should have implicated the Pied Piper or the Boy Who Cried Wolf. My original point stands, and debating about WotW doesn't change it. It is: To whose benefit is it to commit arson in the sphere of public information, to cause panic and to obliterate trust in journalism? Invective implies that this question is driven from some personal anger; it isn't. It's driven by a moral belief in the virtue of telling the truth, and not spreading rumors or lies.
    - CommitSyn 4y ago
      Perhaps you should take a step down from your horse and regroup then, because you're spreading misinformation in the same breath with which you fight it.
  - CommitSyn 4y ago
    Thank you; your comment sums up my thoughts perfectly.
another2another 4y ago
"ventriloquist Edgar Bergen's Chase and Sanborn Hour, a comedy-variety show." I'm guessing the ventriloquist's ventriloquism wasn't the star of that show since, ventriloquist, on Radio, Not. So. Funny.

noduerme 4y ago

Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? How many people watched the Senate hearing on yellowcake sourcing in Nigeria and metal tubes being sent to Iraq being a clear sign of Saddam Hussein's intent to build WMDs? Think anywhere close to 2%? It sent the country to war. What % of people do you need to panic to generate a pretty bad outcome? And by the way, why are you defending the idea of scaring the fuck out of the population with made-up lies on mass media?

Jedd 4y ago
> Fine. Then I guess it doesn't matter. Is that your point? I suspect parent's point is that the story is a myth, and is demonstrably wrong. The suggestion, and this [0] Slate article repeats it, that it was a ploy by newspapers of the day to discredit radio as a source of reliable information. I also recall it coming up on QI (BBC) a few years back. The rest of your invective doesn't invite a response. [0] https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-worlds-panic-myth-the-infamous-radio-broadcast-did-not-cause-a-nationwide-hysteria.html https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/orson-welles-war-of-the-wo...
- noduerme 4y ago
  "War of the Worlds" is the classic example, like shouting fire in a crowded theater - which also is, I know, not the true delineation of free speech considered by the Supreme Court. Take these as cultural touchstones or even fables which many of us in America still refer to in service of illustrating a moral (in the Aesopean sense), and so take the reference in the spirit in which it was meant. Maybe I should have implicated the Pied Piper or the Boy Who Cried Wolf. My original point stands, and debating about WotW doesn't change it. It is: To whose benefit is it to commit arson in the sphere of public information, to cause panic and to obliterate trust in journalism? Invective implies that this question is driven from some personal anger; it isn't. It's driven by a moral belief in the virtue of telling the truth, and not spreading rumors or lies.
  - CommitSyn 4y ago
    Perhaps you should take a step down from your horse and regroup then, because you're spreading misinformation in the same breath with which you fight it.
- CommitSyn 4y ago
  Thank you; your comment sums up my thoughts perfectly.

another2another 4y ago

"ventriloquist Edgar Bergen's Chase and Sanborn Hour, a comedy-variety show." I'm guessing the ventriloquist's ventriloquism wasn't the star of that show since, ventriloquist, on Radio, Not. So. Funny.