Criticism of "Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination"

After finishing this reading assignment I felt that Douglas left out a couple of key arguments that could have been made. A quick summary of the article for those people who haven't read it would be that radio or audio media is better than television or visual media. That is a really shortened version of what I basically got out of the reading. But being an avid television/film watcher, I am going to pick apart and criticize some of the points she makes.

"And the conclusion I believe on will come to is that while radio, banalities and all, expanded the imagination, its successor, television, constricted it, and we are the worse for it as individuals and as a culture." I am going to completely disagree with this theory. I do believe that radio does leave a lot to peoples' imagination; having to translate what they hear into mental images, but television let on a totally different type of inspiration. Yes, television gave up the ability to let people create the scenes they hear, but television gave people the ability to expand their horizons. Instead of listening to something and interpreting it into a visual image, you had to go beyond that and start 'imaging' what comes next. For example, someone on the radio might describe a city with cars whizzing by, hundreds of people walking and shouting, huge skyscrapers towering over you, etc. So in your head you are picturing everything you are hearing. When you actually see all of it, you aren't picturing it anymore but interpreting and analyzing. You might start thinking what city it is, questioning everything about the people you see, assuming where they are going, etc. It becomes an imagination where you don't have the details, you get to add to it. So I believe that there is a distinction between imagination used for the radio and imagination used for television.

Another thing I believe that Douglas overlooks is what isn't spoken. We have all learned that language is mostly what isn't spoken. The addition of television brought to the table body language and facial expressions as usable language. With radio you were left with just basic verbal language and markers like pitch and tone. For example, someone could have the most entertaining, angelic voice on the radio that could make you want to do whatever it told you to. But for all you know the person could be a complete joke. For example, you hear a presidential candidate on the radio and they are an amazing speaker, you would probably go out and vote for them. What you didn't know was that this candidate was speaking in a studio with no pants on, drinking whiskey and doing coke. You didn't know this because you weren't able to see it. And yes this is a highly exaggerated example but you don't know how real or honest a person is until they are able to do it in front of you and not hiding in a studio or whatever. Being on television demands that you have the complete package and not just the amazing voice/vocals to make it big on the radio. No one is going to believe what they hear if it is coming from someone who "looks" like they don't even believe in what they are saying.

There are also some other things Douglas fails to mention; things like how television created more jobs and such.