The Media Literacy Movement

Media literacy is commonly defined as the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and act using all forms of communication. (NAMLE) The National Association for Media Literacy Education has added the word ‘act’ to this definition as a way to reflect the broader meaning of media literacy. I have to agree with this definition more than the simpler version which excludes the word act. Media literacy can be made stronger through the work of dedicated educators, activists, and empowered citizens. To be competent and knowledgeable about the means of mass communication is important, but is it enough to create the monumental shift in awareness and action that society needs? There are several components I am going to explore and offer my opinion on. These components include, but are not limited to protection, placement, and politics. Although each of these factors are important and intertwined, these are the factors I feel the strongest about discussing. As an art educator and graduate student in Media Literacy and Digital Culture, the issues I am bringing to your attention can be considered history in the making.

(ACME)

After learning about the protectionist stance on media literacy, I have to disagree with its intent. Although I tend to disagree with this notion, it is important to understand the nature of this viewpoint. Renee Hobbs, author of The Seven Great Debates in the Media literacy Movement, describes this very well, “The protectionist stance that justifies media literacy by noting its power to reduce the negative impact of media on youth is most prevalent among those who do not directly work in school settings (DeGaetano & Bander, 1996.) In addition, this position is often exploited simply for its rhetorical value in conveying to parents and community members the relevance of media literacy education in schools.” (Hobbs, 19) It is evident that Hobbs is emphasizing her understanding by pointing out that it is easy to believe media has a negative impact on youth when one does not work around the youth that the media is impacting. As an educator myself, I understand her point because ultimately I feel that the protectionist view is not as realistic as many citizens would like it to be.

I work at a school that has adopted the extreme decision to disallow students to use their cell phones at any point during the school day. Keep in mind, the school performs all of its testing on computers and teachers are allowed to use smart boards and google classroom for convenient communication between students, teachers, and parents. While I do believe the “no cell phones” rule is proving to be beneficial for the school, I’m empowered to use other media platforms to aid in my instruction as an art educator and I want my students to feel this delicate balance as well. Many citizens who agree with the protectionist view believe all media is evil. Hobbs, referring to the widely adopted anti media stance of educators, notes, “Such an approach to teaching and learning may cause students to parrot the correct interpretations-the ones the teacher has sanctioned-and in doing so, media literacy education may lose its authenticity and its relevance to students’ lives (Buckingham, 1990; Masterman, 1985; Williamson, 1981).” (Hobbs, 19) The most important thing we can do is stay informed and active about the appropriateness of media in the right places and time so that these debates continue to stay in question. This brings me to the next factor of the media literacy movement that I would like to explore, which is the placement of media literacy education in schools.

(Parsons-Pritchard)

While the idea of protecting the youth from mass media seems impossible, the placement of media literacy within school-based K-12 educational environments warrants serious consideration. It’s my opinion we need to take action to promote this. Hobbs points out, “Schools are, paradoxically, both the most radical and the most conservative of social institutions (Maehr & Midgely, 1996), and schools have been notoriously silent on defining an appropriate relationship between the school’s mission and the role of media and information (Sizer, 1995). (Hobbs, 23) Although this emphasizes the need for media literacy education, how do we make this happen? The answer may be by becoming educated about media literacy and education ourselves, providing un-biased knowledge for students, and then working together as a community to think of new ways to make the societal voice of media literacy louder. With that being said, I do not believe it is enough to merely mention media literacy in the context of mainstream subjects.

Until I became a student of media literacy myself, I had never heard the phrase, “the engineering of consent.” (Bernays) Edward L. Bernays, also known as the father of public relations and business, wrote a fascinating passage called The Engineering Of Consent. When you think about that phrase from a definitive point of view, engineering means the action of working artfully to bring something about. Consent is defined as permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. In the lens of mass media, this title is a carefully thought out phrase which parallels medias way of making us feel like we are happily consenting to certain ideas, whether we believe in them or not. Bernays points out that, “The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process.” (Bernays, 114) Without the placement of media literacy in educational environments, how will the youth understand the societal impact of mass media and its connections to the democratic process, for instance? As an educator, the idea of teaching both art and media literacy feels unattainable due to the restraints that already occur, such as time. In my opinion, media literacy education should be explicitly taught as a single subject for there to be any hope of todays youth understanding the significance. As for my next argument, who is in charge of those restraints that occur in my every day classroom life?

(Bartis)

I agree with the idea that media literacy should have a more explicit political and ideological agenda because the government controls so much more than we are even aware of. Considering the way Bernays connects the engineering of consent to being the very essence of the democratic process, it seems impossible to deny Hobbs’ reaction to the media literacy view that “links the creation of critical citizens to the development of a radical democracy.” (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991, p. 188). (Hobbs, 22) Shut Jhally and Jeremy Earp wrote a passage titled, Empowering Literacy: Media Education as a Democratic Imperative. In this passage, they emphasize the point of a semiotician, Umberto Eco. Semiotics is defined as the study of signs or symbols and their use or interpretation. Eco states, “A democratic civilization will save itself only if it makes the language of the image into a stimulus for critical reflection-not an invitation for hypnosis.” (Jhally & Earp, 2) The democratic process is the only process that will allow teachers to act on their media literacy education ideas. Therefore, we have to use media and media education as a productive stimulus rather than an invitation for ourselves to be hypnotized by the power of government.

Jhally and Earp emphasize a point by Robert McChesney, an American professor specializing in the political economy of communication. Referring to the media system as being nothing natural, McChesney states, “It’s the direct result of a series of explosive policies that have been made in the public’s name, but usually without the public’s informed consent.” He also states, “So the core of media literacy or education has to be to bathe these policies, and the debates that generate them, in public participation-the core democratic value-on the assumption that the more democratic the understanding of the system and the participation in the policy-making is, the better the results will be. (Personal Interview) (Jhally & Earp, 6) It is important to consider the components of media literacy that are out of our control.

(Penney Kome)

I feel strongly about my stance on protection and that it is unrealistic to expect popular anti media voices to take away the positive and joyful aspects of media, especially among the youth. This stance is directly related to the notion that media literacy education should be explicitly taught as its own subject in educational environments. The reason why media literacy education is necessary is because it may be the only way society can use media as an avenue for a more explicit political and ideological agenda. In the words of Jhally and Earp, “media literacy and education might help people inside and outside of our schools become better citizens rather than simply better consumers or technicians.” (Jhally & Earp, 3)

References

“Home.” Home | Action Coalition For Media Education, www.acmecoalition.org/index.html.

“Media Literacy Defined.” National Association for Media Literacy Education, 10 Mar. 2017, namle.net/publications/media-literacy-definitions/.

“Research.” Jennifer Parsons-Pritchard M.A. in Education, jenniferparsonspritchard.weebly.com/research.html.

Bartis, Aimee. “Smart Review | Media Literacy in the K-12 Classroom.” Getting Smart, 9 May 2017, www.gettingsmart.com/2017/05/smart-review-media-literacy-in-the-k-12-classroom/.

“Media Literacy in a Post-Fact Age.” Facts & Opinions, 4 Mar. 2017, www.factsandopinions.com/galleries/opinion-columns/penney-kome/media-literacy-in-a-post-fact-age/.

Bernays, Edward L. “The Engineering of Consent .” The Engineering of Consent, 1947, pp. 113–120.

Hobbs, Renee. “The Seven Great Debates in the Media Literacy Movement .” Journal of Communication, 1998, pp. 16–32.

Jhally, Sut, and Jeremy Earp. Empowering Literacy: Media Education as a Democratic Imperative. 2003, pp. 1–28, Empowering Literacy: Media Education as a Democratic Imperative.