Many people agree that it is important for children to recognize and interpret media and advertising messages to become better and more aware consumers and citizens. In recent years, a number of private and public organizations have created tools, resources, and classroom materials to develop in children what many people call “media literacy” or “advertising literacy.” The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) created one such resource in the form of their Don’t Buy It website, funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS.
The site is designed to be navigated by kids themselves. It features a bunch of cartoons and animation, uses short and catchy phrases, and focuses on issues young people are generally assumed to be interested in. For instance, sections of the site deal with how models are made up and airbrushed before they appear in magazines or other media; how burgers or ice cream are treated with dyes and chemicals to make them seem so appetizing in commercials; and why designer brand clothes cost more than others.
For a media literacy resource, the site is helpful yet lukewarm. Let’s cover the good points first. Kids (and adults) can learn some interesting new information from a few parts of the site. Under the Advertising Tricks portion, kids can "be an ad detective," learning to locate product placement in media and finding out facts like “Nike is paying Tiger Woods about $100 million to use Nike products for five years.” They can also learn about what it takes for a band to end up on the radio, and why big record labels are more successful at getting their artists airplay.
Also, the site is fun to use. Even as an adult, it is enjoyable to click through the quizzes and guessing games within its various portions. The colors, images, and videos are interactive and incorporate various multimedia, and the design of the site makes for an effective active learning exercise.
The sections of the site also cover different areas, from advertising to consumption to media and entertainment, and finally, to civic engagement.
But Don’t Buy It is missing some important factors. First, while its civic engagement section deserves compliment simply because it exists, it is very weak. For kids who have been enjoying the rest of the site’s interactive and fun components, this section is incredibly boring and mundane. It contains way too much text, and does not help its audience to navigate through the various organizations listed. Under the section Get Involved, for instance, are kids expected to call or mail every single one of the businesses and governmental institutions listed? And what are they supposed to say to them? “Stop this!"? It is important to point this out, because it shows that the site itself does not directly address policy issues in any way. So if a person were to want to get involved politically, she still would not know what the political issues are currently on the table. So her comments wouldn't be well-received.
Second, the site contains research coming from the popular press and mainstream books. This is only disappointing because, if the creators of the site were to have looked at some other, perhaps more scholarly readings, they would have found a lot more historical and contemporary facts to add to the site. The facts are bit too shallow and, I think, they underestimate the interests and abilities of some kids. The audience of this site is treated a bit too much like children. Perhaps the site could have contained more complex facts and research embedded into deeper portions, so those kids who are interested could find and learn about them.
Third, and very important, who really looks at this website? It is commendable that PBS decided to undertake the construction of Don't Buy It, but how do kids find it? Perhaps I am spending time with the wrong children, but I don't know any person under 30 who surfs around on PBS' website in their spare time in hopes of stumbling onto something exciting. (Actually, I don't want to offer 30+ year olds: I don't know a single person who surfs around on PBS' site -- but again, I may be hanging with the wrong crowd.)
To the website's benefit, I recently read in an issue of an education technology magazine, whose name escapes me at the moment, that a social studies teacher found the site useful and wanted to share it with fellow K-12 teachers. According to the teacher, students in the classroom found the resource rewarding and enjoyable, and seemed to come away with new things learned. (This article was actually the place I heard about this PBS website.)
Although I have not heard directly from other sources about the usefulness of this site, it is a positive sign that some teachers are using it as a classroom resource. Perhaps this was the primary purpose the creators imagined for it, although this is not clearly stated anywhere on the site itself. Otherwise, though, it is hard to imagine how young people would be able to find the site, since I have not heard of any serious publicity campaigns about it.
PBS' Don't Buy It is a useful resource, but it reeks of adult management and underestimates children. While it surely gets a young person's mind started in thinking in more critical ways, this reviewer wonders whether many kids don't already harbor doubts and skepticisms about media and advertising to begin with. Growing up in today's culture, it is virtually impossible not to see through the misleading messages in media and advertising content. Although the site is a great start, it would benefit kids much more if it contained more concrete facts about media ownership, the ways business can influence politics, and how that affects various media outlets. In other words, the site requires even more context for any audience to become media literate. And a greater focus on policy does not have to make the site boring -- it could be presented in equally fun and interactive ways.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Jones and violence in past societies
I am really glad we are having this conversation about video game violence and its effects. It's a really important thing to prod since most people just have a sort of baseline opinion about it, but [eek, I'm sitting outside and a snake just went by me... eek and now it's going into a hole near our house!] ... but, people aren't very informed about the topic. I think, as some people have already pointed out, this relates to the fact that people are already biased in a particular direction before they go to conduct a study. For instance, I don't think it' s a coincidence that PBS' article was generally more defensive and protective of video game violence while the American Psychological Association --concerned with issues of the psyche-- pointed to problems in behavior that video games may cause. Since studies decrying and brushing off video game violence have such contradictory outcomes [I ran away from the snake], this would imply very strongly that no study is comprehensive and thus are generally unreliable. Or, at least, they should not be considered representative of the entire picture -- and they should admit to that.
This whole thing is obviously an opinion issue. Just like we generally can't tell where mental illness begins and ends (i.e., at what point am I just "un-animated" and when do I cross into "depressed"), leading a lot of doctors to overprescribe medications and such, we also can't pinpoint exactly what all the various factors of violent behavior are. I get a bit annoyed not just at people who wholeheartedly accuse video games of causing violent behavior, but also of people who wholeheartedly say they don't. How do you know? You don't know. You can't know. Nobody knows. Human minds are complex and I really hope we never get to a time when we figure them out completely. That would take all the fun out of guessing.
Out of all the readings we had I most enjoyed the passage by Gerard Jones that Carol pointed us to. It is very thought-provoking. What changed, in comparison to previous ages of humanity, times when Classical, pacifist, and other philosophical traditions developed?
Well, the whole damn world changed. We are so civilized today that we have, as many aboriginal populations continue to accuse us, completely lost our touch with the Earth, with theology, with faith, and with natural laws and behaviors. We have created a detailed, constrictive social system for ourselves, controlled by politics and markets and commerce, into which violence no longer fits. I think what Jones doesn't credit enough in his passage is that it wasn't just that children were told violent stories in older days, but also that violence itself was more common and, perhaps, even more accepted. While democracies and political order existed, still, life was not as easy and predictable in the past. Today, though, we act in line with more structures and borders that we ourselves created. And God forbid that individual human beings step out of line and commit a violent act, a fight, a murder. Our society condemns it. Our society ostracizes it. And we are frightened to hell of how that would affect our current social system.
Of course, this is generally a good thing. No one wants to be murdered. I just argue that life today is more systematized than before. And I think that has a lot to do with our anxieties about anything causing children to become violent, and perhaps translating that into having screwed up our jobs as parents and "societal role models."
I am personally a proponent of expressing human emotion rather than censoring it. Whatever that emotion may be. I don't have a clue what happens to people when their video games contain a lot of violence, but I do know that in Hungary, where boobs and penises and curse words are all over the TV for everyone to watch, people do not grow up to be exhibitionists and their mouths are no more foul than American mouths are. In fact, I think people are more comfortable with their sexuality and less anxious about it. It's just accepted, and normal. It seems to have an opposite effect than what most people would expect.
This whole thing is obviously an opinion issue. Just like we generally can't tell where mental illness begins and ends (i.e., at what point am I just "un-animated" and when do I cross into "depressed"), leading a lot of doctors to overprescribe medications and such, we also can't pinpoint exactly what all the various factors of violent behavior are. I get a bit annoyed not just at people who wholeheartedly accuse video games of causing violent behavior, but also of people who wholeheartedly say they don't. How do you know? You don't know. You can't know. Nobody knows. Human minds are complex and I really hope we never get to a time when we figure them out completely. That would take all the fun out of guessing.
Out of all the readings we had I most enjoyed the passage by Gerard Jones that Carol pointed us to. It is very thought-provoking. What changed, in comparison to previous ages of humanity, times when Classical, pacifist, and other philosophical traditions developed?
Well, the whole damn world changed. We are so civilized today that we have, as many aboriginal populations continue to accuse us, completely lost our touch with the Earth, with theology, with faith, and with natural laws and behaviors. We have created a detailed, constrictive social system for ourselves, controlled by politics and markets and commerce, into which violence no longer fits. I think what Jones doesn't credit enough in his passage is that it wasn't just that children were told violent stories in older days, but also that violence itself was more common and, perhaps, even more accepted. While democracies and political order existed, still, life was not as easy and predictable in the past. Today, though, we act in line with more structures and borders that we ourselves created. And God forbid that individual human beings step out of line and commit a violent act, a fight, a murder. Our society condemns it. Our society ostracizes it. And we are frightened to hell of how that would affect our current social system.
Of course, this is generally a good thing. No one wants to be murdered. I just argue that life today is more systematized than before. And I think that has a lot to do with our anxieties about anything causing children to become violent, and perhaps translating that into having screwed up our jobs as parents and "societal role models."
I am personally a proponent of expressing human emotion rather than censoring it. Whatever that emotion may be. I don't have a clue what happens to people when their video games contain a lot of violence, but I do know that in Hungary, where boobs and penises and curse words are all over the TV for everyone to watch, people do not grow up to be exhibitionists and their mouths are no more foul than American mouths are. In fact, I think people are more comfortable with their sexuality and less anxious about it. It's just accepted, and normal. It seems to have an opposite effect than what most people would expect.
violence and sports
I already put up some random thoughts about violence and the media but I thought I would add some more here. While I was playing golf yesterday, it occurred to me that sports is one place where violence has not changed in the past few decades. Society seems to encourage violence or at least the perception of violence during sporting events. I think that I have a fairly mild temper, except when I am playing or watching sports. I throw things like clubs or balls during golf and swear like a sailor at the slightest bad shot. Watching my favorite teams can be even worse. I think last year's Illini basketball team raised my blood pressure double digits, while the added strain of watching my fantasy baseball team every day during the spring does little to reduce my stress level. It seems strange that something that is supposed to be relaxing can feel so stressful. While there are groups that attack the violent nature of sports, most anti-violence groups are more interested in other aspects of society. However, it seems to me that our sports culture is an important indicator of how violence is actually viewed on the deepest level in our society. "Professional" wrestling, football, and game shows such as "American Gladiators" play to America's need for competition but lace those games with heavy doses of violence. I am not advocating for less violence in these sports, but rather that we need to teach our children that there is a clear and discernible difference between what occurs on the field and reality. I think I am a perfect example of someone that allows the violence on the screen or in my own golf game to affect my actual mood (probably raising my blood pressure and an eventual heart attack before I hit 40). There was a question for this week about censorship, which I am against. What I am for is making sure we explain that what happens on the screen or when we go to a football game does not necessarily have any relation to our own personal lives. It is a difficult concept to grasp for many kids, but it is a key point, at least in my opinion, in fostering media literacy.
Here is a fun video of kids that seem to have little grasp of reality.
Here is a fun video of kids that seem to have little grasp of reality.
Flipbooks
I found this really neat website through one of my other classes:
http://www.flip.com
You can make your own flip book. Before I checked out the site, my concept of a flip book was a little rectangular booklet with pictures in it that seem to be animated when you flip through it really fast. These are not those. They're online scrapbooks, and they're really neat. I've never had the patience for scrapbooking, but making a flipbook is fun and easy.
You can sign into your photobucket and facebook accounts and access your photos there when you're making a flipbook, so you don't have to bother uploading pictures to a new website- something that can be long and tedious, especially when you have a lot of pictures, which I think most of the young people using flip.com do.
You can browse flipbooks that people have already made here:
http://www.flip.com/flipbooks
Here's one I made:
http://www.flip.com/people/flipbooks/429942
(It lets you embed your flipbooks, but the video automatically starts and there's sound and I don't want someone's speakers to suddenly start singing if they're in the middle of class or something.)
http://www.flip.com
You can make your own flip book. Before I checked out the site, my concept of a flip book was a little rectangular booklet with pictures in it that seem to be animated when you flip through it really fast. These are not those. They're online scrapbooks, and they're really neat. I've never had the patience for scrapbooking, but making a flipbook is fun and easy.
You can sign into your photobucket and facebook accounts and access your photos there when you're making a flipbook, so you don't have to bother uploading pictures to a new website- something that can be long and tedious, especially when you have a lot of pictures, which I think most of the young people using flip.com do.
You can browse flipbooks that people have already made here:
http://www.flip.com/flipbooks
Here's one I made:
http://www.flip.com/people/flipbooks/429942
(It lets you embed your flipbooks, but the video automatically starts and there's sound and I don't want someone's speakers to suddenly start singing if they're in the middle of class or something.)
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Getting students involved with the news
In one of the classes I teach we watch the news on a weekly basis. Our school has a contract with Channel 1 News, but I have found CNN Student News to be more popular with my high school students. It is geared to their age group, the hosts are fun to listen to, and the stories that are covered are interesting, educational, and sometimes entertaining. Also, it is a nice change since they watch Channel One in middle school. As a teacher I love CNN Student News because there are questions supplied to go along with each broadcast that are nice to have on hand for discussion or listening comprehension when I don’t have time to preview the news before class. Another great feature of CNN Student News is the old broadcasts are easy to access for students that are absent to make up participation points. After our on-campus session I was very excited to show my students the ON NEWS: The Biggest Stories of 2007 graphic.
http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/009/trans009onnews.html
This was a great conversation starter as we discussed the stories that we remembered seeing on the news. The stories that we didn’t know much about were split up among the class, researched, and presented. Now when we watch the news we keep track of the stories we hear so at the end of the year we can make a visual of our own to represent the stories of 4th quarter. Then I can use the visual my students made this year and start out the new school year showing it to my new group of students in hopes of inspiring them to get involved with world outside of their small community.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Quick web resources I picked up at CIL2008
During the first week in April I attended the Computers In Libraries Conference in Washington DC. The conference was wonderful and I highly recommend it to anyone working in a library-public, school or academic who is interested in keeping the library up-to date with the world of technology and innovation. It was filled with wonderful speakers from all over the world who work in the library world. They each brought their own area of expertise, and ideas. I attended the pre and post conference as well as the full conference. So all together I attended 18 different sessions, plus listened to 3 keynote speakers. I picked up a lot of great ideas so I thought that I would share with you and post a list of my favorite sites to help you turn your library into a 2.0 library!
http://theshiftedlibrarian.com/presentations/2008/20080406CIL-Gaming.pdf - This is Jenny Levine’s presentation from the conference. Jenny works for ALA and is very passionate about gaming in libraries. It is well worth your time to click through her presentation!
http://del.icio.us/tag/tools -Delicious tag for tools
http://tinyurl.com/ -Tiny URL, Use it to create shorter links.
http://mashable.com -The social network grid. Use The Grid to find Mashable members on your favorite social networks.
http://www.pageflakes.com/ - Pageflakes is your personalized start page with news readers, rss feeds and various other features.
http://web2.0stylr.com/stylr.aspx -Logo Maker just enter your text, select your options and you have a logo in the Web 2.0 STYLr.
http://www.libraryelf.com/ -Let Elf help you manage your library loans and holds.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ -is free, open source software for recording and editing sounds.
www.eyespot.com - mix, edit and publish your media…FREE
http://www.odiogo.com/ -It transforms news sites and blog posts into audio files ready to download and play anywhere, anytime, on any device.
http://blip.tv/ -a video sharing service designed for creators of user-generated content.
www.slideshare.net/ -the best way to share your presentations with the world.
http://www.techcrunch.com/ -Group-edited blog about technology start-ups, particularly the Web 2.0 sector.
http://clipnabber.com/ -ClipNabber downloads videos
http://theshiftedlibrarian.com/presentations/2008/20080406CIL-Gaming.pdf - This is Jenny Levine’s presentation from the conference. Jenny works for ALA and is very passionate about gaming in libraries. It is well worth your time to click through her presentation!
http://del.icio.us/tag/tools -Delicious tag for tools
http://tinyurl.com/ -Tiny URL, Use it to create shorter links.
http://mashable.com -The social network grid. Use The Grid to find Mashable members on your favorite social networks.
http://www.pageflakes.com/ - Pageflakes is your personalized start page with news readers, rss feeds and various other features.
http://web2.0stylr.com/stylr.aspx -Logo Maker just enter your text, select your options and you have a logo in the Web 2.0 STYLr.
http://www.libraryelf.com/ -Let Elf help you manage your library loans and holds.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ -is free, open source software for recording and editing sounds.
www.eyespot.com - mix, edit and publish your media…FREE
http://www.odiogo.com/ -It transforms news sites and blog posts into audio files ready to download and play anywhere, anytime, on any device.
http://blip.tv/ -a video sharing service designed for creators of user-generated content.
www.slideshare.net/ -the best way to share your presentations with the world.
http://www.techcrunch.com/ -Group-edited blog about technology start-ups, particularly the Web 2.0 sector.
http://clipnabber.com/ -ClipNabber downloads videos
Creative Commons
I understand that the idea of Creative Commons has always been around. At least I don’t remember a time when it wasn’t. I wrote an article many years ago, put a copyright symbol at the end and said that anyone who reprinted it needed to give me credit. I think I also considered that they needed to contact me to let me know, but I’m not sure I wanted to give out that my personal contact information. But I know I considered it. I don’t think Creative Commons invented the idea of allowing people an entire continuum of options between “All Rights Reserved” and “In the Public Domain.” But somehow the idea of the movement that Creative Commons has started is exciting.
Even with Creative Commons, questions behind copyright law continue to perplex me. For example, a panel is going to be discussing “Who Owns This Image?: Art, Access, and the Public Domain after Bridgeman v. Corel. In 1999 a judge ruled that exact replications or photographs of art work which is in the public domain can not be copyrighted because those works are not original. That seems clear enough to me, but this question is continuing to be discussed and debated.
Here are a couple questions they’re going to discuss on April 29 and my comments.
“Should access to public domain artworks control uses of images of those works?”
If the work is in the public domain, doesn’t that mean that anyone can use those images? So if one person had access to the work, then of course that doesn’t mean they could control how others used the image.
“ When and how should custodians of public domain artworks exercise control over reproductions of them?”
Never. That’s inherent in the nature of the artworks being in the public domain.
I’m sure my comments simply show my ignorance. I’d welcome any clarity that anyone would like to provide for me.
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8208#more-8208
Becky
Even with Creative Commons, questions behind copyright law continue to perplex me. For example, a panel is going to be discussing “Who Owns This Image?: Art, Access, and the Public Domain after Bridgeman v. Corel. In 1999 a judge ruled that exact replications or photographs of art work which is in the public domain can not be copyrighted because those works are not original. That seems clear enough to me, but this question is continuing to be discussed and debated.
Here are a couple questions they’re going to discuss on April 29 and my comments.
“Should access to public domain artworks control uses of images of those works?”
If the work is in the public domain, doesn’t that mean that anyone can use those images? So if one person had access to the work, then of course that doesn’t mean they could control how others used the image.
“ When and how should custodians of public domain artworks exercise control over reproductions of them?”
Never. That’s inherent in the nature of the artworks being in the public domain.
I’m sure my comments simply show my ignorance. I’d welcome any clarity that anyone would like to provide for me.
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8208#more-8208
Becky
Ask a Ninja-What is Podcasting?
Here is a funny video that the Ask a Ninja explains podcasting to people over the age of 12.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
What's the disagreement?
As I’ve been reading the articles for this week, I’ve been trying to discern exactly what the main points of disagreement are. Of the articles I’ve read so far, Craig A. Anderson seems like he is the author who is most opposed to violent video games. His focus is on violent video games; I don’t see him arguing against video games in general. Henry Jenkins attempts to separate fact from fiction with respect to the public’s perception of video games. Overall, he doesn’t appear to condemn violent video games, but he also admits that there may be a growing consensus among researchers that violent video games may be a contributing risk factor to anti-social behaviors. I’m actually not clear as to whether or not he’s supports the idea that children may play violent video games without negative affects. He does say that parents need to share in the responsibility of what games their children play. So he seems to be at least somewhat in agreement with Anderson that violent video games may be a factor in contributing to anti-social behavior. Jenkins and Anderson also seem to be in agreement that non-violent video games aren’t really a problem. Sternheimer’s article doesn’t seem to distinguish clearly between the affects of the media and the affects of violent video games. But I don’t see her concerned with video games in general and she seems to think the alarm over violent video games is a bit exaggerated. Likewise, the Video Game Report Card argues that parents and retail stores need to take more responsibility for keeping violent games out of the hands of children and young teens. Seems to me the main question being discussed is, To what extent do violent video games encourage anti-social or aggressive behaviors? Is it only one risk factor and perhaps a small risk factor at that or do violent video games contribute in a more significant way to these kinds of unacceptable behaviors?
I’m curious as to whether others see the main question the same or in a different way.
Becky
I’m curious as to whether others see the main question the same or in a different way.
Becky
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Violent Video Games, Stable Homes, and Circular Reasoning
As I’ve been reading the arguments around violent video games and acts of violence, I am continually impressed with the poor quality of reasoning that I was reading. For example, in the first myth which Henry Jenkins debunks, he referred to a report by the U.S. Surgeon General that said the quality of one’s home life and one’s mental stability were the strongest risk factors with connection to school shootings. That almost seems like common sense. I wonder how they measure the quality of one’s home life and one’s mental stability. I wonder how they’d measure mine.
Following this line of logic, we might say that if a child comes from a quality home and is mentally stable, then he or she is not going to play violent video games because they’re not attractive to the child. If somehow, by chance, they were; then the parents wouldn’t allow it. They wouldn’t allow it because they know what is going on in the child’s life and they monitor what experiences the child has.
In contrast, a child who comes from an unstable home is more likely to play video games because his or her parents aren’t involved enough in the child’s life and the child is probably doing all kinds of things which are beyond the parents knowledge. So could we then say that if a child is playing violent video games, they come from an unstable home where the parents obviously either don’t know or care enough to monitor their children’s video games or they don’t know what their child is doing? Looks to me like we could. If that’s the case, then the Surgeon General’s report looks like an example of circular reasoning. If you see this line of reasoning differently, please let me know.
Following this line of logic, we might say that if a child comes from a quality home and is mentally stable, then he or she is not going to play violent video games because they’re not attractive to the child. If somehow, by chance, they were; then the parents wouldn’t allow it. They wouldn’t allow it because they know what is going on in the child’s life and they monitor what experiences the child has.
In contrast, a child who comes from an unstable home is more likely to play video games because his or her parents aren’t involved enough in the child’s life and the child is probably doing all kinds of things which are beyond the parents knowledge. So could we then say that if a child is playing violent video games, they come from an unstable home where the parents obviously either don’t know or care enough to monitor their children’s video games or they don’t know what their child is doing? Looks to me like we could. If that’s the case, then the Surgeon General’s report looks like an example of circular reasoning. If you see this line of reasoning differently, please let me know.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Learning about Research from Youth Media Artists
Learning about Research from Youth Media Artists
by Elizabeth Soep
As I read this article, I was at first intrigued by the description of a program where high school youth are given the opportunity to take some free
after school classes and then are allowed to participate as interns in a producer of youth voices called Youth Radio. Soep argues that it may beneficial to think of these youth as producers of research. She wants to do this because she’s knows of scholars “want to work with youth as agents, and not only like objects, of research.” p2. I think I can understand why they would want this. I can see how the idea of studying people like objects, like rats in a maze, if offensive. But from this paper, I don’t see this happening at Youth Radio.
Elisabeth Soep wanted to involve youth in the actual research of youth culture and not just relegate youth to the role of those studied. At Youth Radio, the teens produce the stories based on questions that are of interest to them about youth culture. They collaborate with other youth to produce these stories at the same time they are being mentored by adults who work with them.
Soep asks us to think of the high school students working at Youth Radio in a role in addition to the their roles as producers of radio shows. She suggests we think of them as researchers.
If we can do that, then Youth Radio is a place where the line between seeing youth as objects of research and participants of research at least gets blurred. Perhaps we can study youth culture in this way and do so without seeing the youth as objects of the research. I’m not sure I completely understand this difference.
“We want to work with youth as agents and not only objects, of research.” Certainly when we work with someone, we are learning from him or her as well as about him or her. But that is real different than saying they are objects of research. As a teacher, I usually simply focus on teaching. Occasionally, I’ve used my students for a little research project. I don’t do this very often, because it distracts me too much from my teaching. I don’t read about Soep or others studying the young producers in this way and I don’t think that’s what she means.
We can say that the youth are producing research when they produce their radio shows. But doing research and producing a radio show are two different activities. So I don’t think she is meaning that youth research is being conducted in this way. Or maybe she does. Maybe she means that when youth produce a show about a failing urban school, she means they’re doing research on the subject. But that would mean that channel 2 is doing research when the reports interview and gather facts about one of their stories. We don’t call that research. Or maybe she means that adults can study the shows the youth produced as a youth perspective on a subject. But that would be one group of youth’s perspective on the subject and that’s not generally considered research.
Soep admits she is “treading on dangerous territory” by side-stepping “debates about what exactly differentiates journalism from quantitative research.” I don’t mind an author venturing out into uncharted territory, but with this article; I don’t really understand what the benefit is. The best I can tell, she is looking for ways for researchers to study youth without putting the youth in the role of object. She wants those who are researched to be more involved in the study itself. She wants them to be agents in the research.
I think this is related to the larger question that all researchers who study humans face. How do you study a person or a group without objectifying them? By sidestepping this issue, she never really addresses it.
I wish she had been clearer about the kind of research that she hopes the programs like Youth Radio will bridge. Certainly working with youth and giving them responsible positions and taking what they say seriously can enlighten the adults who work with them. But why would I call that research?
I have no problems with turning away from standard research conventions to look at the ways the youth are using imagination and creativity to study aspects of youth culture and produce radio programs on these topics. As she says, the youth are storytellers themselves. It sounds like a wonderful program which is benefitting both the youth and the adults who work there. I think she should be proud of being a part of it. I suggest we call them storytellers, reporters, or journalist. Let’s not call them researchers.
by Elizabeth Soep
As I read this article, I was at first intrigued by the description of a program where high school youth are given the opportunity to take some free
after school classes and then are allowed to participate as interns in a producer of youth voices called Youth Radio. Soep argues that it may beneficial to think of these youth as producers of research. She wants to do this because she’s knows of scholars “want to work with youth as agents, and not only like objects, of research.” p2. I think I can understand why they would want this. I can see how the idea of studying people like objects, like rats in a maze, if offensive. But from this paper, I don’t see this happening at Youth Radio.
Elisabeth Soep wanted to involve youth in the actual research of youth culture and not just relegate youth to the role of those studied. At Youth Radio, the teens produce the stories based on questions that are of interest to them about youth culture. They collaborate with other youth to produce these stories at the same time they are being mentored by adults who work with them.
Soep asks us to think of the high school students working at Youth Radio in a role in addition to the their roles as producers of radio shows. She suggests we think of them as researchers.
If we can do that, then Youth Radio is a place where the line between seeing youth as objects of research and participants of research at least gets blurred. Perhaps we can study youth culture in this way and do so without seeing the youth as objects of the research. I’m not sure I completely understand this difference.
“We want to work with youth as agents and not only objects, of research.” Certainly when we work with someone, we are learning from him or her as well as about him or her. But that is real different than saying they are objects of research. As a teacher, I usually simply focus on teaching. Occasionally, I’ve used my students for a little research project. I don’t do this very often, because it distracts me too much from my teaching. I don’t read about Soep or others studying the young producers in this way and I don’t think that’s what she means.
We can say that the youth are producing research when they produce their radio shows. But doing research and producing a radio show are two different activities. So I don’t think she is meaning that youth research is being conducted in this way. Or maybe she does. Maybe she means that when youth produce a show about a failing urban school, she means they’re doing research on the subject. But that would mean that channel 2 is doing research when the reports interview and gather facts about one of their stories. We don’t call that research. Or maybe she means that adults can study the shows the youth produced as a youth perspective on a subject. But that would be one group of youth’s perspective on the subject and that’s not generally considered research.
Soep admits she is “treading on dangerous territory” by side-stepping “debates about what exactly differentiates journalism from quantitative research.” I don’t mind an author venturing out into uncharted territory, but with this article; I don’t really understand what the benefit is. The best I can tell, she is looking for ways for researchers to study youth without putting the youth in the role of object. She wants those who are researched to be more involved in the study itself. She wants them to be agents in the research.
I think this is related to the larger question that all researchers who study humans face. How do you study a person or a group without objectifying them? By sidestepping this issue, she never really addresses it.
I wish she had been clearer about the kind of research that she hopes the programs like Youth Radio will bridge. Certainly working with youth and giving them responsible positions and taking what they say seriously can enlighten the adults who work with them. But why would I call that research?
I have no problems with turning away from standard research conventions to look at the ways the youth are using imagination and creativity to study aspects of youth culture and produce radio programs on these topics. As she says, the youth are storytellers themselves. It sounds like a wonderful program which is benefitting both the youth and the adults who work there. I think she should be proud of being a part of it. I suggest we call them storytellers, reporters, or journalist. Let’s not call them researchers.
DTV converter box coupons
This article here relates to the discussion we had in class about digital television. The cutoff date for analog will be on February 17, 2009, but the federal government is helping to subsidize the purchase of converter boxes by giving out $40 coupons from National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
The article is about the possibility of extending the expiration dates on the coupons so people get a better chance to pick out the converter box they need. Briefly, an extension doesn't seem likely.
The article is about the possibility of extending the expiration dates on the coupons so people get a better chance to pick out the converter box they need. Briefly, an extension doesn't seem likely.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Sacred Space
I have been pondering the idea of sacred space in relationship to reporting various news items. This question arose out of the Obama and Reverend Wright controversy. Obama was forced to defend comments made by his pastor during a sermon preached over two years ago. A thirty second snippet was record were Rev. Wright was responding to the treatment of people of color throughout history and possible United States involvement in terrorism. Days after this report was released members of the United Trinity Church of God were approached for comment during worship service. The new pastor of Trinity stated the media could not enter the sanctuary for the purpose of reporting during service because it is a sacred space. I will not attempt to defend comments made from the pulpit. That is definitely a subject that is too controversial for the context of this class.
However I would like to pose the question is any place sacred if the journalist feels a creditable news event needs to be reported. I think there should be a set of guidelines that makes certain venues sacred. I realize the danger in this type o f exclusion. The potential for unethical people to hide behind the sacred space guideline does exist. My greatest concern is for the innocent people worshipping. Most people go to these places of to escape from the troubles of the outside world and to recharge through spiritual enlightenment. I may not agree with the messages but I do believe in everyone’s right to listen to it uninterrupted.
However I would like to pose the question is any place sacred if the journalist feels a creditable news event needs to be reported. I think there should be a set of guidelines that makes certain venues sacred. I realize the danger in this type o f exclusion. The potential for unethical people to hide behind the sacred space guideline does exist. My greatest concern is for the innocent people worshipping. Most people go to these places of to escape from the troubles of the outside world and to recharge through spiritual enlightenment. I may not agree with the messages but I do believe in everyone’s right to listen to it uninterrupted.
Reflections on Week 15: Violence in Video Games
Why I Don’t Trust Studies About Violent Video Games
Anything we read this week that calmly responds to negative claims made about violence in video games just seems like common sense to me so I'm not sure there's much more for me to add. Jenkins writes that “the overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure.” And besides that, violent video games are meant to be played by older people rather than young children. The National Institute on Media and the Family found that kids know more about ESRB ratings than parents, making it clear that concerned parents should use the ratings guide to evaluate the content of their kids' games.
I would, however, like to point out how ridiculous it is to do a study where one group of kids is given a commercial video game to play while another group is given a game about cancer and manage to conclude with a straight face that video games about cancer lead to “significantly higher gains in cancer knowledge” than games that are not specifically created to be about cancer. Gee, I wonder if they were surprised by those results. How am I supposed to take studies about video games seriously when the procedures and used systems of measurement are ludicrous to me? How do you seriously measure things like “aggression” anyhow? And how does one feel knowledgeable about the effects of violence in video games when many researchers are probably bent on believing them to be inherently good or evil even as they design their studies?
There was an article in The Onion a while back with the headline “Wii Video Games Blamed For Rise In Effeminate Violence” that makes fun of the current moral panic about violence in games:
Violent Video Games in a Post-Columbine World
Blaming the Wii for so-called “girly behavior” makes as much sense to me as blaming violent games for school shootings, but people do try to make the connection. Even before anyone knew who Seung-hui Cho was, anti-videogames lawyer/crusader Jack Thompson was a guest on TV news networks as a "school shootings expert." He twists research findings to make it seem like violent video games are how school shooters “train” themselves on gun use. Even after it was proven that Seung-hui Cho did not play video games while in college, Thompson continues to blame games for what happened and in this video he stretches his arguments so thin that not even news anchor Chris Matthews can take him seriously anymore. After the NIU shooting, Thompson went on the news and said the exact same things, though afterwards no evidence of video games was found in Kazmierczak's life.
When I think of people who cite anti-gaming statistics, I think of Jack Thompson. But he's on a pretty far end of the spectrum and I doubt most people are aligned with him. I usually don't talk to people about video games unless they play them too, so I wish I could talk to anti-games people just to know what they personally believe. I'm guessing it all comes down to believing kids are sponges who can't judge the content they're bombarded with as good or bad, similar to what Sternheimer said about the decontextualization of violence in media-effects research and the assumption that children are passive consumers. But considering the growing number of people who enjoy video games in the world, I'm not too worried about the issue right now. It might be a while (as even younger candidates like Obama like to use video games as a metaphor for underachievement), but eventually there will be a moral panic about some other thing and I'll be playing video games with my kids. Including the violent ones, when they're old enough.
Anything we read this week that calmly responds to negative claims made about violence in video games just seems like common sense to me so I'm not sure there's much more for me to add. Jenkins writes that “the overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure.” And besides that, violent video games are meant to be played by older people rather than young children. The National Institute on Media and the Family found that kids know more about ESRB ratings than parents, making it clear that concerned parents should use the ratings guide to evaluate the content of their kids' games.
I would, however, like to point out how ridiculous it is to do a study where one group of kids is given a commercial video game to play while another group is given a game about cancer and manage to conclude with a straight face that video games about cancer lead to “significantly higher gains in cancer knowledge” than games that are not specifically created to be about cancer. Gee, I wonder if they were surprised by those results. How am I supposed to take studies about video games seriously when the procedures and used systems of measurement are ludicrous to me? How do you seriously measure things like “aggression” anyhow? And how does one feel knowledgeable about the effects of violence in video games when many researchers are probably bent on believing them to be inherently good or evil even as they design their studies?
There was an article in The Onion a while back with the headline “Wii Video Games Blamed For Rise In Effeminate Violence” that makes fun of the current moral panic about violence in games:
“According to the American Psychological Association, prolonged exposure to cutesy video-game violence can increase aggressive frolicking and angry fluttering in children. Paula Greer, co-chair of the APA Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media, warned that Wii games reward players for explosive girly behavior rather than enforcing proper negative social consequences.”Won't someone think of the children?
Violent Video Games in a Post-Columbine World
Blaming the Wii for so-called “girly behavior” makes as much sense to me as blaming violent games for school shootings, but people do try to make the connection. Even before anyone knew who Seung-hui Cho was, anti-videogames lawyer/crusader Jack Thompson was a guest on TV news networks as a "school shootings expert." He twists research findings to make it seem like violent video games are how school shooters “train” themselves on gun use. Even after it was proven that Seung-hui Cho did not play video games while in college, Thompson continues to blame games for what happened and in this video he stretches his arguments so thin that not even news anchor Chris Matthews can take him seriously anymore. After the NIU shooting, Thompson went on the news and said the exact same things, though afterwards no evidence of video games was found in Kazmierczak's life.
When I think of people who cite anti-gaming statistics, I think of Jack Thompson. But he's on a pretty far end of the spectrum and I doubt most people are aligned with him. I usually don't talk to people about video games unless they play them too, so I wish I could talk to anti-games people just to know what they personally believe. I'm guessing it all comes down to believing kids are sponges who can't judge the content they're bombarded with as good or bad, similar to what Sternheimer said about the decontextualization of violence in media-effects research and the assumption that children are passive consumers. But considering the growing number of people who enjoy video games in the world, I'm not too worried about the issue right now. It might be a while (as even younger candidates like Obama like to use video games as a metaphor for underachievement), but eventually there will be a moral panic about some other thing and I'll be playing video games with my kids. Including the violent ones, when they're old enough.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Musings on Lessig, the CDT, and an Ape
I was catching up from missing class on Wednesday and just finished watching the Larry Lessig clip. The video reminded me of why it is that I so appreciate the Internet and the new media technologies that have sprung up around it. I struggle, as I have said before, with some of the “social networking” aspects, but the incredible potential there is for intellectual freedom and free expression is a force that I fully support. Lessig’s argument for a “RW” society and the opportunity that the Internet allows for participation, was brilliant.
On a side note: I know that Lessig, said that he found that trying to work with government and change policy was too slow. Last semester however, I learned about the Center for Democracy in Technology, a non-profit public interest group involved in Internet policy that “works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age.” Their motto is: ”keeping the internet open, innovative and free.” They are an organization worth knowing about if you follow the legal events that affect the Internet, its content and access.
The part of Lessig’s speech that was most compelling for me was how he talked about our kids; how they interpret and interact with their world can be so different than our own interpretations and interactions. I would like to illustrate this point with a personal experience. The experience has to do with an ape…
In the school district where I work, the latest curriculum philosophy that is being followed is that presented by Dr. Willard Daggett and the International Center for Leadership in Education . Dr. Daggett came and presented at a conference in our district in fall 2006. His argument for a change in educational practices was very similar to Daniel Pink’s argument for A Whole New Mind. Daggett used abundance, automation and Asia to advocate for educational change. Daggett’s philosophy then takes a turn towards embracing technologies versus the MFA/Emotional Intelligence approach that Pink discusses.
Daggett spoke about how kids’ minds work differently; they are able to toggle more quickly between several tasks, for example. He asked us to participate in an activity. He showed us a video clip about 45 seconds long. In the clip there were two teams of three people each; one team dressed all in black, the other all in white. The six people stood in a circle, alternating black, white, and they tossed a basketball among each team. Our task was to count the number of passes that were completed. They were moving quickly with all sorts of fancy tosses. At the end, Daggett asked us to raise our hands according to how many passes we counted. After we came to a majority consensus, he asked, “And who saw the ape run through the middle of the circle?” Most people in the room, including me, looked a little confused by this question. About 17 people out of approximately 350 saw the ape that Daggett was talking about. When he showed the video again, sure enough a person in an ape costume ran into the circle and beat his chest and ran out. It was so hard to believe that I hadn’t noticed it before. Daggett pointed out that had we been our students, most likely a high majority of us would have seen the ape.
I told this experience to some of my classmates when we had lunch together at the on-campus day. (I wish I had the video to show you, but I couldn’t find it anywhere own line.) Amy had also seen the video and said that she learned that most people who noticed the ape were under 30. (Pipe up and let me know if that is accurate, Amy!)
The ability to survey new atmospheres and take in details, is not new, as Pink pointed out, hunters have used such skills for many thousands of years. Young people (and some not so young) appear to be taking these skills to a higher level. It will be interesting to watch and see what brain research shows about exposure to technology and the brain structure. The language we are exposed to in development affects how the brain is structured, it would seem that what technology we are exposed to would also influence the brain connections and structure. As Lessig points out, these children, our kids, are creators of culture on a gran scale, where we were consumers of culture. These digital natives are challenging many conventions, the audience-performer relationship, the issues of copyright, etc. They are moving so quickly that they are changing the way their brains process. And me and my generation - we can't even see the darn ape!
On a side note: I know that Lessig, said that he found that trying to work with government and change policy was too slow. Last semester however, I learned about the Center for Democracy in Technology, a non-profit public interest group involved in Internet policy that “works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age.” Their motto is: ”keeping the internet open, innovative and free.” They are an organization worth knowing about if you follow the legal events that affect the Internet, its content and access.
The part of Lessig’s speech that was most compelling for me was how he talked about our kids; how they interpret and interact with their world can be so different than our own interpretations and interactions. I would like to illustrate this point with a personal experience. The experience has to do with an ape…
In the school district where I work, the latest curriculum philosophy that is being followed is that presented by Dr. Willard Daggett and the International Center for Leadership in Education . Dr. Daggett came and presented at a conference in our district in fall 2006. His argument for a change in educational practices was very similar to Daniel Pink’s argument for A Whole New Mind. Daggett used abundance, automation and Asia to advocate for educational change. Daggett’s philosophy then takes a turn towards embracing technologies versus the MFA/Emotional Intelligence approach that Pink discusses.
Daggett spoke about how kids’ minds work differently; they are able to toggle more quickly between several tasks, for example. He asked us to participate in an activity. He showed us a video clip about 45 seconds long. In the clip there were two teams of three people each; one team dressed all in black, the other all in white. The six people stood in a circle, alternating black, white, and they tossed a basketball among each team. Our task was to count the number of passes that were completed. They were moving quickly with all sorts of fancy tosses. At the end, Daggett asked us to raise our hands according to how many passes we counted. After we came to a majority consensus, he asked, “And who saw the ape run through the middle of the circle?” Most people in the room, including me, looked a little confused by this question. About 17 people out of approximately 350 saw the ape that Daggett was talking about. When he showed the video again, sure enough a person in an ape costume ran into the circle and beat his chest and ran out. It was so hard to believe that I hadn’t noticed it before. Daggett pointed out that had we been our students, most likely a high majority of us would have seen the ape.
I told this experience to some of my classmates when we had lunch together at the on-campus day. (I wish I had the video to show you, but I couldn’t find it anywhere own line.) Amy had also seen the video and said that she learned that most people who noticed the ape were under 30. (Pipe up and let me know if that is accurate, Amy!)
The ability to survey new atmospheres and take in details, is not new, as Pink pointed out, hunters have used such skills for many thousands of years. Young people (and some not so young) appear to be taking these skills to a higher level. It will be interesting to watch and see what brain research shows about exposure to technology and the brain structure. The language we are exposed to in development affects how the brain is structured, it would seem that what technology we are exposed to would also influence the brain connections and structure. As Lessig points out, these children, our kids, are creators of culture on a gran scale, where we were consumers of culture. These digital natives are challenging many conventions, the audience-performer relationship, the issues of copyright, etc. They are moving so quickly that they are changing the way their brains process. And me and my generation - we can't even see the darn ape!
Showing M-Rated Games Some Love
For the record, I may not play violent video games but do love watching other people play them. Over time I've come to consider playing violent video games to be equal in aggressiveness to hobbies like playing RISK, football, or paintball. Violent games are essentially spectator sports for me, so I watch my friends choose from a vast array of weapons and use all their cunning to obliterate their opponents as hard as they possibly can.
Despite being well-made and popular, games rated 'M' by the ESRB usually don't get any positive press. They deserve to receive praise for the things that make them fun to play, so I’ve written up an informal analysis of ..
5. Grand Theft Auto series
It’s been a while since I watched somebody steal a police helicopter in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, but I still remember the occasion fondly. GTA: Vice City is a little different from the other games in the series because it’s set in 1980s Miami. The clothes are brightly garish, the décor is as tacky as the game’s graphics looks dated, and palm tree fronds sway in the breeze as you go about forging a criminal empire. The setting detracts from the violent content and sends the game into the territory of parody, spoofing mafia movies like Scarface or just doing a send-up of the '80s in general. The side missions are what attract me to this game as a spectator. When not gunning down rival gangs (or, ooh -- using a flamethrower!), players do things like land trick jumps on motorcycles or deliver pizzas during sidequests to garner cash rewards or earn gameplay advantages.
Trailer:
4. Halo series
Halo is pure fantasy violence. Faces are hidden behind helmets, weapons and battlegrounds are often off-worldly futuristic, and there is a strange cleanliness to every environment and even to the violence. There are different maps to play on, often familiar in appearance until you notice the enormous, pink-tinged crescent moon (or is it a planet?) taking up a huge portion of the sky. When Peter Jackson is finally allowed to produce the movie for this game (and despite encountering many difficulties, he says it WILL be made), maybe Hollywood will finally be able to say “Look, we made a video game movie that doesn’t suck" and maybe non-gamers will be introduced to Halo too.
Trailer:
3. Haunting Ground
The protagonist of Haunting Ground is more similar to the terrified, defenseless women in horror movies than the gun-toting protagonists in more prominent survival horror games such as the Silent Hill or Resident Evil series. Fiona wakes up after a car crash to find herself caged in an empty castle. While solving puzzles in an attempt to escape, Fiona meets up with dangerous castle workers: Debilitas, a shambling and monstrous version of Lenny from Of Mice and Men, is bent on grabbing Fiona and playing with her until she breaks. Daniella, the coldly beautiful, non-human cook stalks after Fiona with an unrelenting sense of purpose that makes it clear she wishes to eviscerate Fiona with the enormous shard of glass she carries with her. Unarmed and physically rather weak, Fiona runs and hides from room to room of the castle. Tension builds as you wait quietly for your enemy to leave the area – and if you use the same hiding spot more than once, they start to find you more easily. The following analogy does not fit my impression that Daniella is by far the scariest video game enemy I have ever encountered, but watching Daniella chase Fiona is a bit like watching a deranged Pepé Le Pew chase after a frantically fleeing cat. The whole process is enjoyably scary and the plot that unfolds is suitably disturbing.
It's impossible to experience the subtle, slow-moving creepiness of the game in a low-quality and truncated video clip, but here's gameplay footage with a surprise at 2:15 and an example of Fiona hiding at 4:36 :
2. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Most successful first-person shooters are set either in the past or in a far-off future, but Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is set in a slightly fictionalized near-future. You fight Russian and Middle Eastern rebels, shifting from location to location – such as Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and others. Debris flying in the wind, blasts of smoke and light from explosions, and other effects make for an insanely hectic battlefield as you are challenged on different missions to plant C4 on tanks, snipe enemy leaders, sprint in small teams through crumbling buildings to gain territory, etc. But one of my favorite things is that loading screens are used to display thought-provoking and often anti-war quotes. For example, "In war, truth is the first casualty" attributed to Aeschylus will flash by between battles or perhaps one will briefly see Winston Churchull quoted with “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.” A full list of quotes used in the game can be accessed here.
Gameplay footage:
1. Half-Life series
No science fiction fan could possibly resist the perfect dystopia that is the Half-Life universe. Physicist Gordon Freeman leads the resistance against alien invaders and the humans who collude with them, often starting out with only a crowbar. It may be rated M, but it’s also one of the most critically acclaimed video games in history. The beautiful, broken-down, violent world of Half-Life reminds me of the one found in the film Children of Men due to how immersive both their environments and backstories are in their political oppressiveness. Fans have put together an impressively comprehensive backstory along with theories about the universe that you can view here, though it would make the most sense to people who are familiar with the games.
Here is a fanmade commentary about the first ten minutes of Half-Life 2, which includes an explanation of how the environment and gameplay work together to introduce players to the fact that an alien-led totalitarian government has taken over between the events of the first Half-Life game and its sequel:
Why don't I play these games myself? One day I might try, but for now I am content to just sit back and watch. I lack confidence when it comes to learning curves and I'm pretty sure I would play most violent games in a confused manner similar to this avid gamer's girlfriend during her first time playing a team-based, first-person shooter game called Team Fortress 2 :
Being fond of video games, I sometimes wonder what I'll do when I have children who want to play violent video games. Here are some articles written about gaming parents who have already encountered this problem and also offer more general advice on what kinds of video games to give children at different ages:
You Grew Up Playing Shoot'em-Up Games. Why Can't Your Kids?
The Gaming Generation: Finding Time for Gaming, Even as an Adult
Despite being well-made and popular, games rated 'M' by the ESRB usually don't get any positive press. They deserve to receive praise for the things that make them fun to play, so I’ve written up an informal analysis of ..
My Top 5 Favorite 'M'-Rated Video Games to Watch Somebody Else Play (and Why I Think They're Great)
5. Grand Theft Auto series
It’s been a while since I watched somebody steal a police helicopter in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, but I still remember the occasion fondly. GTA: Vice City is a little different from the other games in the series because it’s set in 1980s Miami. The clothes are brightly garish, the décor is as tacky as the game’s graphics looks dated, and palm tree fronds sway in the breeze as you go about forging a criminal empire. The setting detracts from the violent content and sends the game into the territory of parody, spoofing mafia movies like Scarface or just doing a send-up of the '80s in general. The side missions are what attract me to this game as a spectator. When not gunning down rival gangs (or, ooh -- using a flamethrower!), players do things like land trick jumps on motorcycles or deliver pizzas during sidequests to garner cash rewards or earn gameplay advantages.
Trailer:
4. Halo series
Halo is pure fantasy violence. Faces are hidden behind helmets, weapons and battlegrounds are often off-worldly futuristic, and there is a strange cleanliness to every environment and even to the violence. There are different maps to play on, often familiar in appearance until you notice the enormous, pink-tinged crescent moon (or is it a planet?) taking up a huge portion of the sky. When Peter Jackson is finally allowed to produce the movie for this game (and despite encountering many difficulties, he says it WILL be made), maybe Hollywood will finally be able to say “Look, we made a video game movie that doesn’t suck" and maybe non-gamers will be introduced to Halo too.
Trailer:
3. Haunting Ground
The protagonist of Haunting Ground is more similar to the terrified, defenseless women in horror movies than the gun-toting protagonists in more prominent survival horror games such as the Silent Hill or Resident Evil series. Fiona wakes up after a car crash to find herself caged in an empty castle. While solving puzzles in an attempt to escape, Fiona meets up with dangerous castle workers: Debilitas, a shambling and monstrous version of Lenny from Of Mice and Men, is bent on grabbing Fiona and playing with her until she breaks. Daniella, the coldly beautiful, non-human cook stalks after Fiona with an unrelenting sense of purpose that makes it clear she wishes to eviscerate Fiona with the enormous shard of glass she carries with her. Unarmed and physically rather weak, Fiona runs and hides from room to room of the castle. Tension builds as you wait quietly for your enemy to leave the area – and if you use the same hiding spot more than once, they start to find you more easily. The following analogy does not fit my impression that Daniella is by far the scariest video game enemy I have ever encountered, but watching Daniella chase Fiona is a bit like watching a deranged Pepé Le Pew chase after a frantically fleeing cat. The whole process is enjoyably scary and the plot that unfolds is suitably disturbing.
It's impossible to experience the subtle, slow-moving creepiness of the game in a low-quality and truncated video clip, but here's gameplay footage with a surprise at 2:15 and an example of Fiona hiding at 4:36 :
2. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Most successful first-person shooters are set either in the past or in a far-off future, but Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is set in a slightly fictionalized near-future. You fight Russian and Middle Eastern rebels, shifting from location to location – such as Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and others. Debris flying in the wind, blasts of smoke and light from explosions, and other effects make for an insanely hectic battlefield as you are challenged on different missions to plant C4 on tanks, snipe enemy leaders, sprint in small teams through crumbling buildings to gain territory, etc. But one of my favorite things is that loading screens are used to display thought-provoking and often anti-war quotes. For example, "In war, truth is the first casualty" attributed to Aeschylus will flash by between battles or perhaps one will briefly see Winston Churchull quoted with “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.” A full list of quotes used in the game can be accessed here.
Gameplay footage:
1. Half-Life series
No science fiction fan could possibly resist the perfect dystopia that is the Half-Life universe. Physicist Gordon Freeman leads the resistance against alien invaders and the humans who collude with them, often starting out with only a crowbar. It may be rated M, but it’s also one of the most critically acclaimed video games in history. The beautiful, broken-down, violent world of Half-Life reminds me of the one found in the film Children of Men due to how immersive both their environments and backstories are in their political oppressiveness. Fans have put together an impressively comprehensive backstory along with theories about the universe that you can view here, though it would make the most sense to people who are familiar with the games.
Here is a fanmade commentary about the first ten minutes of Half-Life 2, which includes an explanation of how the environment and gameplay work together to introduce players to the fact that an alien-led totalitarian government has taken over between the events of the first Half-Life game and its sequel:
Why don't I play these games myself? One day I might try, but for now I am content to just sit back and watch. I lack confidence when it comes to learning curves and I'm pretty sure I would play most violent games in a confused manner similar to this avid gamer's girlfriend during her first time playing a team-based, first-person shooter game called Team Fortress 2 :
Being fond of video games, I sometimes wonder what I'll do when I have children who want to play violent video games. Here are some articles written about gaming parents who have already encountered this problem and also offer more general advice on what kinds of video games to give children at different ages:
You Grew Up Playing Shoot'em-Up Games. Why Can't Your Kids?
When will I hand him his first controller? Will I let him play the gory combat games I love so much -- and, if so, when?
The Gaming Generation: Finding Time for Gaming, Even as an Adult
Scalzi says that finding a balance between challenge and fun is key; his 7-year-old daughter can become easily frustrated if a game is too complex, and that can make it far less fun for her, even if the game is rated "E.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Reflections on Readings for Week 14
Sometimes I read things and assume I must be overlooking something crucial to my understanding of these texts. For example, I wonder if Richard Beach's Module 8: Media Ethnographies is really telling me to believe that the participation of consumers in commercialized “mediascapes” means that “markers of class, race, and gender become less important in defining one’s identity than lifestyle or appearing 'cool' through the uses and display of products.” Similarly, a passage about virtual worlds states that participants “experiment with different roles and stances by using alternative forms of language without concern for the constraints of gender, class, race, age, or disability markers that inhibit their participation in lived-world, face-to-face interaction.”
The study about commercialized mediascapes is from 1998, when I happened to be a 13 year old. If they had asked me back then, I would not have said that class, race, and gender were less important than coolness. I would have said that class, race, and gender are often reflected in our choices of what we believe is cool or not. There’s a reason I was called a “whitewashed” Asian American girl in my teen years, that somehow I was being “less Asian” than others were, and it was clearly directly related to my choices in media and product consumption. It’s such an obvious thing, that one’s background can often be related to the media one consumes, that I definitely feel like there is a level of detail missing from the module to make the regurgitated findings more believable for me.
I wonder if this is the sort of problem Elizabeth Soep is referring to in Learning About Research From Youth Media Artists when she writes that “Often young people are asked to provide raw data—stories of their personal lives that can, if we are not careful, translate into sensationalized narratives.” Not to say that there is something sensationalized about the resulting narrative, but I think there is a lack of nuance in the way the narrative has been constructed. I don't doubt that great care was taken in collecting data, but there's a narrow focus and little regard for other possibilities outside the desired findings.
As another example, let me explain more about the stated idea that virtual worlds allow people to experiment with roles outside gender, class, and other constraints. The study fails to account for frequent exceptions to the rule. For one thing, I’d like “virtual worlds” to be explained more as a term, similar to the way danah boyd muses on the term “youth” for her own study. And perhaps if the studies being cited were more recent, it would account for more recent technological developments that prevent users in virtual worlds from hiding things like their gender, such as voice-over IP software used by MMORPG players to more smoothly coordinate group actions. Females have a much harder time avoiding the question of gender when it comes time to chat verbally during raids. And in many instances, you couldn’t tell people more about yourself even if you wanted to. You wouldn’t want to encounter racism, sexism, or other kinds of discrimination, so you just stay quiet and avoid mentioning your age, gender, sexual orientation, or race unless you wish to run the risk of constantly being called a fag or eloquently being demanded for topless photos with the phrase “tits or gtfo”. There's this "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" form of identity creation in virtual worlds, one that forces people to conform to unspoken norms, that makes me question the notion that virtual worlds allow most people to play with identity all that much. I don’t mean to say the second citation about virtual worlds is incorrect. I just think there’s something to be said for the fact that a lot has changed in 10 years and that there's a lot more going on if you are willing to at least acknowledge it.
On the other hand, there’s something transparent and ultra-readable about boyd’s writing. Her findings stay grounded and never stray into some far-flung conclusion that’s difficult to support. Soep mentions that researchers juggle “collaborating in a meaningful way with research ‘subjects,’ and delivering articles that will pass rigorous procedures of peer review for publication” and I wonder if boyd has found a way to do both without alienating anyone.
She makes a lot of caveats without seeming like she’s backtracking. She’s just trying to represent reality in all its complicated glory. boyd mentions that not all teens are on social networking sites and even mentions that MySpace will not reign forever over teens’ hearts. She has qualms with the term “youth” and just how many “young people” that term really encompasses, proving she’s a researcher after my own heart. With her dissections, she takes a knife to the vagaries of language or statistics and ends up with an exactness I admire in her writing. While doing this, she mingles collected data with an acknowledgment of ongoing history, connecting the two in a vital way.
I realize that Beach's module is not meant to be comprehensive and that I am supposed to look at the actual cited works, so I plan on digging up the research.
The study about commercialized mediascapes is from 1998, when I happened to be a 13 year old. If they had asked me back then, I would not have said that class, race, and gender were less important than coolness. I would have said that class, race, and gender are often reflected in our choices of what we believe is cool or not. There’s a reason I was called a “whitewashed” Asian American girl in my teen years, that somehow I was being “less Asian” than others were, and it was clearly directly related to my choices in media and product consumption. It’s such an obvious thing, that one’s background can often be related to the media one consumes, that I definitely feel like there is a level of detail missing from the module to make the regurgitated findings more believable for me.
I wonder if this is the sort of problem Elizabeth Soep is referring to in Learning About Research From Youth Media Artists when she writes that “Often young people are asked to provide raw data—stories of their personal lives that can, if we are not careful, translate into sensationalized narratives.” Not to say that there is something sensationalized about the resulting narrative, but I think there is a lack of nuance in the way the narrative has been constructed. I don't doubt that great care was taken in collecting data, but there's a narrow focus and little regard for other possibilities outside the desired findings.
As another example, let me explain more about the stated idea that virtual worlds allow people to experiment with roles outside gender, class, and other constraints. The study fails to account for frequent exceptions to the rule. For one thing, I’d like “virtual worlds” to be explained more as a term, similar to the way danah boyd muses on the term “youth” for her own study. And perhaps if the studies being cited were more recent, it would account for more recent technological developments that prevent users in virtual worlds from hiding things like their gender, such as voice-over IP software used by MMORPG players to more smoothly coordinate group actions. Females have a much harder time avoiding the question of gender when it comes time to chat verbally during raids. And in many instances, you couldn’t tell people more about yourself even if you wanted to. You wouldn’t want to encounter racism, sexism, or other kinds of discrimination, so you just stay quiet and avoid mentioning your age, gender, sexual orientation, or race unless you wish to run the risk of constantly being called a fag or eloquently being demanded for topless photos with the phrase “tits or gtfo”. There's this "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" form of identity creation in virtual worlds, one that forces people to conform to unspoken norms, that makes me question the notion that virtual worlds allow most people to play with identity all that much. I don’t mean to say the second citation about virtual worlds is incorrect. I just think there’s something to be said for the fact that a lot has changed in 10 years and that there's a lot more going on if you are willing to at least acknowledge it.
On the other hand, there’s something transparent and ultra-readable about boyd’s writing. Her findings stay grounded and never stray into some far-flung conclusion that’s difficult to support. Soep mentions that researchers juggle “collaborating in a meaningful way with research ‘subjects,’ and delivering articles that will pass rigorous procedures of peer review for publication” and I wonder if boyd has found a way to do both without alienating anyone.
She makes a lot of caveats without seeming like she’s backtracking. She’s just trying to represent reality in all its complicated glory. boyd mentions that not all teens are on social networking sites and even mentions that MySpace will not reign forever over teens’ hearts. She has qualms with the term “youth” and just how many “young people” that term really encompasses, proving she’s a researcher after my own heart. With her dissections, she takes a knife to the vagaries of language or statistics and ends up with an exactness I admire in her writing. While doing this, she mingles collected data with an acknowledgment of ongoing history, connecting the two in a vital way.
I realize that Beach's module is not meant to be comprehensive and that I am supposed to look at the actual cited works, so I plan on digging up the research.
Friday, April 11, 2008
From the depths of interviewing post
So I thought I would post something short about my interviews since I did miss the last half of class for them. While I doubt much here will be mind boggling, at least it gives me a topic to write on, and I will attempt to relate it to media literacy and youth.
I first interviewed for two positions in Montgomery County, Texas, which is north of Houston. Both positions would be about an hour daily commute, which is never fun. It was interesting to see at each location their philosophy toward young adults, specifically teens. We talk in this class and in 404 about the changes that have occurred in the past 20 or so years in general library attitudes toward teen use. It seems that these changes are about 10 years behind in Mont county. There is an idea that teens are an important demographic to go after, but that seems to be a new idea, not something that has been a focus for a significant period. For example, there are several new libraries in the system as the county passed a huge bond in the past couple years, but none of the new libraries that I saw have a dedicated teen space. They have nice children's departments and several children's librarians but few YA librarians. At the one place that I think I would actually work, there is the need and the drive for a dedicated teen space, but there is simply not the space, as it was not one of the newer libraries. The branch librarian understood that teens are a pivotal demo to hit, but frustrated because there was simply no place for them or that much support for any addition or change. Overall, it seems that there is much to be done (as I think we all know) and, while the traditional philosophy is changing, there are still some places out there that might need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future.
I first interviewed for two positions in Montgomery County, Texas, which is north of Houston. Both positions would be about an hour daily commute, which is never fun. It was interesting to see at each location their philosophy toward young adults, specifically teens. We talk in this class and in 404 about the changes that have occurred in the past 20 or so years in general library attitudes toward teen use. It seems that these changes are about 10 years behind in Mont county. There is an idea that teens are an important demographic to go after, but that seems to be a new idea, not something that has been a focus for a significant period. For example, there are several new libraries in the system as the county passed a huge bond in the past couple years, but none of the new libraries that I saw have a dedicated teen space. They have nice children's departments and several children's librarians but few YA librarians. At the one place that I think I would actually work, there is the need and the drive for a dedicated teen space, but there is simply not the space, as it was not one of the newer libraries. The branch librarian understood that teens are a pivotal demo to hit, but frustrated because there was simply no place for them or that much support for any addition or change. Overall, it seems that there is much to be done (as I think we all know) and, while the traditional philosophy is changing, there are still some places out there that might need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Think Globally, Act Locally and Civic Involvement Online
In the spring I spend time on storytelling and folk tales with my students. I am the librarian at a large, rural elementary school. I see 1000 students a week. With each class I read a book, tell a story or do a mini-lesson. I use storytelling to make connections to other aspects of their curriculum, to history, to culture, etc. I try to get children to see that we are all storytellers and we communicate through story. Another subject that I hit on this time of year is the environment. Last week I was telling the story Slop! A Welsh Folktale (this links to a picture book version, but best example I could find online) The story is a about how one couple does not realize how their waste is affecting others. After telling a story, I ask my students to "look for the truth in the story." Slop! lends itself easily to discussion on how our actions may affect others in ways we don't understand. Due to technological and economic forces our world has become much smaller, the stresses that we put on the environment can have ramifications in parts of the world that we hadn't even imagined. ( this was a discussion with 5th graders)
These discussion have made me think about civic involvement and the Internet. In an earlier post Cynthia talked about youth as overwhelmed e-citizens. I responded saying that I agreed that too much information can be stressful to young people and that I believe that hands on participation in civic activities had a greater personal affect on young people; being able to see the change they affect in their own community. I few years back I headed up a project to build a new school/neighborhood playground. As part of the project I received a grant to create a native plant garden and outdoor classroom. Each child in the school participated in planting the garden. Older classes made beautiful glass tile stepping stones. Many of these inner-city kids had never gardened before. Because of their involvement in the project, they took pride in and helped to maintain the garden. The positive affects on the students and the neighborhood were numerous. This I consider a great example of civic involvement. But in talking about global affects with my 5th graders this year, and from the readings and the other blog posts about civic involvement, I realize that the Internet can play a big part in the idea "think globally, act locally."
Access to information on the Internet allows my students to better understand how their actions impact others in the world. They develop skills in what Jenkins terms 'negotiation' - Why might native peoples in South America be angry with American fast food industries? This goes hand-in-hand with the sense of empathy that Pink talks about. My students may access online organizations to gather information. They may not (or may) become an active participant in an online civic group, but the information they gather can affect how they view their actions with regards to a larger community. They may access the stories of people living in other parts of the world that will enlighten them to how we are interconnected.
In my experience in grass roots movements, which varies from one-time volunteer to director, the first steps in getting anything accomplished is raising awareness and then a shift in consciousness - 'Yes, we do have a problem here. Let's do something about it.' In this small community i currently call home, where many have made their fortune on oil and pesticide logos replace band names on t-shirts, getting kids to see a larger environmental picture and have awareness of how their actions can affect others can be aided by the Internet. Otherwise they can become isolated in the status quo of small town living. The idea of "think globally, act locally" becomes much easier to understand for youth when they are able to hook into sites that show how their actions can have global consequences.
These discussion have made me think about civic involvement and the Internet. In an earlier post Cynthia talked about youth as overwhelmed e-citizens. I responded saying that I agreed that too much information can be stressful to young people and that I believe that hands on participation in civic activities had a greater personal affect on young people; being able to see the change they affect in their own community. I few years back I headed up a project to build a new school/neighborhood playground. As part of the project I received a grant to create a native plant garden and outdoor classroom. Each child in the school participated in planting the garden. Older classes made beautiful glass tile stepping stones. Many of these inner-city kids had never gardened before. Because of their involvement in the project, they took pride in and helped to maintain the garden. The positive affects on the students and the neighborhood were numerous. This I consider a great example of civic involvement. But in talking about global affects with my 5th graders this year, and from the readings and the other blog posts about civic involvement, I realize that the Internet can play a big part in the idea "think globally, act locally."
Access to information on the Internet allows my students to better understand how their actions impact others in the world. They develop skills in what Jenkins terms 'negotiation' - Why might native peoples in South America be angry with American fast food industries? This goes hand-in-hand with the sense of empathy that Pink talks about. My students may access online organizations to gather information. They may not (or may) become an active participant in an online civic group, but the information they gather can affect how they view their actions with regards to a larger community. They may access the stories of people living in other parts of the world that will enlighten them to how we are interconnected.
In my experience in grass roots movements, which varies from one-time volunteer to director, the first steps in getting anything accomplished is raising awareness and then a shift in consciousness - 'Yes, we do have a problem here. Let's do something about it.' In this small community i currently call home, where many have made their fortune on oil and pesticide logos replace band names on t-shirts, getting kids to see a larger environmental picture and have awareness of how their actions can affect others can be aided by the Internet. Otherwise they can become isolated in the status quo of small town living. The idea of "think globally, act locally" becomes much easier to understand for youth when they are able to hook into sites that show how their actions can have global consequences.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Stephen King's EW column about videogames
Stephen King's column in this week's Entertainment Weekly is especially relevant to the class discussion in two weeks fears and concerns about youth and media. First, here's the column:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20188502,00.html
The column is all about legislation banning youth from purchasing certain videogames in Massachusetts. Although Stephen King explains House Bill 1423 pretty completely and rather fairly, here is a copy of the bill:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht01pdf/ht01423.pdf
I tend to agree with King's analysis of the bill. I especially agree with him when he takes exception to the portion of the bill that says certain video games and other media have no literary, artistic or social merit. So now politicians are literary scholars and art critics as well as law makers. Man, they know everything!
Also, I find it funny when King says teens can go see Hostel 2 but not play the less violent Grand Theft Auto. It seems like a more apt analogy would be a teen can go into a book store and buy a Stephen King book but can't buy the less violent GTA.
If nothing else, I think this legislation and article in Entainment Weekly demostrate that the issues we are discussing in class do have real world effects that reach across the media world, across the the political world, and into the lives of teenagers and all citizens.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20188502,00.html
The column is all about legislation banning youth from purchasing certain videogames in Massachusetts. Although Stephen King explains House Bill 1423 pretty completely and rather fairly, here is a copy of the bill:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht01pdf/ht01423.pdf
I tend to agree with King's analysis of the bill. I especially agree with him when he takes exception to the portion of the bill that says certain video games and other media have no literary, artistic or social merit. So now politicians are literary scholars and art critics as well as law makers. Man, they know everything!
Also, I find it funny when King says teens can go see Hostel 2 but not play the less violent Grand Theft Auto. It seems like a more apt analogy would be a teen can go into a book store and buy a Stephen King book but can't buy the less violent GTA.
If nothing else, I think this legislation and article in Entainment Weekly demostrate that the issues we are discussing in class do have real world effects that reach across the media world, across the the political world, and into the lives of teenagers and all citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)