Evolution of the Radio Industry

Government regulation of the radio industry in its earliest years allowed radio to become the medium today.
When a new technology becomes available, the U.S. government (or the government of any nation) will examine it to determine how it will affect the nation. From its analysis the government can decide if it needs to take action to regulate the new technology. Indeed, some technologies, like the internet, are derived from government projects. The purpose for regulation is to maximize positive effects and minimize negative ones and also to ensure that one person's use of the new technology does not adversely affect anyone else. Technology can generally expand in a more orderly way and with less negative effects with government intervention than if it was allowed to expand unchecked.
In the case of radio, the government had great effects on the beginning of radio. Straight off, radio was commandeered by the Navy for use in the First World War, which at least brought it some publicity and at most found it improved by the Navy. When it came back into the public domain the government had other effects as well. Firstly, they mandated that American radio stations must be owned by Americans, which prevented more established foreign interests from smothering the first American radio companies. Later the government stepped in again, this time to prevent AT&T from having too large a monopoly over the radio, which allowed for more variety in the future. Another important government action was the Radio act of 1927, which standardized frequencies, among other things. This prevented stations from interfering with one another. It also set standards which the radio industry followed for many years.

The connection between violent video games and violent behavior as explained by the cultivation theory

Many people have expressed concern about the effects of violent games on children. While initially I didn't understand what their arguments were based on; I now realize that their logic was grounded in the cultivation theory.
The cultivation theory is the idea that as people are exposed to an idea and have it reinforced, that idea greatly effects them. Even though the idea might be untrue, the person will take it as truth. For these people, unrealistic ideas and stereotypes become the norm and they expect them to be the truth. This can obviously adversely affect behavior if the person is exposed to violent and otherwise unacceptable behavior.
Nowhere is unacceptable behavior closer to people than video games, or so some people argue. Since people are themselves acting badly, they see these acts as something that they can do themselves. Now I'm a gamer myself, and I don't really agree with these conclusions, as I haven't been affected by playing violent games over the years. I never understood why people thought video games could affect behaviors. How ever the cultivation theory makes a fairly good argument as to why they could. If an impressionable child plays a lot of video games they could come to believe that the behaviors presented in games as normal, as opposed to only acceptable in the virtual world. The cultivation explained the other side of the argument to me in a logical way. I still don't agree, but at least I can better understand the argument.
link to an article on the controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy

Hegemony and internet censorship

The concept of hegemony and the need to maintain it in order to maintain it explains the actions of China and its censorship of the internet.
 Hegemony is the ability of the upper elements in society to keep power over the lower elements. Hegemony is basically the amount of control the rulers have over the ruled. It is especially important if the rulers wish to implement policies that do not benefit the majority and instead only benefit the ruling class. The better control the upper class has over media, the better the hegemony, and the easier it is to maintain. Once hegemony takes effect, it must be maintained, otherwise it will be refuted, and in time, will cease to function. In today's world with the ability of the internet to reach many more people, much tighter control over the media is required.
A good example of of tight control is the argument between Google and China over internet censorship. China puts fairly strict control over the content its citizens can access, which Google disagreed with. With a bit of thought it is not hard to realize why China censors its citizen's internet access. The status quo in China benefits the upper class of China at the expense of the majority of the population. The only way the current situation is allowed to continue is because of the upper classes hegemonic control over the lower classes. Free and unrestricted access to the internet would show the lower class a better life and help wear and eventually destroy the hegemony of the ruling class of China and lead to a situation much less beneficial to them. So this why they wish to censor the internet, to maintain an unequal status quo. This is a very obvious example of hegemony and the need to maintain it.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8582233.stm