War of the Worlds

Radio broadcast “War of the Worlds” was too believable for it’s own good

The New York Times/Oct. 31, 1938/ page 1 and page 4

The Dallas Morning News/ Oct. 31, 1938/ page 2

Kirsten Peek

Screenshot, The New York Times. Alkek Library Microfilm Archives.

The Broadcast

On October 31, 1938 newspapers began covering a panic caused by the “War of the Worlds” adaptation by Orson Welles the previous night. According to newspapers, chaos broke out as people tuned into the radio and falsely believed that they were under attack by Martians.

I examined the New York Times and Dallas Morning News. My immediate impression based on the headlines “Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact” in the New York Times and “Radio Drama Backfires on Big Network” in The Dallas Morning News, is that the newspapers were pleased that the broadcast resulted in the negative feelings towards the radio.

The Columbia Broadcasting System announced that the program was fictional before Welles went on the air at 7p.m. The stage was set and then dance music began playing. The music was interrupted by what was meant to sound like an emergency broadcast that reported extraterrestrial activity.
It was stated several times throughout the course of the broadcast that what people were hearing was fictional, but some people did not grasp that. Many believed that New Jersey was under attack by violent men from mars. According to The New York Times, people fled to the streets to escape and to police stations, prepared to evacuate.

Orson Welles in radio broadcast "War of the Worlds." Photo courtesy of the Associated Press

Media Coverage

Rather than focusing on how gullible the listeners were, or how good of an actor Welles was, the newspapers highlighted the perceived negative impact of the broadcast. I feel like the panic that ensued is a testament to a job well done by Welles. As a mass communications major, I enjoy that a single broadcast could have such a widespread impact. It has been 75 years and that broadcast is still talked about and remembered.

According to Stefan Logan in an article for National Geographic, newspapers may have exaggerated the level of panic felt by listeners. Historians say that less than twenty percent of listeners believed what they were hearing was real. Newspapers may have embellished the severity of the situation because they viewed the radio as a rival. I think there is a lapse in honest reporting, evidenced by the lack of sources in parts of the New York Times coverage. The article states, “The women and children were crying and it took sometime for the police to convince them that the catastrophe was fictitious,” but as with many other details, no source is provided. It is understandable that in some cases, after an event of this scale, information on quotes would be difficult to track down. When the police were sharing their experiences from the night it would be impossible for them to recall the names of all the people they encountered. However, in cases such at the one above, it was not even stated which officer (if any) was providing this information. Perhaps this was the usual way to report back in that time period.

            While The New York Times reported mainly on the aftermath of the broadcast, The Dallas Morning News provided many details on the program itself, and focused slightly less on the listener’s reactions. Both Columbia Broadcasting System and Welles apologized for their part in the panic.

Orson Welles apologizes to reporters for panic. Photo courtesy of the Associated Press

Global Context

I noticed other headlines on the front page of The New York Times such as “OUSTED JEWS FIND REFUGE IN POLAND AFTER BORDER STAY.” It is clear that times were grim as the world built up to World War 2, so people taking any threat of bombs, gas, and fire seriously is understandable. It is clear that public opinion of this broadcast was not favorable, regardless of if the newspapers embellished on the facts. That being said, I do believe that according to what I have learned about media ethics, some of the coverage on this story would not fly today. The newspapers came off as very biased against the radio and because of that, did not reference any people who enjoyed the broadcast. There was an inevitable conflict of interest since the newspapers were in competition with the radio at that time.

Kirsten Peek is a journalism junior. She can be reached at kmp4@txstate.edu