Few would dispute that television, with its dual audio and visual components, is the more capable media form when compared to radio, which only offers the first of these–except, perhaps, those who had no choice between the two during the early- and mid-20th century.

But as antiquated as it may seem today, radio itself was considered a technological advancement then. Hitherto forced to obtain information and entertainment from printed materials, such as books, newspapers, and magazines, those who were introduced to the new-fangled device felt it was the ultimate achievement. Just by turning a knob, they were able to connect with the world, bringing it into their very living rooms and hearing, as opposed to reading, whatever current programming offered, from sports to music to special events.

Although television later usurped radio’s capability with pictures as well as sound, it initially offered poor quality and only served to highlight its artificial representation. Radio, on the other hand, engaged the listener, transforming him into an active part of the process.

Because it only offered sound, and therefore provided no visual cues, the listener needed to augment his experience with imagination, which, paradoxically, was more vivid and authentic to him than actual pictures could have been. Unable to enjoy a program if he remained in a passive mode, he was compelled to become involved with it, concentrating on the conversation and music to picture the people and events in his mind.

Initially more realistic than those received by primitive television sets, whose … Continue Reading ...