.
Smarts students write at least two critical analysis/reaction papers each semester. These should be 3- to 6-pages in length, applying the course content (theories, lectures, readings, etc.) to a mass media issue, book, reading, film, etc., in the context of the course’s central theme about the mass media: How do we know what (we think) we know about the world?Below are 1) general directions on the analysis papers; 2) evaluation criteria; and 3) examples of current student papers that earned A’s.MediaSmarts • Critical Reaction/Analysis Papers
During the semester, you will write (at least) two critical analyses on topics that are part of the Media Smarts curriculum. These may include:
• Movie Night screenings
• Readings/essays
• Events
• Media coverage/analysis of events
A Media Smarts Analysis Essay is more than just your reaction (“This sucks!”), but—as outlined in the syllabus—should be your thoughtful, well-reasoned, critical examination of the media and society issues involved in the topic of your choice.
That’s correct—the topics are up to you (with instructor approval). The instructor will offer some options—films (e.g.,
Absence of Malice or
The Front Page or
Broadcast News or
The Paper, etc.) that deal with the ethos and pressures and performance of journalists and how they see their role in society; or events that will occur during the semester (e.g., John Bul Dau/Lost Boys of Darfur, or Matt Wald and environmental journalism—and how the world media tell the story); or take an essay like Alana Taylor’s critique of journalism education as a starting point; or review a book on media and society that interests you (lists are available).
Your essays will address the content of your chosen subject film/essay/book in a detailed assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. Don’t just regurgitate it— explain its arguments and themes and relate them to what we’ve discussed about how mass communication and society interact. Most films, etc., have their own perspectives—what is your film trying to achieve? Are you being convinced? Why? What communication processes are in play, either in the content or in the author/director presentation? Discuss why and how, in your view, your film/whatever is or isn’t compelling/effective.
Incorporate references to readings in this class (including the key mass communication theories we’ve studied) or from other authoritative (not Wikipedia!) sources that support your arguments. That is, your paper should include your critical reactions and arguments based on additional authoritative research (articles, scholarly papers, books, news media, etc.) that you cite (include full citations at the end).
Be sure to include specific examples to illustrate and support your points, and typing them to the central theories and, ultimately, to the course’s central question. I want to see that you have engaged in your topic, evaluated it critically and in detail, and have engaged your brain to synthesize other material relevant to the study of mass communication and society in the context of your subject.
Mechanics:Critical essays are 3- to 6 pp. (~1000-2500 words, not counting references), typed and doubled-spaced in a 12-point font. They will be evaluated on the basis of a) content, b) synthesis, c) argument, and d) mechanics (see evaluation criteria below).
Essays are due within a week of an event (Movie Nights, speeches, etc.), or may be scheduled with the instructor. One essay is due before midterm (Oct. 11) and the second before the final class meeting (Dec. 4). Additional essays are possible with the instructor’s permission.
MediaSmarts • Critical Analysis Papers Evaluation CriteriaCritical Analysis essays are evaluated on the basis of the following:1. Content: Substantive review of the book/movie/event/subject being analyzed; use of substantive other sources in discussing the subject and constructing the critical argument.
2. Synthesis: Discussion/evaluation of subject in the context of relevant mass communication theories, external sources, in relation to the course's core theme:
How do we know what we think we know about the world?3. Strength of argument: persuasiveness of critical argument/assessment, supported by other sources; depth and insight beyond the obvious and beyond personal opinion;
4. Mechanics: Writing, grammar, spelling, etc.
Examples of “A” EssaysReality By Tamara Jeppson The film “God Grew Tired of Us,” along with speeches by John Bul Dau (one of the lost boys of Sudan), raises questions about what we know or think we know and how we came to gain that knowledge. The majority of Americans will never go to Africa and out of the small number of people who make it there, an even smaller number will reach Sudan. While it is the minority that will every set foot on the continent of Africa, let alone the country of Sudan, we all seem to think that we know what it is like there. We base our knowledge on what we see on television, read on in the newspaper, or hear on the radio but sometimes the people, places, and events of the world are incorrectly portrayed in mass media or they are not shown at all.
Media representations can lead to the development of prejudices based on race, gender, size, and other physical characteristics. Television and movies often portray African American males as aggressive, menacing, or unruly (Coltrane and Messineo, 2000). While mass media cannot tell us what to think a steady diet of media messages, that are similarly framed, can influence how we perceive the world around us and promote opinions about the people and places we do not normally come into contact with (Pease, 2008). The lost boy’s neighbors in America initially feared the boys because their opinion of young black men was based on negative media messages. As result the police asked the boys not to gather in large groups because it frightened people. However, the people who got to know the lost boys realized that the media stereotypes were incorrect and the lost boys were not mean or aggressive.
On the other hand, the lost boys were told that America was violent place. They were told that American girls where crazy people who would shoot the boys if they were rude. In the movie, Dau mentions that he was told that walking the streets of New York would get him killed. However, once the boys had gotten to know American girls and walked the streets they realized it was not as dangerous as they had first been told.
In America, Africa is usually portrayed as an undeveloped, often savage country. The people who live there are shown as aboriginal. We tend to think of them as poverty stricken, lacking homes, and living in the wilderness. In “God Grew Tired of Us” a lost boy is shown talking to a group of young children at a swimming pool in America. One of the children asks the lost boy if he lived in the forest in Africa. To the lost boy this is an odd question. People cannot live in the forest; they live in homes. A home in Africa may be very different than a home in America but to the lost boys it was still a home. The home may be a mud hut and it may lack the technology the American people are use to but it does not mean that the lost boys were not happy there. Dau mentioned in both movie and speeches that he loved his home in Sudan and he was happy there; to him it did not matter that his Sudanese home lacked the technology that his American apartment contained.
I think that the purpose of the film “God Grew Tired of Us” was to educate people about the problems in Sudan but also to show how little the people of Africa and America know about each other. The mass media do not have the time or space to tell every aspect of a story; the stories are framed to emphasis certain aspects, minimize others, and leave some parts out all together. Framing can lead to a distorted view of the world, if the story’s audience blindly accepts what they are told. To gain a more accurate view of the world, consumers of media messages must think about the framing – what is the purpose of the message and what is being left out? The ideas that the lost boys of Sudan and the people of America had about each other before they met and how those ideas changed after they got to know each other helps to show how different the media’s reality can be from the actual reality.
Tamara Jeppson
Honors 1340
Oct. 2, 2008
References (APA)
Coltrane, S. & M. Messineo. (2000). The perpetuation of subtle prejudice: race and
gender imagery in 1990s television advertising. Sex Roles, 42. Retrieved Oct. 2, 2008, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/h178421623515025/
Pease, T. (2008, Aug. 21). Media smarts – theories. Message posted to
http://askdrted.blogspot.com/2008/08/media-smartstheories.html
Matt Wald—So what?by Lorene Nance My response to Matt Wald’s presentation earlier this week was, “So what?” I had a hard time really pulling any useful information from his presentation because, at the end, I couldn't look back and really see any call for action, or even any particular attention drawn to one alternative source of energy or anything. Altogether, Mr. Wald was strikingly knowledgeable and—this is the key—objective. This was a surprise to me because I expected to hear him set more of an agenda and frame the issue differently (or at all, really) in his presentation.
Mr. Wald’s method of presentation showed the effects of our media environment. We have talked about the media’s inability to tell us exactly what to think regarding issues and their knack for telling us what issues to think about, but on the issue of global warming, this theory seems to be questionable. Based on Mr. Wald's remarks, global warming is an issue that, contrary to that theory of agenda-setting, the media has told us more exactly what we are to think regarding the issue. They have told us that global warming is reality, not myth; that global warming is caused by human activity, not just the natural cycle of the Earth; that lowering carbon emissions is the best/only way to combat global warming; and on and on and on.
This was apparent to me in the fact that Mr. Wald didn't even acknowledge any opposition to global warming: all “mainstream” media sources report global warming as an absolute fact, so we as members of the general public are expected to accept it as fact or be ridiculed as some ignorant radical (even though the combination of the two seems contradictory). The fact that he didn’t intentionally address this—his only mention of the “fact” that “most scientists agree that global warming is caused in large part by human activity” came only as in answer to a question after his prepared remarks—automatically makes me wonder about semi-recent changes in our global media climate. Within the last five to ten years (so, a large part of my rememberable life), global warming has come from being a fringe issue contained to the scientific and earth-loving society to a central focus of many people today that motivates daily decisions. Or at least so it seems...
As I was researching this issue, I found a wealth of information that was actually quite overwhelming, making it difficult to determine the quality of any one source. Any position I could think of regarding global warming, I found. But, for the most part, each article that I found on the subject was very authoritative, leaving no ifs, ands, or buts about the author's view on global warming. As I sifted through, I found some very interesting viewpoints and information that leads me to suggest that the American public, in general, feels much like I did during my research: overwhelmed.
As Warren Anderson observes, “As the noise from [the issue] has increased, it has drowned out any debate.” He also discusses mass media's tendency to “hype” climate change, reporting that the
New York Times, among others, has anxiously warned of four different climate changes, both warming and cooling, in the past two centuries.
So it’s no wonder that Americans are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information. Add to the sheer volume the number of different arguments for and against global warming that have floated around for the last ten years, and you end up with a generally confused people who are forming opinions—but aren't overly confident in the information that they have been given and the “facts” upon which they are basing their opinions. In short, average Americans, at least on the issue of global warming, are becoming media skeptics, and asking how it is they know what they (think they) know about the global warming. Several different studies and polls have shown this:
• A strong majority of Americans believe that global warming is “a real and serious problem” requiring action, but only a very slight majority believes that the scientific community is in consensus on the issue. Those who advocate action are divided on the time frame in which action is required and the cost: immediate steps with higher cost versus gradual, low-cost steps. But, when respondents were asked to presume that the scientific community is in consensus on global warming as reality, “support for taking high cost steps increases to a majority.” (Global)
• 80% of respondents in a 2006 poll believed that global warming is “probably occurring,” but over 60% were not “very sure” of it, linking their uncertainty to their belief that the scientists were in disagreement about the issue. (Langer)
The fact that I am not the only world citizen who is unsure what exactly to think regarding global warming is somewhat of a relief, both for my own uncertainty and for the knowledge that not everyone is as advocate-ready as the media personalities. However, my belief in the American public was diffused as I read a February 2008 study that contained this factoid:
“More informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming.” (Kellstedt)
Since respondents rated their own level of informedness, it's safe to presume, as did blogger John Sides, commenting on the study, that it is this sense of perceived informedness that puts the respondents more at ease with their own level of responsibility and their concern about the climate.
This presents a conundrum of American informedness and action: those who readily admit that they are unsure don't want to advocate major changes based on the small amount of information that they are sure about, and those who feel that they are informed don't really care about or feel responsible for whatever global warming might bring. Wow. Presuming that those feelings can be extrapolated to other issues, I feel very confident in the results of the upcoming election. NOT.
I think this does speak multitudes about our current global media climate. We, as media consumers, have so many issues, big and small, facing us at every avenue—global warming, the economic downturn, the war in Iraq, to name a few—that we suffer from information paralysis, unable to act due to the large amount of information and the number of issues we have right at our fingertips every moment of every day. Because of the global village that mass communication modes have created, we as individuals must include many other things in our decisions. The more we know, and are expected to know, and are told to know (or at least think about) by the mass media's agenda-setting, the less confident we feel with making decisions.
With global warming, this means that we may not strongly believe any one particular way, but we will generally agree with what the mainstream, dominant media is pushing at the time: global warming is happening now and requires drastic action. When it comes to actually taking action about global warming, however, we don't know what action we want. In a January 2007 poll, response was as follows when asked “From what you know about global climate change or global warming, which one of the following statements comes closest to your opinion?”:
• 34% - “Global climate change has been established as a serious problem, and immediate action is necessary.”
• 30% - “There is enough evidence that climate change is taking place and some action should be taken.”
• 25% - “We don't know enough about global climate change, and more research is necessary before we take any actions.” (Environment, NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll , Jan 17-20 2007)
The response is so divided that no one action has a majority vote. Yet in a separate poll taken that same week, 70% of respondents said that “global warming is having a serious impact now.” (Environment, CBS News Poll, Jan 18-21 2007)
The influx of information available through the mass media on every topic imaginable may or may not have created a more informed citizenry, but, according to these polls, voter turnout, and general community activity, it has not served to make us a more engaged or active citizenry.
WORKS CITEDAnderson, R. Warren. “Fire and Ice.” Business and Media Institute. (17 May 2006 ) Oct 15 2006.
Boykoff, Jules and Matt Boykoff. “Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias: Creating Controversy Where Science Finds Consensus.” Extra!. (November/December 2004) Oct 15 2008.
“Environment.” Oct 15 2008.
“Global Warming: The Reality and Urgency of Global Warming.” Oct 15 2008.
Kellstedt, Paul M., Sammy Zahran, and Arnold Vedlitz. “Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Towards Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States.” Risk Analysis. No. 28.(Feb 25 2008) Oct 15 2008.
Langer, Gary. “Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity.” (May 26 2006)
Sides, John. “The Paradoxes of Public Opinion.” The Monkey Cage. (Mar 1 2008) Oct 15 2008.
Thompson, A.C. “Timeline: The Science and Politics of Global Warming.” (Apr 24 2007) Oct 15 2008
Campaign Caricatures
