This post may make me sound a bit skeptical of what we've been talking about in class recently, but I am actually not that way at all. I am just really new to the concept of media literacy. Coming from a background of working in DC and doing media policy research, this is a new language [in the spirit of this week's readings] for me to learn. So I am really just trying to grasp what our readings and discussions have been trying to get at.
I think it is really awesome that academics are recognizing and teaching others that literacy is much broader than is conventionally conceived. Literacy in the modern world not only means knowing how to read books -- it also means reading stuff online or in popular magazines. And it also means being literate in other ways -- in the world of images and sounds, in decoding visual and aural cues and being able to produce them. This is a fundamentally important point to emphasize to students of all ages, because the current education system makes little or no effort to put things into this kind of perspective, instead buying into the old-skool high culture/low culture debate. Yawn! But this kind of indoctrination affects me too. Even as I spend most of the day working in one way or another online, I feel pretty useless at the end of the day when I think about the fact that I have only read a few pages of a book. Thinking like that is pretty sad and unnecessary, but unfortunately it still flows in my veins. [and may be the reason for what I say in the rest of my posting]
At the same time, this new way of thinking leaves me confused. As I mentioned, I have a background in policy. So of course, I am going to focus on the importance of political activism in everything that I do and think. And when I begin to think of every form of literacy as equal, it becomes hard for me to differentiate between the kind of education that develops my imagination and leads to personal development, and the kind of education that teaches me about more 'structural' issues in the world around me.
For example, if I tell a kid to surf around on youtube and find interesting videos, that will teach them to become literate in how people her age communicate with each other (if they aren't already). If I tell her to read the New York Times instead, she'll learn about things going on in the world (that NYT editors deem adequate to report). Are our readings trying to argue that these two forms of learning/literacy are equally valid?
If so, that's cool, but I am confused about what that kind of education would look like. I mean, what would be the context in which teaching about all forms of literacy would take place? And how do kids tell the difference between things that are important politically (i.e. teaching them about media ownership and the structures of the media system, for instance) vs. things that are important for their personal development (decoding advertising, media representation, etc).
I'm kind of having problems articulating what I'm trying to ask. I guess my main question is, are teachers and librarians supposed to educate kids about things that are totally new to them (that like 6 big companies own a lot of the media they see and hear in the US) or about things that they already participate in (youtube, facebook)?
Yes, I can see how this question presupposes that teachers and librarians are teaching. And that should not always be the case, i.e. teachers are also learning from their students. That's definitely true, because otherwise education never moves forward, it just stagnates at the Iliad and the Odyssey and the American Revolution.
But still, though, I think kids do need direction and someone to help them move forward. And I guess I am not totally understanding how teaching them how to read In Touch Weekly broadens their perspective very much. Can't they learn how to read this and other magazines on their own if they are taught in school about the workings of the advertising and media industries?
Or am I thinking about this all wrong? I am sure that I am, because it usually takes me a little while to catch on to things, being that I am a retard. I am probably coming off as the jerky high culturalist who thinks reading the newspaper is way more important than watching cartoons. I don't think that, I think I'm just missing the point.
Anyone? Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don’t know if I have a definitive answer to you overarching question which seems to be “what is media literacy and how do we use it?” (Does a single answer even exist?) That said this isn’t so much an answer as just my thoughts on your questions.
First, I think our readings and many media literacy scholars would say yes these two forms of literacy (youtube videos vs. The New York Times) are equally valid. They have very different functions, and in many ways their production processes are very different. Media literacy analyses these differences. As a source of daily news The New York Times far exceeds youtube, but as a source to find and distribute videos, youtube excels. Although media critics recognize these differences, media critics also understand that many of the same conventions and political issues are important to the construction of all media. “Reading” both of these media take a number of skills and analytical abilities. Young people (no, all people) should think about which of these skills they possess and which ones they could develop. This is media literacy.
Therefore, asking young people to read In Touch from a critically viewpoint is very different than reading In Touch to check up on Britney Spears’ latest shenanigans. Media literacy is not so interest in what Britney is doing (but I am) as it is interest in asking “why.” Why is Britney represented in this way? Why are gossip magazines so popular? Why does are culture love/hate celebrities so much? And any number of other questions. Also, the best way to teach young people to think about the construction of In Touch is to use In Touch.
I think it is correct to assume that many young people have a great deal of skill when it comes to using certain media (youtube, facebook, video games). As most educators are well aware it is important to build on knowledge that learners already have. Hence, young people’s media skills are an excellent place to start. Then the learners can build on these skills. Learners can be asked to move beyond simply finding an interesting video or playing a video game to thinking about the messages the video or games conveys. Or perhaps you teach a student how to make a youtube video to advocate for a cause that he/she finds important. Both of these activities help impart critical literacy skills and empower youth. Hopefully, these types of activities will lead to the big questions like media ownership.
In a school setting, these media/literacy skills are often used across a number of texts that would be considered “high culture” and “low culture.” I know a teacher who advocates for this type of critical literacy and used many media in his classroom. I remember a unit he did where he used Woody Guthrie and Bruce Springsteen songs, old posters and as the large text in the unit, the play “Fences.” The context or goal or unit objective (insert impressive sounding word that means outcome here) was to get students to think about inclusion in American Society and the “American Dream.” These media do not have to be seen as mutually exclusive, they should be taken together. Look at our class, each medium is given approximate the same amount of time. One week we will talk about print, the next film, the next music, and so on. In media literacy, we put these together. I highly doubt anyone is advocating that we watch Transformers all day and forget Shakespeare. More importantly, we need to ask what we can learn from these cultural documents.
As for kids telling the difference between important political matters and personal development matters, does much difference exist? Not “do you vote Democrat or Republican” political but “society shapes who we are” political. Personal development issues such as decoding advertising or media representation have great political undertones. Look at the representations of certain groups in the media or think about the values advertisements impart, and the political nature of the issues becomes very clear. Skills in media literacy will teach young people to how to make these connections. Young people see these messages every day and should think about what these messages mean. It would close minded and potentially dangerous for teachers and librarians to not involve conversations about these issues in their instruction.
Media Literacy is not an either/or thing. Yes, the New York Times is important and culturally relevant. Yes, youtube is important and culturally relevant Yes, myspace is important and culturally relevant. Yes, books are important and culturally relevant. Yes, In Touch is important and culturally relevant. What are we going to do about it?
Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. I think I just threw this question out there because so far we haven't gotten into this kind of conversation about media literacy in our class, and I thought it would be a good thing to talk about directly. We have sort of talked around it, but it hasn't come up as a topic of discussion at length.
So, yeah, I see your point. And yeah I think ultimately anyone who works in media literacy or media advocacy of any other kind has this general goal in mind -- to get people to think about why media programming (of all kinds) is the way it is, and what that says about our society (in various ways).
I think you're right to point out that kids don't know much about the background factors in the media they use but many times teachers could learn from their students about the new media. But why not directly connect the two?
Why not take something like a Mac vs. PC ad, which most kids have seen on TV and/or online, then show them a media analysis article like this one: Mac Attack: Apple's Mean-Spirited New Ad Campaign. You could move from that to the sorts of articles or videos that I point out in my post above, one from the NY Times and one from YouTube.
Comparing similar pieces requires an awareness of both worlds, but I think it could open up a lot of interesting discussion questions. Does one of the two Obama vs. Hillary/Mac vs. PC pieces make a stronger point? What do they appeal to in order to make their points? What is the difference in tone between those two pieces? Why? Does it have to do with who "runs" the NY Times vs. YouTube or is it just the difference between entertainment and news?
Then let the kids do the research themselves, find a YouTube video that deals with something in the news and find an article that deals with the same thing. Let them figure out their own questions and bring them in for class. Once you see where they go for information, you could give a lecture on the bigger corporations and other background that they should know about to make interpretations. They learn, you learn, everybody becomes better informed! :)
Post a Comment