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
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
