Media Literacy: A Definition… and More

“Media Literacy is a 21st century approach to education. It provides a framework to access, analyze, evaluate and create messages in a variety of forms — from print to video to the Internet. Media literacy builds an understanding of the role of media in society as well as essential skills of inquiry and self-expression necessary for citizens of a democracy.”

This definition comes from the Center for Media Literacy.  While it is based on a  more succinct definition from the Aspen Institute (the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create messages), it adds something about why we should include it:  because being able to interact intelligently with media is a skill required for active citizenship.  Yet, the curriculum offered by the Center seems to be more about critical media skills, looking for messages behind the media.  I don’t have a problem with that, but I guess I have had this sense of paradox throughout the summer…we are critical of the media and yet do almost nothing about it.  It’s the essential debate: are we preparing students to live in the current world and trying to educate them so they can change the media landscape.

What would that new landscape look like?  A more unbiased media?  Yet, announced bias seems to be more and more prevalant.  For instance, since I’m stuck in a hotel room all week, I’ve been watching a lot of CNN.  Yesterday, they interviewed Debbie Schlussel, who was identified as a conservative commentator.  At her blog, she self-identifies as a “conservative political commentator, radio talk show host, columnist, and attorney.”  She is anti-Muslim and evidently routinely receives hate mail from those she insults on television and radio.  It seems that she appears mostly on conservative television shows or on mainstream media when they want a more controversial guest.

So, where does she fit in a media literacy curriculum?  I think she fits two places: as an example of the kind of politically biased commentators who seem to rampant on the web and as an example of the kind of uncivil discourse that has also become rampant.  While I certainly don’t condone hate mail, I have to suggest that if Schlussel were a bit more moderate in her comments, she might be able to further a real dialog rather than being part of brawls that lead to headlines like this: “SMACKDOWN!: Listen to Me Kick the Butt of Jimmy Carter Advisor/Interpol Agent on Hezbollah & Israel.”  While this kind of negative exchange may garner higher ratings as news programs try to be the most vehement in order to break through the wide field of other programs, it just makes me angry.  Here’s the piece of the media that I would like to see changed so I think this is the piece I would really work on in a media curriculum.

Andy Carvins Waste of Bandwidth: House Overwhelmingly Passes DOPA

Andy discusses the overwhelming passage of the deleting online predators act.  For advocates, it is seen as a way to protect children on the Internet.  Opponents, like Carvin, believe it will stifle Internet use in schools, and I have to agree.  Already, our children are blocked from many sites on the World Wide Web.  I know of at least one school division that is blocking all websites unless a teacher requests to use a particular site.  Most schools routinely block Blogger and do not offer access to iTunes.   In his post, Carvin points to media literacy as one of the victims of this law.  Maybe if we talked to our children about blogs and publishing rather than just blocking it, they would be less prone to publish the tell-all, I-got-so-drunk blogs that we keep hearing about.   The legislators involved in drafting DOPA are applying old school rules to new school media.

Early in the process of exploring media literacy, I blogged about Hobbs’ article on the seven great debates in media literacy. As I continue to read and explore and think about the next steps in my learning, I want to take a minute to answer the debates as my answers will help determine what my media literacy curriculum would look like.

1. Should media literacy education aim to protect children and young people from negative media influences? No…but it should help children learn to protect themselves from potential negative media influences. But there are lots of positive media influences out there, too, and we have to be careful about assuming that video games and comic books and television are always necessarily negative just because they aren’t what we grew up with.

2. Should media production be an essential feature of media literacy education? I’m not sure about “essential” but I do think students should be introduced to these tools, particularly since they are so widely available.  If students don’t have a chance to publish themselves, they only get a theoretical notion of media and their roles in it.
3. Should media literacy focus on popular cultural texts? Yes, most definitely. That doesn’t mean we can’t read some Shakespeare and Chaucer but when I taught high school English there wasn’t anything contemporary in the curriculum. In my master’s thesis, I argued for including newspapers and magazines in the English curriculum, along with “real-world” writing assignments.

4. Should media literacy have a more explicit political and ideological agenda? This is stickier but I have to say no. It should have a general political and ideological agenda and that is to help students recognize more explicit political and ideological agendas. Hobbs calls it pluralism and suggests that “this argument invites teachers to maximize the students’ potential for discovery and the realization of personal, social or political action without pushing a specific agenda on students” (p. 23).

5. Should media literacy be focused on school-based K-12 educational enviroments?  Hobbs and others believe that because of its conservative nature, school may not be the best place to teach media literacy.  Certainly, the political issues would be difficult to address other than in a very general way.  Yet, I remember the kid in the laundromat in Colonial Wiliamsburg’s 2005 commercial.  His education led to activism.  And there are plenty of examples of student activists out there.  Check out the Edutopia site to find lots of stories of students doing work in their classrooms that has implications for the outside world.  But trying to do this in the supposedly politically neutral classroom can be tough.  I think the approach–and this is what my curriculum would address–is to have teachers incorporate media literacy in a way that makes sense to their content.  For instance, the famous engraving of the Boston Massacre which is not a completely accurate depiction of the event would be a good starting point for a history teacher.

6. Should media literacy be taught as a specialist subject or integrated within the context of existing subjects?  Considering the current disciplinary arrangement of subject matter in PK-16 environments, I believe integration is the best choice.  However, if taught as a specialist subject, media literacy, which will draw on cross-disciplinary topics, could be a force for a move to a post-disciplinary educational environment.

7. Should media literacy initiatives be supported financially by media organizations?  I think the organizations can certainly be helpful in terms of learning about production and distribution of media.  I agree with those who feel that these organizations have a social responsibility to help people understand how the news is made, who makes decisions about what is shown on television, and how viewers can be more actively involved.  But I think in terms of providing curriculum for use in the classroom, it is more appropriate for educators to develop lessons that integrate with their content areas.