Ethics in Campaign Media

.

Ethics, Media and Presidential Campaigns

Some useful and interesting links to fuel discussion of how Americans learn about their presidential candidates. Are Jon Stewart viewers more or less informed than viewers/readers of the traditional news media?

“Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?”

“Young adults eschew traditional nightly news for ‘The Daily Show’”

“What the Mainstream Media Can Learn From Jon Stewart”

“All politicians are fair game for satirists”

“Obama’s No Joke to Late-Nite TV Comics”

“Media Bash Barack”

“Media Boost Obama, Bash ‘Billary’”

“McCain vs. Obama on the web”

“A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign”

“Fact and Fiction on the Campaign Trail”

“Campaign Ad Watch”

“Living Room Candidate”
(past & present campaign ads)

“FactCheck.org” (resources to fact check claims made in candidates’ speeches and political ads)

Column: Press Performance

.

A revival meeting for the press

By Ted Pease

The Rev. Jesse Jackson stopped by the convention I attended in Chicago this week to give a little revival meeting—a pep talk on the mass media and American racial and ethnic diversity. He was unhappy with the press, he told a packed hall of journalism professors. Repent! he said. Mend your evil ways!

Jackson, the civil rights leader, former presidential candidate, the founder of the Rainbow Coalition and pulpit-thumping preacher, gave it to us sinners straight.

“Distortions!” he thundered from the ballroom pulpit. “Distortions! Too many stories without history or context, without a sense of character or moral content.”

All week, I have been in meetings, hearing presentations, talking in hallways, submerged and steeped in questions about the practice, politics, research, administration, roles and responsibilities and impact of journalism.

We who practice, study and teach journalism and mass communication think of it as a societal good. Many of us entered this field in the first place to do good. We subscribe as an act of faith to the adage that the press works to right wrongs, expose evils, to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. By definition, journalists are the good guys.

But from where Jackson sits — alongside millions of others who are not of “the mainstream” or the privileged classes — that definition is all wrong: For them, journalists are the enemy, working to pull down the powerless and shore up the powerful. In fact, charges the Rev. Jackson, the mass media are the cause of much that is wrong in an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-misunderstood America.

“Distortion” in the media’s representation of the world is turning us against ourselves, he says: “Distorted words are creating distorted worlds, distorted people. They make us less than we are.”

More context and moral content are needed in America’s press, Jackson said. Where is the media’s moral compass?

Just a day later, Jackson’s views got support from what many might consider an unlikely ally as Allen H. Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, acknowledged many of those criticisms in accepting an award from journalism deans.

“As we all know,” Neuharth said, “evidence abounds that much of the public distrusts and dislikes those in journalism and the reports that they produce.” (Note that he didn’t say “we.”)

Although most Americans say they think the news is “crucial to the functioning of a free society,” Neuharth said, the same poll showed that only 15 percent of us can name the freedoms protected under the First Amendment.

Further, reflecting the kind of frustration that the Rev. Jackson expressed about the trustworthiness of the media, 80 percent of Americans think the news is regularly influenced by outside interests, and, as a result, 65 percent think there are times when the press should be restricted in what it reports.

Distortion!

No wonder more and more Americans — and especially those who are marginalized because of their race, gender or economic conditions — are increasingly cynical about the media. Why not? Increasingly, the press itself seems to have abandoned its legitimate role as a skeptic, watchdog and critic in favor of the role of cynic and pessimist.

“There’s an important distinction between skepticism and cynicism,” points out Neuharth. “Cynics assume the worst, and print it or air it. They think their mission is to indict and convict, rather than to inform and educate.”

The result, he says, is that Americans are left discouraged, disheartened, disappointed, angry and resentful. And it’s no wonder that the resentment spills over on those with poisoned pens who keep bringing the distorted and dreary worldviews into their lives.

“Journalists should tell the truth, not lies,” Jackson told the packed hall of journalism professors. “All the time—not just in a rare special for which you win a prize for telling the truth every now and then.” The Constitution calls on journalists to be “independent scribes of integrity,” he said.

Neuharth agrees, calling for a “new journalism — one that is skeptical and demanding, but is also a chronicle of the good and bad, both the glad and sad, a journalism that provides readers with information they can trust and use to make decisions in their daily lives.

“Whether it’s the new media on the Internet or the print media on your doorstep or the electronic media in your living room, a free press must be a fair press if it is to survive and thrive.”

As the Rev. Jackson might have added, Amen.

(The column first appeared in The Logan (Utah) Herald-Journal in 1997.)

History in Photos

See Rolling Stone here.

50 Years of (primarily U.S.) History in Music and Photos

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then this slideshow by Yee Li is a dissertation, linking references in Billy Joel’s song “We Didn’t Start the Fire” to photos of the 20th Century news events he lists.

As iconography, pop culture and a selected history in about 5 minutes, this is a fun and effective way to talk with students about the power of icons and how we “know” what we think we know.

Click on this link.

Oxymoron—‘Journalism Ethics’

.

Taking the oxymoron out of ‘journalism ethics’

By Ted Pease

When I tell people that I’m teaching media ethics this quarter, some laugh. One colleague was uncharacteristically speechless, as if she couldn’t catch her breath.

I don’t know if it’s the concept of “journalism ethics” that these people find oxymoronic (like “sensitive male”), or if they think it’s funny that I’m the teacher.

Such reactions to the whole idea of ethical journalism reflect a kind of pervasive cynicism — Jimmy Carter might call it “malaise” — that infects the information age and threatens to afflict social institutions far beyond the press and mass media. The reaction is like that of movie viewers who giggle at car crashes and Tarentino shoot-outs: they’d rather laugh than cry.

Those who practice journalism and who study it, however, spend quite a lot of time grappling with ethical issues and the morality play of daily events. (I can hear the giggling now.) There are few professions that require such fine balancing acts and demanding decision-making minute-by-minute and day-to-day.

That is why journalism schools require their students to study ethics and to try to develop from their own values systems ethical yardsticks to help them gauge how they will make decisions in the heat of covering breaking news or creating vehicles to sell a client’s product once they enter the work force.

And so, on Thursday evening, 60 or so students crammed the auditorium in the Animal Science Building on campus to start building ethical yardsticks and taking the measure of their proposed profession. Only one of them commented afterward that it seemed somehow appropriate that we’d be meeting in a room that used to house dairy cows.

One of the things I asked them to do as we got under way was to write down adjectives they associated with the term “journalist” or “reporter.” And, for these students, the results illustrate the kind of schizophrenia that many associated with the journalistic profession carry around.

Some students were already defensive about the field: “unsung heroes,” one woman wrote; “they aren’t recognized for the good they do.” Another listed this string of attributes: “uneducated, sensationalist, nosy, pushy, immoral, idealistic, watch dogs, poorly paid, starving, 1st Amendment-hide behind, unethical.”

Some others: “fact hound, annoying, overbearing, witty, good writer, good thinker”; “talkative, outgoing, friendly, arrogant, obnoxious, nosy, careless, sloppy, busybody, shallow, aggressive, invading, rude, truth-seeking, pry into people’s lives/business, self-righteous, liberal, too honest/dishonest.”

On of my favorite lists, from a junior, included “writer, searcher, destroyer, pressure, fairness, accuracy, balance, busy, stress, anxiety, time pressure, no family life, no friends.”

Such mixed emotions about journalism are an artifact of changing attitudes toward the field, and toward the role of the press and the mass media. And it is not surprising that students considering careers in these fields feel so ambivalent. The press is often its own worst enemy.

Consider just a few recent examples: ABC News’ use of hidden cameras in the Food Lion case. The media spectacle surrounding the murder of “tiny beauty queen” JonBenet Ramsey. The Ennis Cosby murder. The Dallas Morning News’ unprecedented scooping of itself by publishing Timothy McVeigh’s “confession” to the Oklahoma City bombing on the Internet just hours before the newspaper itself hit the streets. And let’s not even murmur the dreadful initials “OJ.”
Gregory Kane, writing for the Baltimore Sun, recently observed, “Somewhere along the line, many Americans relegated the media to a notch on the morality scale only slightly above that of child molesters. Judging by the way some media have covered the murder of Ennis Cosby, we deserve it.”

Substitute for the Cosby case almost any other sensational news event, and the assessment is sadly the same.

A day or so after the Dallas Morning News reported that Timothy McVeigh had confessed to bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City during the day in order to get everyone’s attention with a high body count, I was having lunch with some journalists. This group, whose newsroom experience ranged from six to 18 years, was horrified by the newspaper’s “scoop” and the cynical way it reported the story — electronically scooping itself on the Internet to avoid an almost-certain court injunction against reporting the alleged “confession.”

I wish non-journalists could hear these kinds of conversations that reporters and editors have every day, agonizing over what they know and what they can and should tell their readers and viewers.

“I believe journalists are intelligent, thoughtful, well-educated and generally motivated by a sense of fairness,” a copy editor friend once said during one of these kinds of discussions. “Reporting is honest, wonderfully creative work that forces people to be engaged in their world and communities. Few fields place an equal premium on truth, honesty and fairness.”

But, like my ethics students, most Americans don’t hear these kinds of conversations, and see only the most sensationalistic results of journalism, the kinds of stories and practices that make most in the profession cringe.

So it is no surprise that the students in my media ethics class feel a little schizy, sheepish, even apologetic, about their prospective careers. “I think that no matter what, behind a journalist’s values and motivations is a sense of greed,” one student wrote in response to a question about what journalists value. “The average person who seeks truth does it for truth itself, while a journalist seeks it for his career.”

What’s at stake in this conversation is not just the development of ethical yardsticks for future journalists, but the larger impact such attitudes toward the press have on the larger society and its other institutions. Cynicism about the press and mass media, and how they portray events, inevitably spawns wider cynicism and disengagement in society, a loss of community involvement.

Over the next 10 weeks, on Thursday evenings, 60 students and I will grapple with these issues and try to take the oxymoron out of “journalism ethics,” and restore some of the sense of mission and commitment to do good that led many of us into journalism in the first place. Stay tuned.

(This column first appeared in the Logan (Utah) Herald-Journal on 3/30/97.)

Ethics 101—Part 2

.

Making ethical calls ain’t so easy

By Ted Pease

Last time in this column, I challenged readers to act as editors and make some of the kinds of ethical judgments on hypothetical news stories that journalists confront every day (see column here).

The four hypothetical stories came from the Hartford (Conn.) Courant, which conducted the same experiment with its readers some years ago. The stories dealt with the kinds of decisions pitting individual privacy vs. the public’s “right to know” that often drive both editors and readers nuts. Making these kinds of news decisions — how much of what the reporter knows should be published? — gives journalists ulcers and leads to the myth of journalistic cynicism and insensitivity.

Much of journalistic decision-making involves placing a situation on a ethical teeter-totter, balancing what is often a complex set of facts and judgments in deciding what runs in the paper or on the evening news. Do we give people what we think they need to know? What they seem to want to know? What rules do we begin with — tell everything we know? Or, if not, where are the lines drawn about what to reveal and what to hide? And who are we journalists, anyway, to play God and decide not to tell citizens in a free society everything? Or, who are we to play God and decide to reveal facts that may be personally painful to the subject of a story, even if those facts might be relevant to a social issue that’s important to the community?

Those were the questions at the core of the four hypothetical news stories I offered to local readers two weeks ago. In my media ethics class at USU, students had dealt with the same cases, and I thought readers might find the exercise interesting as well. Many did, and so here are the responses of readers and editors in Hartford, when the experiment first ran, and some comments from USU students, local readers and Herald-Journal staffers.

CASE 1 concerned whether to publish the name of a victim in a rape case that had come to trial in public court. Readers may recognize the hypothetical story as one based on a real story of a gang rape of a woman in a New Bedford, Mass., tavern some years ago; that story was later made into a movie starring Jodie Foster.

The question was whether to identify the woman once the trial began and other news outlets, including the local cable station, had already published her name. Most newspapers have a policy against identifying victims of sexual assault, under the premise that such people — usually women and children — already have been victimized enough by the crime and should not be held up to public “shame.” On the other hand, some news organizations have struggled with this absolute rule, arguing that it is a throw-back to Puritanism that stigmatizes the victim just because of the crime’s sexual nature. Others argue that such policies deprive the accused of their rights to confront their accuser.

In this case, H-J readers and my ethics students resoundingly said the victim should not be identified. “Just because other newspapers have no scruples, does that mean we don’t either?” one student wrote. Hyrum resident Steven R. Rich took the time to write a letter in response and said he would not publish the woman’s name: “Are your ethics situational or real?” he asked. But Greg Merrill, a Logan media broker, said, “Yes, the woman’s name is already known to the public and the court has placed no order prohibiting.”

Gary Frodsham’s email message said: “I would expect almost any media outlet to make a point of naming this victim. However, I personally think it would be wrong to do so without her approval. My answer is based on the general belief that the victims of crime should have the right to privacy.”

Mark Brunson, a former journalist-turned-professor of forest resources at USU, wouldn’t run the name either, but was troubled by the scenario. “It’s always made me uncomfortable that we go out of our way to protect the privacy of rape victims, but have no way to protect the privacy and reputations of rape defendants who are victims of false accusations,” he said.

The two members of the H-J staff who responded to the survey, city editor Mike Wennergren and reporter Cindy Yurth, both said they would not publish the name. Yurth wrote, “Several wrongs don’t make a right.”

My own position is that rape victims’ names should not be published. But I’m uncomfortable with the distinction between sexual assault victims and the victims of other violent crimes, who routinely are identified.

In the original Hartford Courant survey, the results were:
1. Would publish victim’s name: Readers 21%; Editors 30%
2. Would not: Readers 78%; Editors 60%
3. Don’t know: Readers 1%; Editors 10%

CASE 2 involved a member of the town council who is raped, and then says she is rethinking her long-standing opposition to fund a rape crisis center. The options were to publish a story on the assault and her change of position because it is an important public-policy matter; to refer to an “assault,” and say that she is rethinking her position, which suggests the nature of the attack; or to report the crime and wait until an actual vote on the crisis center.

“Interesting problem,” said Brunson. “My first inclination is to try to convince the town councilor that she can’t do the story halfway without leaving the matter up to intense public speculation.”

The H-J’s Wennergren said he would not disclose the rape, but saw the change of policy as important. But reporter Yurth wanted to wait for a vote.

“Why can’t you just report the change without connecting the assault?” asked Hyrum reader Steven Rich. “Is it really necessary to traumatize the person further?”

My ethics students were divided, but saw the assault and the policy question as different stories: It’s important to public safety to make readers aware of crime, they reasoned, but it’s wrong to identify rape victims. On the other hand, the most important issue for the community is the possibility of a rape crisis center. “We are torn on this issue,” wrote senior Amy Bria for her discussion group.

For myself, I don’t want to stigmatize the council member, and would try to discuss with her the importance of discussing the larger issue openly.

The Hartford responses:
1. Report the whole story: Readers 32%; Editors 20%.
2. Refer to the assault, and report that she is rethinking her position: Readers 49%; Editors 40%.
3. Wait for the council vote to report the story: Readers 12%; Editors 0%.
4. Don’t know: Readers 7%; Editors 40%
(This result is troublesome to me. How can 40% of editors not know what they would do? Are their ethics on the clock? are they just too tired?

CASE 3 involved the anti-drug mayor’s 19-year-old son, who is arrested for possession of varying amounts of drugs. The comikcs in my ethics class suggested 2-inch headlines across the top of the front page: “MAYOR’S SON SNARED IN DRUG RING!!!!” perhaps with a sub-headline: “Offspring Betrays Crime Crusader in Dad’s Rec Room!” But on reflection, most wanted to follow standard policy on reporting such arrests.

That was the reader response as well: “Just because it is the mayor’s son has nothing to do with the story,” argued reader Merrill. “If you build a story around the fact that the mayor’s son was arrested, etc., when the paper’s policy is not to print similar types of arrests, then this is not good journalism but simply sensationalism.”

From the H-J newsroom, Cindy Yurth suggested running the story on page 3 if the arrest was for using drugs, but page 1 if it was for dealing.

I agree. The political connection only confuses the issue. As reader Steven Rich says, “The only reason I can think of to give it front-page coverage is if you are trying to destroy the mayor.” Like all such crime stories, where this runs depends on its severity: a major cocaine arrest in Logan would rightly be page 1 stuff, but misdemeanor possession is barely noticed.

But Hartford readers and editors were a bit harsher in their judgment: 90-100% of readers and editors alike would run the drug dealing story prominently, but two-thirds of them also would run the possession stories up-front, too.

Finally, CASE 4 concerned a “prominent local businessman” caught having embezzled $10,000 from a local charity that he heads. He pleads with you not to run the story because his wife’s in the hospital, and the news would “surely kill her.” And he begs you to let him make restitution without running the story.

Most local readers wanted to wait for police to file formal charges before running anything. “But as soon as the charges are filed, the story is going to be printed,” one of my students wrote. “No one would talk to the doctors. We found this laughable.”

H-J editor Wennergren wanted to go with the story immediately: “The newspaper is an information-providing enterprise, not a prosecutorial agency.”

But others were concerned that reporters in this case might be driven by the desire for a scoop, and so would rush to publish. “I think ’way too many cases have been unfairly tried in the media,” Hyrum reader Rich said.

Reader Frodsham agreed: “Maybe we need to rethink our current conclusion that ‘the public has a right to know’ about all our personal tragedies.”

For myself, though, if I can confirm the embezzlement — and it appears that the businessman is admitting it to the reporter — I get comment from the cops and run the story.

In Hartford, the responses were:
1. Run the story now: Readers 20%; Editors 40%
2. Wait and talk to the wife’s doctors first: Readers 47%; Editors 40%
3. Let him pay back the stolen money: Readers 30%; Editors 10%
4. Don’t know: Readers 3%; Editors 10%

It was an interesting exercise, but one that made some readers queasy. Among them, H-J managing editor Charles McCollum, who declined to participate. “I find questions of journalism ethics too gut-wrenching to take on voluntarily,” he said. “I have enough real, in-your-face decisions to deal with daily to torture myself further with hypotheticals.”

That’s where many working journalists live as well: This is important work, necessary to an informed society, but it ain’t easy.

Mark Brunson, the former reporter now a USU professor of forest resources, put it this way: “One of the reasons I got out of journalism was that I wasn’t sure the public good was served by some of the invasions of privacy people had to suffer on my account.

“I’m distressed by what I see as a decline in human decency in our society, and feel that one of the reasons for this is media competition for stories of questionable benefit to society,” Brunson added. “I suppose that if all journalists were so timid, we’d probably be worse off as a nation. But I also believe that we’re worse off still if a lot of us don’t opt for civility over sensation.”

Amen.

(This column first appeared in the Logan (Utah) Herald-Journal on 5/25/97.)

Ethics 101

.

Think it’s easy? You be the editor

By Ted Pease

“This is making me CRAZY!” the student, a senior business major, wrote in a recent e-mail. “I thought taking this class would help me understand the media better, and it does I guess. But the more we read and talk about this stuff, the more I feel like screaming.

“I wanted to strangle one of the members of my discussion group last week,” she said.

As you can see, it’s been another interesting week in my senior Media Ethics class at USU.

The “stuff” to which this angst-ridden student referred was the content of some case studies we’ve been going over, first in the students’ discussion groups, which meet outside of class during the week, and then in email and in-class exchanges.

“There are no answers to some of these things.” The student’s e-mail, full of capital letters and @%!!~&%*??/+&!@**$!!!, etc., had been sent late at night, apparently after one of the group discussions. “There are just no answers to some of these things. I just wouldn't publish anything at all. Why don’t journalists just murder each other in the newsroom every day!?”

Just the names of the discussion groups (or “salons,” à la Gertrude Stein, et al) offer a sense of how conflicted these collisions with ethical decision-making have made students this quarter — “Dazed & Confused,” “The Sequestered,” “The Ruthless,” “The Dilemmas,” “Gone Fishin’,” etc.

The fact that there often are no easy answers to many of the ethical decisions journalists have to make every day is something that escapes many who consume the news and take it for granted, as much part of our daily lives in the information age as water is for a fish. It’s only when that environment gets a bit toxic that people start to gasp and hyperventilate. Like my ethics students.

For journalists, however, difficult either-or decisions come every day, in quandaries large and small. It is this kind of balancing act between the public’s “right to know” about issues in the community and, often, individual privacy concerns that journalists have to perform all the time.

To illustrate that point I’d like to conduct a little experiment.

Back in the 1980s, Mike Davies, then-editor of the Hartford (Conn.) Courant, asked his newspaper’s readers to judge some real-world but hypothetical journalistic decisions. “We realize that simply getting the facts straight is not enough,” Davies wrote in an op-ed column. “Editors wrestle daily with the thorny questions of fairness, compassion, taste and privacy. Sometimes our decisions to publish are criticized, especially when readers think the stories are ‘cheap shots’ . . . or lacking in sensitivity.”

Davies offered some hypothetical cases, all based on real stories, and asked 10 of his editors and as many Hartford readers as wanted to participate to take the quiz. In Hartford, families and Boy Scout troops and elementary school classes took the challenge, and the Courant received 699 responses.

So I offer the same opportunity to consider how you’d decide things differently if you sat in the editor’s chair.

• CASE No. 1: A woman claims she was raped in a poolroom by a gang of men while a crowd of onlookers cheered. Several men are subsequently arrested and a trial is set. The case draws national attention. The woman testifies at the trial against the defendants. A local cable TV station broadcasts the trial, allowing viewers to know the woman’s identity. In addition, several other newspapers in the area publish the woman’s name.

Do you publish her name, too? __ Yes. __ No.

• CASE No. 2: A member of the town council is raped. The woman, a conservative and anti-feminist, has repeatedly blocked the expenditure of public funds for a rape crisis center at a local hospital. Soon after the attack, the council member tells you on the record that she plans to rethink her position on the crisis center. She also makes clear the deep personal trauma she is suffering since the assault, but asks that you not say in the story that she had been raped.

__ Choice 1: Do you go ahead with the whole story, including her change of mind, recognizing that the shift is a significant public policy development?

__ Choice 2: Do you refer in your story to the attack simply as an assault, but report that the convalescing council member is rethinking her position on the crisis center, thus suggesting the nature of the attack?

__ Choice 3: Do you report the assault without saying it was a sexual attack, but decide that when the council member actually votes for the rape crisis center you will report the reasons for her change of position, regardless of whether she wants to talk about it?

• CASE No. 3: The mayor of a small town is a real hard-liner on crime and has made local drug enforcement a major issue, publicly berating judges for handing down “light sentences” in drug cases. The mayor’s 19-year-old son, who lives at home and attends the local junior college, is arrested for possession of a small amount of marijuana, a misdemeanor.

Do you run the story on the arrest? __ Yes. __ No. And on what page?

Would you run the story differently if the arrest were for selling a pound of marijuana?

__ Yes. __ No. How?

Would you run the story differently if the arrest were for using cocaine? __ Yes. __ No. How?

Would you run the story differently if the arrest were for selling cocaine? __ Yes. __ No. How?

• CASE No. 4: A prominent local businessman who has long been associated with many charitable causes is discovered to have embezzled $10,000 from one of the charities he heads. There is no question about his guilt, although police have not yet filed charges. No one else knows about the story. When your report contacts him for comment, he breaks down and begs for a chance to make restitution without the story appearing. He says there are extenuating circumstances that he can’t explain now. He also says his wife is in critical condition at a local hospital after suffering a heart attack, and that publicity resulting from the story would surely kill her.

__ Choice 1: Would you run the story now?

__ Choice 2: Would you wait until you have the chance to talk with the wife’s doctors to make sure she’s out of danger, and then run the story?

__ Choice 3: Would you give him a chance to pay the money back and run nothing if he does?

Make your decisions and get them back to me via e-mail (ted.pease@usu.edu); I’ll report the results compared to the Hartford editors, the Hartford readers, my ethics students, and the Herald-Journal editors, in my next column. You be the editor.

(The column first appeared in the Logan (Utah) Herald-Journal 5/11/97)

McLuhan’s Fish

.

A media fish out of water

By Ted Pease
Professor of Interesting Stuff

“I don’t know who discovered water,” I tell my class, misquoting Marshall McLuhan, “but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a fish.”

This apparently is a pretty exotic image for my students — they seem to remember it, anyway, which for a professor is reassuring. Maybe it’s because Utah is landlocked, which makes the aquatic compelling. (After all, no one blinked when the University of Utah declared itself a “flagship university,” not noticing that Utah is a desert.) Or maybe the class snaps to when I invoke fish because so many of them are fly-fishermen.

In any case, the fish image seems to have caught hold with these 18- to 22-year-olds in COM 2000—Media Smarts, as I compare their lack of awareness about the influence of the mass media on their lives to how much guppies think about the water in which they live.

“Most of you,” I tell them, laying it on a bit thick, “are as just clueless as a trout, as unaware as a flounder. Most Americans spend their lives in mass-mediated soup, but they don’t notice it. We swim in a daily dose of sitcoms and advertising, muzak and infomercials, MTV, news flashes, Internet and saccharine Top 40 hip-hop.

“How many of you find yourselves singing advertising jingles or Barry Manilow tunes?” Ooops. Wrong generation. I back off: “Well, OK. Not Barry Manilow. But you get the idea.” At 8:30 in the morning you need something to catch their attention, but Barry Manilow is not it.

“Fish don’t know that their ponds are toxic until they turn belly-up and their eyes bug out,” I tell them. “And you guys are as clueless as clams about the mass media environment in which you eat and live and swim.”

Well, OK. Clams don’t swim. And that’s not really a direct quote. A little after-the-fact embellishment. But I’ve been saying stuff like that to them for the past six weeks, and it appears that some of it — the fish things at least, maybe more — is starting to stick.

It’s pretty heady stuff for a sophomore-level GenEd class at 8:30 in the morning. But it appears to be as good an eye-opener for my students as a big cup of Ibis Aggie Blend is for me.

From the first day that I used the McLuhan parable, I’ve been getting fish stories from one anonymous wiseguy via email. Everyone in the class keeps a daily media journal, reflecting on how the mass media influence and infiltrate their lives, or try to, and about how they see media effects seeping into their daily environments. Many email me their diaries, but Fish Boy doesn’t identify himself.

This student (and Hey bub, I think I know who you are) keeps sending me stuff like this: “After a long weekend of football games, I wonder what kind of a fish am I? Am I as smart as a Dolphin? I know I’m smarter than a Bear or a pitiful NY Jet, but . . . .” And, “I had some Charlie Tuna for lunch, so I guess I win that one!” And, “There was this commercial on the Comedy Channel about these Nikes. Advertising is powerful, but do you think a fish would buy shoes?”

OK, I’m thinking, this fish metaphor maybe wasn’t such a good thing. But at least Fish Boy and his classmates are getting ahold of the concept that they are immersed in a mass media environment that, as we all have seen, can be toxic to the less aware guppies among us.

“Let me tell you how the media cause me physical pain,” one woman wrote in her media journal this week. “I have these adorable shoes [that] are considered what’s ‘in’ right now by various magazines. I already have two blisters, the leather is so stiff that my foot barely slides into them, so I’ve ended up just holding them and walking barefoot the entire day.”

“I do not know how I would get along without the Internet,” another student observes. “Most days I get a daily dose of news, sports, and part of my family/friends communications all from the Web. On the other hand, sometimes I never leave the house, and that can be scary. I work the graveyard shift, go to school all morning, and sleep the afternoon away into the night. . . . Sometimes I go for several days before I realize that besides work and classes, I have not left home. I wonder how social establishments are faring these days?”

Another student offers this: “Yesterday I saw a TV show that had kids watching TV on it. . . . [They] said, ‘Oh man! There is never anything good on TV.’ That is so true. The sad thing is that me and my roomies were watching TV, and we found that line quite amusing.”

This from a male student: “I saw a Gap commercial during Sunday football. A bunch of kids were swinging to some modern swing music. The commercial made me want to learn how to swing. The advertisement was for khaki pants. It didn’t make me want pants,”

But another student had the opposite response: “This past week as I have particularly focused on keeping a daily journal of how I use the mass media, I realize it plays an enormous role in my life. After a long day at school and work, I arrive home exhausted.” He turns on the tube: “Soaring through the channels, a commercial caught my attention. It was an advertisement for the Gap’s khaki pants. It had a bunch of young, energetic teens roller-blading around in these ‘ideal for fun’ pants. This commercial honestly generated energy in my body. I wanted to get up off the couch, go buy a pair of khaki pants, put my roller blades on and hit the streets.”
(Now admit it: You recognize these ads, right? And I don’t about you, but I want some “ideal for fun” pants.)

“TV commercials have an incredible impact on our lives,” says another entry. “I caught myself humming jingles for different products while picking up groceries. Just a glance at a box or a sign in the aisle triggered my mind to recall lyrics and catchy lines used in advertisements. Now I am wondering how often I purchase items I really do not need.”

There’s much more in their journals, of course, lately rife with Monica and Bill, baseball sluggers, stock market scares and comic strips. One young woman came to my office last week wearing a baseball cap with a Nike swoosh on it, and an inexplicable B•U•M label on her sweatshirt. She complained that the mass media have no effect on her whatsoever, and so keeping this journal is a waste of time. I urged her to keep trying.

When final course lists came out, 88 students remained in my Media Smarts class, all struggling in their weekly media journals with my demand that they learn to take note of the water in which they and their friends, families and culture sink or swim.

They are not very patient with the assignment to survey the vast wasteland that has, as Newton Minow predicted 37 years ago, become the defining feature of American life, or very happy about the task. But as my wiseguy might observe, “That’s how the fishstick crumbles in the Information Age.” On second thought, I’m sure he (or she) will send me an even better line in time for the next class. And perhaps it would be smart not to say that media markets are bullish....

(This column first appeared in the Logan (Utah) Herald-Journal on 10/11/98)

Smarts—"Old Thinking" and New Media

Dear Smarties (and others):

This column by an NYU junior about the lameness of Old Fart instruction on new media not only makes an important observation about how we try to teach these days, but (unintentionally) also points out the dangers of new “Quarterlifer” (a new term to me) media habits. Blogs are not mass media, nor do they serve the essential functions of engaging citizens that an informed participatory democracy requires. This column illustrates the perils that confront a political culture dependent on common knowledge, understanding and engagement.

Alana Taylor is a junior journalism/history major at New York University, who observes that her professors are hopelessly behind the times. She makes some important points. But she also misses other important points about how we communicate as individuals and as a society, and about--(everyone recite the class theme)--how we know what we (think we) know about the world.

Click here for Alana Taylor’s column. Here's an excerpt.

05September2008

Embedded at NYU
Old Thinking Permeates Major Journalism School
by Alana Taylor, 1:00PM

“Nowadays it’s essential for journalists to blog,” says Professor Mary Quigley to a class of 16 NYU journalism students. The class is titled “Reporting Gen Y (a.k.a. Quarterlifers),” and it’s one of the few NYU undergrad journalism classes that focuses on new media.

I sit in Professor Quigley’s class unsure of what to expect. As a member of Generation Y, I am in touch with what my peers find popular — the Internet, iPods, flip-flops, cell phones, etc. — but as a social media maven on the Internet I am an exception to the other 15 students in the class.

. . . . MORE--->>>>> Go to URL here.

The subject matter of this column might make the substance of a reaction paper in Media Smarts. What is the difference between “social media” and “mass media”? Is there a difference? Do they have different goals and potentials? What are they? If this general topic interests you, let’s talk about the column/essay’s major themes, what it says about communication in 2008, the role of communication in general and in its varied media (e.g., newspapers, blogs, stone tablets, Facebook, etc.), about how people/generations use communication media differently (pluses and minuses), about the role/presence/impact of various media (e.g., dead tree media like the NYTimes v. Facebook, et al.) on actual human beings and on the larger society. Is “new” communication between individuals a la Facebook/text/email different than earlier forms of communication? And how does it differ from mass communication? And what are the larger societal implications (if any)?

BTW: What is a reaction paper, anyway? you may ask. Good question.

Just as “media criticism” means more than talking trash, a reaction paper in Media Smarts is more than, “Well, I thought this seriously sucked, man...” As we criticize (or critique/analyze/evaluate) mass media content/message/impact/etc., we think about its goals, intent, substance, support for its positions, potential impact--its role in the larger society. (Ex. As we’ve discussed, if “Baywatch” is among the most popular and viewed TV programs worldwide, what does that tell us about viewers, U.S. image, media producers, global media markets, etc.? Review readings on media literacy and the basic elements of effective media messages.)

So a Smarts reaction paper is an essay setting forth a relevant issue/problem and evaluating it from all sides in addition to presenting your own, personal (and substantiated) perspectives. Just to foment an argument, see my ancient (1996) newspaper column, “The Dumbing of America,” which argues that people your age are lazy, “disengaged from the intellectual experience.” This column is not a reaction paper (although you could use it in building an argument in your reactions papers). But it sets forth a point of view that BEGS for reaction.

I will distribute an outline of the key elements of a Smarts reaction paper. Meantime, even if you don’t want to write something responding to Alana Taylor’s column, please read it. What do you think? We will address these issues in the online Smarts discussion room.

~~~
Ted Pease, Professor of Interesting Stuff
~~~
PISCES MORTUI SOLUM CUM FLUMINE NATANT
“Only dead fish go with the flow.” —Malcolm Muggeridge

PeezProfile

+

PEEZ PROFILE PAGE

Name: Ted Pease, Professor of Interesting Stuff
Email: ted.pease@usu.edu
Website(s): PeezPix (photos); TODAY’S WORD ON JOURNALISM


• Age: 53 (yikes!)
• Hometown: Petersboro, Utah, and Trinidad, Calif.
• Where were you born? Peterborough, NH (how cosmic is that?)
• How many siblings? I’m the first of four Peas(e) in the Pod
• Academic Major/minors: I was an English/Theatre/PoliSci/French major at UWashington, and ultimately an English/Journalkism grad at UNew Hampshire
• Describe yourself: I am a tall (6’3”) dorky guy, losing his hair but gaining in the gut. I’m a Cancer, a New Englander, fabulous squaredancer, a liberal Democrat who can’t take himself very seriously.
• Weirdest/most unusual thing you ever did/happened to you: hmmm. Too many to list. When I was 19, I dropped out of college, worked in a lumber mill to buy a bicycle and then rode from Seattle to Atlanta; then I hitchhiked home from Atlanta to Andover, Mass., went to work as a Sheraton bartender and then spent a year in France playing la guitare américaine in the Metro. Then there was the time I interviewed Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton....
• Hobbies: photography, fishing, gardening, cooking, guitar, boats, sloth
• Favorite thing in the world to do: anything on the ocean/on a boat; hang w/ Cooper & dawgs
• Favorite sport(s): tennis, golf, hiking, sloth
• Favorite food: hmmm... fresh Dungeness crab or Chinook salmon; fresh veggies; fresh bread
• Most hated food: hmmm. I’m omnivorous. Maybe brains or kidneys or something revolting like that.
• Favorite drink: coffee
• Your pet(s): We have three at the moment—a 6-year-old black Lab named Lulu, who is like a stuffy animal; a new (11-month) chocolate Lab, Sadie, who had been abandoned, who likes to fly through sprinklers and steals (and eats) my socks; and a grubby 11(?)-year-old furball named Fang the Wonder Cat, who appeared on the porch one February day when it was 17 degrees below zero; she chews on me (hence the name). (For more, see PeezPix.)

Sadie—Fishdog

Brenda & Lulu doing beach-laps

Sadie and her Mortal Enemy,
Fang the Wonder Cat

A perfect day—A dog and her sprinkler

• Foreign languages: French
• Favorite music/musician: um, classical (Beethoven, Mozart, Bach); Bonnie Raitt; Beatles; Rolling Stones; stuff with good harmonies and smart vocals; polka?
• Most hated music: I’m not much on loud noise
• Favorite movie: Casablanca, Spaceballs, Young Frankenstein
• Worst movie: Why keep keep track?
• Favorite news source: mailman, National Public Radio, NYTimes, Internet,
• If you were a food, fruit or vegetable, what would you be? weiner? asparagus? crustacean?
• What do you want to be when you grow up: Younger. Smarter. No, seriously, photographer/golfer/fisherman/writer
• If you could do any one single thing, what would it be? Sail around the world.
• How well informed would you say you are about current events/the world?
I live in a cave--pathetic--poor--not so hot—pretty well--very well—omnipotent

NewsHounds Profile Form

+

NewsHounds Profile

Dear Cyber Hounds:
Please construct a profile page for yourself using these (or other) questions that tell us something notable about yourself. WHO are you? WHERE are you from? WHAT do you want to be when you grow up? WHAT amazing/interesting/breath-taking things have you done? etc.

If you want, you may construct your profile as a news story. The goal is for you to tell your classmates and the professor the story of yourself, and to have some fun. Do this as an electronic file, posted to Blackboard. DUE Saturday, Jan. 10.

(YourName) PROFILE PAGE

Name:
Email:
Website?
Photo(s)?
Age:
Hometown:
Where were you born?
How many siblings? what kind? your birth rank?
Academic Major/minors (declared or possibilities):

Briefly....
• Describe yourself (physically/psychologically/stylistically/metaphysically/etc.):
• Weirdest/strangest/most interesting thing you ever did/happened to you:
• Your pet(s) (name, type, age, description, personality, most amusing/annoying trait):
• Foreign languages:
• Hobbies:
• Favorite thing in the world to do:
• Favorite sport: (watching or doing)
• Favorite food:
• Favorite drink:
• Most hated food:
• Favorite music/musician:
• Most hated music:
• Favorite movie:
• Worst movie:
• Favorite info source:
• If you were a food, fruit or vegetable, what would you be?
• What do you want to be when you grow up? (fantasy--e.g., fireman--is OK)
• If you could do any one single thing, what would it be?
• How well informed would you say you are about current events/the world?

I live in a cave–pathetic–poor–not so hot–pretty well informed–well informed—omnipotent

Leads (or Ledes) 1

.

Writing Leads

Dear NewsHounds:
Here are (mixed up) reporter notes from actual news stories (well, plausible news stories…). Identify the WWWWWH and then use the key info to write leads for the story. Conform to AP style.

Slug: Speech
There was a speech at USU last night. It was sponsored by the political science department. It was about how history repeats itself, titled, “Déjà Vu All Over Again: Rise of the New Russia.” It was at the Eccles Conference Center on campus at 7 p.m. About 200 people attended. The speaker was from the University of Virginia—Professor Igor Dullard, an expert in Russian and Soviet history and author of a new bestseller, “The Bear Is Back: Russian Adventurism in the 21st Century.”

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: HawkWatch
Actual email: Thanks to Bob for reminding me to remind you about the Wellsville Hawkwatch program. Hawkwatch International was founded in 1986 by USU’s Steve Hoffmann as a science-based raptor monitoring and conservation group. His first migration chokepoint “discovery” was the northern end of the Wellsville Mountains, where hawks traveling south from Canada, Idaho and Montana converge to use the lift from the prevailing westerlies to glide along the ridgeline toward their winter quarters.

It’s a 3-mile, 3,000-foot-gain effort to reach the observation point, but it’s SOOO rewarding when you get there. The trailhead is at the west end of 300 North in Mendon at the foot of the mountain. Follow the trail to the ridgeline where you get the first dramatic views of the Great Salt Lake Valley. Then turn right (NW) and follow the ridge for 1/2 mile to the highest point, a low rock wall and a Hawkwatch International observer, named Josh Lawrey, who will lead this year’s Wellsville HawkWatch on September 27

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: Crash
From Logan Police Department reports: Traffic stop, 11:43 p.m. . 1400 block of North Main Street. Blue Datsun sedan, 1998 (UTlic: HGI 901), failed to stop at stoplight at 1400N, northbound, hit left front bumper/fender of white Chevy van, 2004 (IDlic. IDSPUD). Datsun attempted to leave the scene but damage to right front wheel made vehicle undriveable. Officers apprehended driver and passenger near Deseret bank. Driver, Jerald Doolittle, d.o.b. 6/13/88, 438 East 500 North, Apt. 2B, Logan, UT, declined BreathAlyzer field test and was arrested on suspicion of DUI. Driver of Chevy, Howard Russet, d.o.b. 3/21/57, 14500 East 2500 North, Pocatello, ID, uninjured.

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: Kidney
A 16-year-old employee of the Charley’s Grilled Subs store in Orem needs a new kidney, and his boss is going to give him one. Juan Delgado is the employee; the store owner is Marcus Gilbert. Delgado has acute renal disease. Without treatment and a new kidney, he will die of kidney failure. Mr. Gilbert has been trying to raise money for Juan, whose family is working to raise $100,000 for the treatment. Mr. Gilbert had himself tested and found out he’s a perfect match to be a kidney donor. The transplant will happen sometime next month.

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: Paving scam
People in Provo are getting ripped off by con-men who sell asphalt paving services. Police say they target elderly people and then overcharge them. One man was charged $13,000 for a driveway repair. Another was billed $8,000 for work he didn’t authorize. Police say the scammers knock on doors and talk residents into simple repairs, and then charge unusually high prices. Police believe there may be many cases linked to the same crew of asphalt pavers in the Provo area. Residents are urged to get estimates in writing and to check contractors with the Better Business Bureau.

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: Thai protest
Thousands of protesters are camped in front of the prime minister’s compound in Bangkok, Thailand, protesting alleged government corruption. The prime minister is Samak Sundaravej. He has denied charges of corruption. He’s been in office for seven months. He refuses to step down. Protest leaders are calling for 1 million people to join in a nationwide protest, disrupting government functions and rail and air service.

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: La-Z-Boy
John Frontman said today that the 57-year-old La-Z-Boy Co. in Tremonton, Utah, will close its doors next month. The company, which makes recliners and other furniture, employs more than 500 people at its Box Elder County plant. The jobs will move to Mexico, where labor costs are lower, Frontman said. He is a company spokesman. He said current La-Z-Boy workers will be welcome to relocate. Union officials called the announcement “a disaster.”

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: Army recruiting
The Army is offering new signing bonuses and incentives to new recruits to enlist. The Army has met recruiting target for the past two years, and says it is on track to meet its 80,000 goal for this year. But the minimum standards on age, weight, education and drug and criminal records have been eased. To get more recruits to sign up, the Army is landing Black Hawk helicopter simulators in shopping malls in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Iraq war veterans share their combat experiences with teenaged shoppers, and given them a chance to try out the high-tech simulators and video gaming stations, “flying” the helicopter gunships in storefronts near mall food courts. Maj. Larry Dillard say the Army is targeting “destination malls” in urban areas.

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Slug: Football
No. 15 Arizona State 30, Northern Arizona 13. Arizona State quarterback is Rudy Carpenter; threw for 388 yards and one touchdown. ASU is the Red Devils. NAriz is the Lumberjacks. ASU running back Dimitri Nance ran for two touchdowns. Carpenter completed 222 of 28 passes, including 13 straight in the first half, tying a record. And he also ran for a TD.

WHO?
WHAT?
WHERE?
WHEN?
WHY?
HOW?

Principles of Media Literacy

,

Some Principles of Media Literacy

By David Considine*

In England, Australia, Canada and the U.S. media literacy educators have fairly common agreement on a set of principles that are explored as part of media literacy. These include the following concepts:

1. Media are Constructions
The old adage “the camera never lies” is indicative of the way we have been conditioned to accept the relationship between reality and the representations of reality that the media construct. In a day of virtual reality and computer simulations, seeing is not believing. All media are carefully assembled, edited, selected and designed constructions. They show us a world but is a selected and often unrepresentative view even though it seems to be true. Learning to distinguish the reality from the reflection is implicit in this concept.

2. Media Representations Construct Reality
This principle involves the realization that there is a relationship between the way the world is presented by the media and the way we as media consumers perceive that world. Crime is 10 times greater on television than in real life, but many Americans perceive their world to be as violent and threatening as the media construction. When we have had no direct or immediate experience of the individual, institution, issue, person or place represented, the media tend to mediate. Hence, unless we have been to Australia, for example, we might perceive it as an odd mixture of Crocodile Dundee meets the Thornbirds. For today’s students, born and raised in the post-Vietnam era, their knowledge of that war is likely to have been constructed by China Beach, Tour of Duty, Rambo, Platoon and other media constructions.

3. Audiences Negotiate Their Own Meaning
Put simply, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While we may often argue about the “beauty” of the media, the old adage helps us conceptualize the audiences are not passive recipients of media messages. Rather we filter media content and messages through a complex nexus of our own nature and needs including our existing beliefs and value systems. Significantly, different ethnic groups exposed to the same media content, select, reject, recall and comprehend quite different components of the same content. Exploring the different perceptions and perspectives students have about programs offers an important opportunity for young people to understand the differences and commonalties between them. In a day of virtual reality and computer simulations, seeing is NOT believing.

4. Media Constructions Have Commercial Purposes
Put bluntly, the bottom line is the buck. Any real understanding of media content cannot be divorced from the economic context and financial imperative that drives the media industry. While many people lament the rise of tabloidism and “infotainment,” the media industry justifies such trends on the basis that these stories sell. Hence, they are simply giving the public what the public wants.

The same is true in the entertainment media. While opinion surveys frequently show Americans are concerned about media violence, ticket sales and ratings also indicate that programs with high levels of violence also attract audiences. Breaking this cycle clearly involves under-
standing the dynamics of the market place and a realization that as consumers of media messages we are both part of the problem and part of the solution.

5. Media Messages Contain Values and Ideologies
Even though we are conditioned to think of movies, television programs and other media as separate and discrete products, ideologically they consistently construct, contain, carry and convey certain basic beliefs and values. In literature we might for example move beyond the plot or narrative chain of events and look at the theme or message. Hence Dorothy learns, “There’s no place like home” in The Wizard of Oz. When we stop seeing media products as discrete self-contained programs and look at the consistent and recurring themes that pervade the media we begin to recognize the cumulative value system at work. Hence in American media we might discover messages that suggest that consumption is inherently good and that violence is a viable solution and response to problems we face. Leading educator Theodore Sizer has noted that: “Television has become the biggest school system, the principal shaper of culture . . . powerfully influencing the young on what it is to be American.” Understanding what television and other media teach is central to this component of media literacy.

6. Media Messages Have Social & Political Consequences
This principle explores the relationship between image and influence, content and consequence. In an era of consumption and materialism for example, how do we raise children to have spiritual values? In an age of AIDS, what happens if the messages about sex provided by the church, school and the family are undermined and contradicted by media messages that promise instant gratification or indulgence without consequences? What is the relationship between the backlash against affirmative action and social and media stereotypes for example about immigrants and welfare mothers? The principle involves exploring the way the media show and shape, reflect and reinforce reality. It involves understanding who and what is portrayed both quantitatively and qualitatively, as well as which groups and individuals in our society are left out of the picture. In part it involves understanding who is portrayed by whom, how and why with what effect.

7. Each Medium Has a Unique Aesthetic Form
When Steven Speilberg decided to shoot Schindler’s List in black and white, he acknowledged the relationship between media content and media form. Since the world had initially learned of the Nazi death camps through black and white photographs and news reel documentaries, Spielberg utilized a format that recreated the time and era. This principle of media literacy enables us to understand the unique characteristics and attributes of each medium and to explore that way that form is related to content. It enables us to conceptualize not just what we are told, but how. The Vietnam War has been described as the “living room war” because it came to us via television. In what way might our perception of the war have been different if we had merely read about the death count and body bags and not accurately seen it?

____________
* David Considine is coordinator of Media Studies in the graduate program in Media Production, Department of Curriculum Instruction at Appalachian State University ( considinedm@appstate.edu). He is the principal author of Visual Messages: Integrating Imagery into Instruction, Second Ed.

Quotes on the Media

.

Selected Quotes on the Effects of Mass Media

From E.B. White (“Removal,” One Man’s Meat, New York: Harper & Row, 1938)

“Television will enormously enlarge the eye’s range, and, like radio, will advertise the Elsewhere. Together with the tabs, the mags, and the movies, it will insist that we forget the primary and the near in favor of the distant and the remote. More hours in every 24 will be spent digesting ideas, sounds, images—distant and concocted. In sufficient accumulation, radio sounds and television sights may become more familiar to us than their originals.”

“When I was a child, people simply looked about them and were moderately happy; today they peer beyond the seven seas, bury themselves waist-deep in tidings, and by and large what they see and hear makes them unutterably sad.”

“...I believe television is going to be the test of the modern world, and that in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision we shall discover either a new and unbearable disturbance of the general peace, or a saving radiance in the sky. We shall stand or fall by television—of that I am quite sure.”


From Bill McKibben (The Age of Missing Information, New York: Plume, 1993)

“TV was like a third parent—a source of ideas and information and impressions. And not such a bad parent—always with time to spare, always eager to please, often funny. TV filled dull hours and it made me a cosmopolite at an early age.”

“People who didn’t grow up with television tend not to understand its real power—they already had a real world to compare with the pictures on the screen. People my age didn’t—we were steeped in television, flavored for life.”

“TV is a pipeline to the modern world, and a convenient shorthand for some of its features. Still, that does not mean that TV merely reflects our society. By virtue of its omnipotence, it also constantly reinforces certain ideas.”

“Television is the chief way that most of us partake of the larger world, of the information age, and so, though none of us owes our personalities and habits entirely to the tube and the world it shows, none of us completely escapes its influence either.”

“I don’t fret about TV because it’s decadent or shortens your attention span or leads to murder. It worries me because it alters perception. TV, and the culture it anchors, masks and drowns out the subtle and vital information contact with the real world once provided.”


From Newton Minow, FCC Chairman, to the National Association of Broadcasters, May 9, 1961

“Sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you—and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland....

“Is there one person in this room who claims that broadcasting can’t do better? ... Your trust accounting with your beneficiaries is overdue.”

Thirty years later, in 1991, Minow revisited that statement:

“In the last 30 years, the television marketplace has become a severely distorting influence in at least four important public areas. We have failed 1) to use television for education; 2) to use television for children; 3) to finance public television properly; and 4) to use television properly in political campaigns.”

“...The most important educational institution in America is television. More people learn more each day, each year, each lifetime from television than from any other source. All of television is education; the question is, what are we teaching and what are we learning?”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“In large part, commercial television has abdicated its educational responsibility and concentrated on its ability to amuse. . . . Broadcasters complain that they cannot figure it out: ‘What is an educational show?’ If they don’t know, they should be in the shoe business, not in show business.”

—Peggy Charren, founder, Action for Children’s Television, 1994.

“This business of giving people what they want is a dope pusher’s argument. News is something people don’t know they’re interested in until they hear about it. The job of the journalist is to take what’s important and make it interesting.”

—Reuven Frank, former president, NBC News

“Television-watching Americans — that is, just about all Americans — see approximately 100 TV commercials a day. ... Advertising now infects just about every organ of society, and wherever advertising gains a foothold it tends to slowly take over, like a vampire or a virus.”

—Leslie Savan, author, The Sponsored Life, 1994.

“It’s just hard not to listen to TV—it’s spent so much more time raising us than you have.”

—Bart Simpson, cartoon philosopher-king, 1998

“Televsion is like a flyer somebody sticks on your windshield. Who gives a damn what’s on it? It’s iridescent wallpaper. Sometimes I think people just like the light on their faces.”

—Jerry Seinfeld, TV comedian, 1998

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Have more? Add them under “Comments” below!

Media Smarts—Media Literacy Lecture

.

Media Smarts: Media Literacy
How do we know what (we think) we know?

The Lecture Outline:
1. Review Intro chapter
2. Critical Thinking Skills
3. What Is Media Literacy?
(Video: “Rich Media, Poor Democracy” video (part 1) → Concentration of Media Ownership)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Making Sense of the Information Age
Key Concepts

Agriculture Age → Industrial Age → Information Age
subsistence culture → mechanization/standardization → knowledge as “coin of the realm”
oral tradition → mass communication (Gutenberg, printing) → global homogenization

Gemeinschaft → Gesellschaft

Gemeinschaft—personal relationships, one-on-one communication; family unit
Gesellschaft—mass society, large community; mediated communication
(See illustration)

Transition from reading literacy to media literacy, and from real-world experience to received, mediated “reality” and knowledge.

What changed in the Information Age? The world got bigger, richer, wider, but we also lost our minds: ability to remember, the oral tradition, the first-person, verifiable experience.

→E.B. White (“Removal,” One Man’s Meat, New York: Harper & Row, 1938)

“Television will enormously enlarge the eye’s range, and, like radio, will advertise the Elsewhere. Together with the tabs, the mags, and the movies, it will insist that we forget the primary and the near in favor of the distant and the remote. More hours in every 24 will be spent digesting ideas, sounds, images—distant and concocted. In sufficient accumulation, radio sounds and television sights may become more familiar to us than their originals.”
“When I was a child, people simply looked about them and were moderately happy; today they peer beyond the seven seas, bury themselves waist-deep in tidings, and by and large what they see and hear makes them unutterably sad.”
“...I believe television is going to be the test of the modern world, and that in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision we shall discover either a new and unbearable disturbance of the general peace, or a saving radiance in the sky. We shall stand or fall by television—of that I am quite sure.”

(See also: Media Quotes—Bill McKibben, Bart Simpson, Newton Minow, etc.)

1964: Marshall McLuhan’s Vision

• Information Age—knowledge is more valuable than things.
• “mediated” communication—what does that mean?
• The Global Village
• McLuhan’s Fish: I’m not sure who first discovered water, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a fish.

The advent of the Global Village, as it was shrunken and homogenized by instantaneous communication (radio, TV, satellite, movies and, eventually, Internet…) had a number of results.
McLuhan hypothesized (optimistically) that the global village would result in better understanding of one another, better sharing of knowledge, etc. The world would become “smaller” because we would understand each other better and share more common goals and values. (HA!)

Others saw mass communication as a development tool for poor nations, a way to educate themselves, and as a means of easing “that terrible ascent to modernity” (Schramm).

BUT:

→When TV changed Fiji. . . .
→Arthur C. Clark found “I Love Lucy” on TV in a hut in Sri Lanka . . .
→Queen Elizabeth’s favorite TV show was once purported to be “Kojak”. . .
→The most popular TV show worldwide? “Baywatch” That’s how the world “knows” us.
→My little French amie……. Chicago and tommy guns.

Media literacy: an essential tool
in the Information Age.

That begins with CRITICAL THINKING—even skepticism—about what’s in our mass media diets. So . . .

QUESTION AUTHORITY! Question what we’re told

But the “authority” in the mass media age is TV, the Internet—not what we know from our own experience, but what other people—people we don’t even know—tell us is “truth.”

But what IS “Truth”?.........“TRUTHINESS”?……….

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (AP)—A panel of linguists has decided the word that best reflects 2005 is “truthiness,” defined as the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.

Michael Adams, a professor at North Carolina State University who specializes in lexicology, said “truthiness” means “truthy, not facty.”

“The national argument right now is, one, who’s got the truth and, two, who’s got the facts,” he said. “Until we can manage to get the two of them back together again, we’re not going make much progress.” (1/5/06.)

“Truthiness” was coined by Comedy Central truthmeister Stephen Colbert in October 2005. (See video clip here.)

So how reliable are the mass media with which we spend such large parts of our lives? These are the “authorities,” but how authoritative, how reliable, how “truthy” (or how “facty”) are they?

In response to everything you’re told (even by me) or hear/see on TV or on the Internet, the media-smart response should be, “Oh really…?” And ask for proof.

4 components of the Critical Thinking Process

1. Question your own assumptions, or the assumptions on which media messages seem to be based.

• What do you assume that you already “know”? Examine your assumptions, as well as those of the people on TV.
• What do you really know about this topic?
• How do I know it?
• Who told me that?
• How do they know? Is that really true and accurate (or fair and balanced)?

And when asking these same questions of media messages—TV news or ads or sitcoms—do I really think like/value the things that these messages seem to assume I do? (Later, we’ll talk about selective perception, and how that works in the mass mediated age)

2. Crank up your Bias-Detector. Be aware both of your own biases/ prejudices/preferences, and also try to be aware of the perspectives/biases that might lie behind the sources of media messages.

Be very wary of media messages, esp. TV and Internet—which seem to offer information as “authoritative.” It’s not a bad thing, necessarily, that information is biased, as long as you are aware of what the biases are and thus can take the “authoritative” information with a grain of salt.

Try to analyze the messages and who’s producing them—why do they think the way they do? What sources of information are being used, and what are the sources’ biases? (Does FOX News = “fair & balanced”?) What is the focus of the “authoritative” message, and what info/perspectives may be left out? Why? Try to figure out the message sender’s objectives…

3. Analyze the Context of the Message. What factors may be influencing the message? Political, cultural, ideological, religious… Who’s telling the story? What axes do they have to grind? Why? (hysteria, lack of reliability surrounding disasters, breaking news, etc. )

4. Don’t Settle! Seek more information on your own, to confirm or refute or modify what you’re told by one source, and what you think you know. Alternative (and truly authoritative/dispassionate) sources of information. “If you mother tells you she loves you, get a second source.” Comparison shop. Be open-minded

(For more reading, see this link to Critical Thinking skills)

7 principles of Media Literacy

1. Media Messages Are (re)Constructions. Every media message, in every form, is carefully selected, filtered, edited, targeted and constructed. Remember that we’re talking about mediated communication, which means there’s always some “middleman” between the reality and you, the reader/viewer/listener. Whether the mediator means to or not, the original reality of the event is always skewed in some way, selected, edited, framed in some way. So, seeing is not necessarily believing. It is essential for the critical consumer of media messages to remember to ask:

WHO says
WHAT
to WHOM
via WHAT CHANNEL
with WHAT INTENT
and with WHAT EFFECT?

(See Mass Comm Theories: Selective Exposure/Perception; Gatekeeping)

2. Media Representations Construct New “Realities.” There is a relationship between how messages are constructed by the mass media, and how we as consumers of media messages perceive the world.

The famous 1950s Walter Cronkite TV program, YOU ARE THERE, meant well, but viewers weren’t there. No matter how diligent reporters may try to be in their reporting (in France, new reports are called, in fact, “réalités”), they necessarily skew reality, either a lot or a little.

For example: The “Mean World Syndrome”—Crime occurs 10 times more frequently on TV than in the real world, resulting in many people thinking the world is a much more dangerous place than it really is. So what we know and how we “see” the world in the information age depends heavily on others’ interpretations. (See Mass Communication Theories: Cultivation/Framing/Coorientation)

3. Audiences Create Their Own Realities. Readers/listeners/viewers aren’t just passive, mindless sponges for media messages, of course. Everyone filters and interprets input (media, personal, whatever) through his or her own unique and complex web of perspectives of the world.

(See Selective Exposure/Perception/Attention-Retention; Coorientation)

(Draw Venn Diagram here)

4. Media Constructions Are Intentional: They Have Purposes: economic, commercial, ideological, political, social . . . Even if the message’s goal is not financial (as in advertising), ALL messages are framed from particular perspectives and have some kind of objective. Popular TV shows have both economic objectives and cultural/social/perhaps ideological content
(“infotainment” is justified by some media producers because that’s what they say audiences want—so infotainment is justified by alleged market demand, and that’s what sells (economics)….; on local TV news, “if it bleeds, it leads” is a phenomenon explained by two rationales:

1) people do want to gawk at car crashes and fires (infotainment);
2) it is cheap and easy to shoot a mangled SUV or a fire, neither of which needs a lot of intelligence/analysis to report…..)

Another example: The public says it hates the amount of sex and violence on TV and in the movies, but that’s what sells (and translates easily to international markets).

BUT!

Reuven Frank, former president of NBC News, disputes this claim as too easy:
“This business of giving people what they want is a dope pusher’s argument. News is something people don’t know they’re interested in until they hear about it. The job of the journalist is to take what’s important and make it interesting.”

(See Mass Comm Theories: Agenda-setting; gatekeeping)

5. Media Messages Are Vehicles for Values and Ideologies: Americans spend more time with media than in any other single pastime. What are the values and standards and societal norms—the expectations and models of behavior—embedded in mass media content? Is there a set of standards across all media? Are there recurring themes (macho, gender, violence, consumerism, wealth….)?
(See Mass Comm Theories: Agenda-setting; Cultivation)

6. Media Messages Have Social and Political Consequences: Who/What is portrayed (and who isn’t?) in media messages, and How are they portrayed? And how are issues framed in terms of outcomes and consequences—answers to journalism’s “So What?” question?

(Heavy Viewers v. Light/Moderate Viewers drawing here)

Policy/Political/Market Implications?
(prisons; affirmative action; mean-world syndrome; prisons; racial/gender opportunity….)

7. Each Medium Has Its Own Unique Aesthetic Characteristics/Strengths:

Text v. Image
Still v. Motion
B/W v. Color
TV v. Movies v. Theater

• “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan” in B/W recreated feeling newsreels and historical era
• Vietnam was the “living room war” (seeing was believing)
• Iraq 1 (Desert Storm)—a video game war; Iraq 2—Embedded journalists=“You are there,” but impact on reporting?

(See also these links to 1) media literacy; 2) key concepts of media literacy; and 3) some principles of media literacy)

More to follow.......