|
PURPOSE-DRIVEN MEDIA LITERACY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING AND APPLYING MEDIA LITERACY IN DAILY LIFE |
BY
|
HEIDI A. CARR |
|
B.S., Speech Communication, Southern Illinois University, 1990 M.A., Communication, University of New Mexico, 1996
|
DISSERTATION
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
|
Doctor of Philosophy Communication |
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
July, 2006
© 2006, Heidi A. Carr
DEDICATION
To the spider princess, who can “spin webs the color of sky and catch drops of sunlight to give to children who watch too much tv and then everyone would remember to come outside to play.” –artist, Brian Andreas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank Dr. Janet Cramer, my advisor and dissertation chair, for your guidance, understanding, and encouragement throughout this long process. I appreciate most of all your making the trip to my house to help me organize and begin this process. While possibly insignificant to you, it was a monumental beginning for me.
I also want to thank my committee members: Dr. Karen Foss, for your relentless pursuit in pushing me to finish, and also for extensive editing suggestions; Dr. Glenda Davis, for valuable recommendations pertaining to this study; and especially to Dr. Terri Flowerday, for so many useful and interesting reference suggestions, which led me to believe you are a kindred spirit.
To my husband, Conrad, for loving our son enough for both of us when I couldn’t give him the attention he deserved. And to Jaxson, who, ironically, ended up watching too much TV so that I could finish.
To Trudy, for being my backup brain and for helping me climb through panes and panes of blurred windows. You are responsible for my ultimate achievement of volumes and volumes of thought clarity. Without your help and encouragement, there is no doubt in my mind that I would have given up this project altogether.
To Geni, for loving me enough to give up your Friday afternoon every week for a whole year.
To Tracy and Jerry for foot rubs and sanity preservation.
To Dana for proofreading, editing, and friendly encouragement.
To Tim, my brother (in memoriam), for working on my house and freeing my mind of looming unfinished tasks.
To my sister and her family for supporting me through my marriage, my mother’s death, my miscarriage, my son’s birth, my brother’s antics and ultimately his death, all of which occurred in the period between my exams and the completion of this dissertation.
To the Murphy family for being proud of me and encouraging me to finish so that they could get letters addressed from Dr. and Mr. Murphy.
To Marilee for being my email buddy and satisfying my social needs in a time of desperate social limitations.
To Cynthia Hennecke who encouraged me to register for hours when I was ready to give it all up.
To my students for their patience and understanding when I took weeks to get grades back to them.
To Sonja Foss for teaching me “get-it-done” skills.
To Jean Kilbourne for your charisma, wit and wisdom that triggered my retreat from debilitating self-criticism and stimulated my interest in media literacy.
To Bob McCannon and Rob Williams for generously sharing your wisdom and encouragement, and for providing me with valuable opportunities to develop my professional interests.
To James Potter for putting everything I’d been thinking about for years into a perfectly articulated and groundbreaking argument. If I hadn’t found your theory book, I don’t know that I would have been as excited and passionately committed to this research.
And, finally, to Kitten Katten for being squishy and purry and white and soft when I desperately needed some “cute” relief.
|
purpose-driven media literacy: an analysis of the costs and benefits of developing and applying media literacy in daily life |
BY
|
Heidi a. carr |
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
|
Doctor of Philosophy Communication |
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
July, 2006
PURPOSE-DRIVEN MEDIA LITERACY: AN ANALYSIS OF
THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING AND
APPLYING MEDIA LITERACY IN DAILY LIFE
by
Heidi A. Carr
B.S., Speech Communication
M.A., Communication
PhD, Communication
ABSTRACT
A qualitative study was conducted to determine what motivates students to or blocks students from developing and applying media literacy in their daily lives. Past research suggests that media literacy training produces positive outcomes and helps participants avoid risks for negative media effects, however, little is known about how or why. In order to deeply explore these aspects and to develop media literacy theory, a phenomenological approach was employed throughout data gathering and analysis. Ten students who had completed a Mass Media and Society course participated in interviews and focus groups. Responses were categorized and findings revealed that students are: (1) motivated to overcome the efforts involved in developing and applying media literacy by seven types of perceived personal and direct benefits; (2) less inclined to change their media habits than they are to change their thinking about the messages incurred in those habits; (3) motivated to develop and apply media literacy by classroom content and activity that illuminates the cognitive and affective elements of information-processing and helps them to gain control of their interpretations over media content. Based on the findings, suggestions for implementing a purpose-driven media literacy curriculum are explained. Ultimately, the findings strengthen media literacy theory and curriculum, and have important implications for effectively addressing the problem of the undemocratic nature of U.S. mass media.
LIST OF TABLES xv
Fundamentals of Media Literacy 5
Definitions 6
Approaches 12
Key Concepts and Principles 12
Media literacy as an extension of traditional literacy 13
Protectionism 14
Critical media literacy 15
Framework and Purpose for Study 17
Preview of Chapters 20
Concentration of Media Ownership 21
Media Exposure 27
Media Content 31
Blurred Lines 31
Skewed and Missing Information 35
Sensationalism 44
Media Effects 46
Learning from Media Content 47
Social learning 47
Factors that enhance learning from the media 48
Schematic learning 51
Media as Socializing Agents 53
Social reality effects 54
Factors contributing to the cultivation effects 57
Factors contributing to general media effects 58
The Active Audience 60
Uses and Gratifications 61
Reception Analysis 63
Interpretive Resistance 64
Limitations on ‘Active Audience’ Perspective 66
The Problem with a Media Illiterate Society 69
Automaticity 69
Proposals for Mitigating Negative and Encouraging Positive Effects 71
Censorship 72
Media Reform 72
The Case for Media Literacy over Media Reform 75
Audience demand slows success of media reform movement 75
Media literacy as impetus for systemic change 77
Media literacy as mitigator of negative effects 78
Needed: An Exploration of Cognitive Media Literacy Processes 79
Potter’s Cognitive Theory of Media Literacy 82
Responsibility Axiom 82
Effects Axiom 84
Interpretation Axiom and Power Axiom 85
Shared Meaning Axiom 86
Purpose Axiom 86
Research Questions 87
Procedures 91
Interviewing 91
Five-why tool 93
Focus Groups 96
Participants 96 Demographic and pre-existing factors 96
Data Collection 97
Method of Analysis 98
Reasons Reported to Stimulate Drive to Engage in Media Literacy 105
Increased Ability to Make Informed and Responsible Decisions 107
Political decisions 107
Consumer decisions 111
Increased Feelings of Safety in Community and World 114
Increased Positive Feelings About Self 115
Increased Ability to Avoid Stereotypes 119
Increased Feelings of Enlightenment 122
Increased Feelings of Enjoyment During Media Exposures 123
Barriers to Engaging in Media Literacy 123
Lack of Time 124
Cognitive Dissonance 125
Pressure to Conform 127
Level of Effort 127
Lack of Purpose 129
Lack of Knowledge and Skill 129
Lack of Access to a Variety of Perspectives 131
Course Components Reported to Stimulate Drive to Engage in Media Lit 133
Class Materials 133
News and Information 133
Conglomeration/Concentration of Ownership 136
Persuasive Strategies/Effects of Persuasion 137
Fantasy vs. Reality 144
Class Activities 144
Discussion and Debate 145
Reflection and Analysis 145
Classroom Visits from Media Professionals 148
Counter Ad Project 149
Discussion of the Research Questions 151
Research Question One 152
Research Question Two 154
Bringing Together Research Questions One and Two 155
Research Question Three 159
The Cognitive and Affective Elements of Media Literacy 159
Personal Rewards as Purpose for Media Literacy 163
The Purpose-Driven Media Literacy Curriculum 169
Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research 176
Conclusion 178
Table 1: Reasons Reported to Stimulate Drive to Engage in Media Literacy 101
Table 2: Barriers Reported to Discourage Development and Application of Media
Literacy 103
Table 3: Curriculum Components Perceived to Trigger Drive to Develop and Apply
Media Literacy 105
Chapter One: Introduction
Throughout my youth and young adulthood, I struggled with low self-esteem. Undoubtedly there were many factors that contributed to my negative self-image, including my parents’ divorce. However, it was only after studying the mass media and its negative impacts on self-perception in college that I was able to understand the problem fully and turn my self-esteem around. I realized I had been comparing myself endlessly to celebrities and models in the mass media, trying in many ways to imitate their clothing, hairstyles, attitudes, and behaviors. No matter how hard I tried, though, I remember always feeling frustrated and inferior in contrast to these images of perfection. I felt endless discontent when comparing my own unique and real body to the unreal portrayals of perfection surrounding me in the commercial mass media available to me at this time. Every week I saw hundreds of advertising narratives that either subtly or blatantly suggested I was in need of some product or service that would help me achieve what I had always wanted in life.
In college I took media effects courses and learned to critically analyze and evaluate media messages in life-changing workshops hosted by women such as Jean Kilbourne. I finally realized that the comparisons I had been making—between myself and the unreal images that surrounded me in the commercially mass-produced media—were irrational. Even more surprising, I learned that the images to which I had been comparing myself had been doctored; they could not be achieved without special lighting, camera angles, airbrushing, or digital enhancements. I had also been buying into a repetitive storyline that told me about people who mattered in this world, and I was not one of them.
Ultimately, these experiences increased my level of media literacy, which, put simply, meant that I had attained the knowledge and skills to critically “read” (i.e., watch, listen to, and mindfully process) media messages during my exposures. As a result of this development, I felt liberated from the constant comparisons to media images, felt more in control of my media exposures, let go of many faulty beliefs about myself and the world, felt more in control of allowing or disallowing media messages to shape my life, felt more confident and empowered, and therefore have since led a happier life. Since that time, I have not only rejected commercial media definitions of attractive body types, but I have also sought out alternative portrayals and have even advocated for a more representative media system that will allow for more diverse representations and narratives. Even though it is more difficult and time consuming to apply media literacy in my daily life, the personal payoffs are much greater than the effort that is required.
These rewarding feelings drove my desire to research media literacy and to teach what I learned and experienced so that others like me may experience benefits of their own. Later, when developing curricula for the New Mexico Media Literacy Project, I met two high school-aged girls who had produced a video project for their media analysis class. Their production told the story of how each girl overcame her different eating disorder because of the increased media literacy they developed in their media analysis class. Watching their video production reminded me very much of my own situation, and I began to seek out the stories of other students, anecdotally and in published research. As I continued teaching media education courses over the years, I learned through discussion and feedback that other students benefited from increased media literacy in similar ways and also in many other positive ways.
Since then I have heard dozens of stories about how students’ simple increases in media literacy have made real differences in their lives. A young man made a decision to sell his car and instead use public transportation because of what he described as his desire to make a meaningful contribution to a cleaner environment; a young woman changed her political party to support causes that benefited her family; and another young woman stopped feeling so scared to leave the safety of her home. The fact that these students attributed such significant and reportedly valuable changes to a media education course was initially shocking to me. However, after a number of years, I became less surprised when I heard similar stories and began instead to wonder what it was about media education that could produce such therapeutic effects. I wanted to know more about the value of media literacy for students and what drives them to want to apply it in their lives.
Specifically, my interests regarding the effectiveness of media literacy education lie in two areas. First, as I proceeded through my doctoral program, I conducted research and wrote a number of papers about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of media literacy curricula and pedagogies. Concurrently, I thoroughly familiarized myself with the body of media literacy scholarship and the key people who participate in research and practice. As I met and began to understand the perspectives of various educators and scholars, I encountered, at times, a surprisingly combative discourse about the “right” ways to approach media literacy. My own classroom pedagogy avoids what Paulo Friere calls “banking education” (1970) and favors student-centered constructivism and critical thinking. I encourage students to think for themselves about their own purposes, thought processes, and preferred outcomes. In doing this study, I was hoping to find out more about how to approach media literacy curricula in ways that could most effectively produce positive effects, as reported by students.
Second, a great deal of my research has focused on examining whether and how media literacy can mitigate the negative effects of mass-media messages. Prior to this study, I had obtained a thorough understanding of both media literacy and mass media effects literature, and I began to search for more information about why individuals with increased media literacy could be affected in positive ways. As I wondered what occurred cognitively as the transformation took place, I encountered W. James Potter’s “cognitive theory of media literacy,” the first coherent published theory of media literacy (2004). Potter is a scholar with whom I had always aligned myself and whose theoretical explanations mercifully put into words what had been on my mind for years. His foci are on the cognitive element of information processing and meaning construction, on what motivates individuals to expend effort engaging in media literacy, and on the ability of the individual to control his or her interpretations leading to negative or positive effects. These cognitive elements are important to me because they articulate my own views and research goals.
However, in order to progress in my research and to be able to make claims about how media literacy training can lead to positive—even therapeutic—outcomes, it became necessary to construct a platform of understanding from which I could speak with authority. Therefore, in designing this study, I planned to more closely examine and discover the decisions that occur at the point of meaning construction. In doing so, I intended to arrive at a more thorough understanding of not only what motivates students to engage in media literacy but also what prevents them from doing so and what parts of the curriculum they attribute to their decisions to engage in or avoid it. Additionally, I wanted the answers to be specific and student-accessible so that they could be used to effectively motivate others to learn and hopefully benefit from increased media literacy.
Based on my professional and personal experience, then, the purpose of this study was to discover a spectrum of reasons, rewards, and information triggers that act as catalysts for critical thinking in that they motivate students to engage in media literacy practices. Additionally, I examined students’ reported costs involved in media literacy engagement in order to make suggestions for how educators can help students overcome them. The study was intended to strengthen media literacy theory and indicate possibilities for building more effective media literacy curricula. In this chapter I will discuss the fundamentals of media literacy by explaining (1) definitions; (2) approaches; and (3) Potter’s framework, which, ultimately, I position myself within.
Fundamentals of Media Literacy
Media literacy has become increasingly important in the United States over the past 30 years. The late 1970s and early 1980s marked a significant display of interest from educators and social scientists in researching effective intervention skills that could increase a child’s understanding of television content. Concern about the harmful effects of television was spurred by the release of the Surgeon General’s Report in 1971. The report represented a massive research effort, funded by over one million dollars in government appropriations, to probe the issue of televised violence. Several books were published, suggesting that television was not just bad for children, but dangerous, which spurred debate among parents, teachers and Board of Education groups. One outcome was that educators, frustrated by the lack of government intervention regarding program or commercial content, began to develop “critical viewing skills” curricula to protect children from these influences (Neuman, 1991).
Since then, media literacy education has blossomed from what was initially a handful of curricula with a limited focus on advertising and violent content into significant developments in research, theory, and practice from many diverse fields. Some of the contributing fields are: education, communication, media studies, psychology, cultural studies, literature, literacy studies, telecommunications, and library and information science (Hobbs, 2005). Because so much has been written about media literacy education (and its various synonyms such as media education, critical thinking skills programs, critical viewing skills curricula), it is difficult to formulate an exact understanding of its use throughout the nation.
Definitions
The meaning of media literacy greatly depends on the one defining it. Potter (2004), who has written extensively on media effects and cognitive processing of media messages, compares media literacy literature to a “large complex patchwork of ideas” (p. 34) and compiles 22 separate definitions of media literacy from various citizen action groups and scholars (for complete list, see Potter, 2004, pp. 24-27). However, for many years, the most commonly accepted and widely used definition of media literacy was one that was developed at the 1992 National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. Scholars agreed upon and later revised a definition that explicated media literacy in this way:
A media literate person—and everyone should have the opportunity to become one—can decode, evaluate, analyze, and produce both print and electronic media. The fundamental objective of media literacy is critical autonomy in relationship to all media. Emphases in media literacy training range widely, including informed citizenship, aesthetic appreciation and expression, social advocacy, self-esteem, and consumer competence. (Aufderheide, 2001, p. 79)
This definition is broad but covers a wide range of approaches included throughout the field, which itself is so expansive and fragmented it has been difficult to reach any kind of meaningful convergence. Consequently, existing conceptualizations of media literacy are so broad and varied that unified, systematic development of media literacy theory seems almost impossible. Media literacy traverses academic disciplines from communication studies to women’s studies, to political science, to health and nutrition and many others. It easily crosses the boundaries of academics into churches, communities, and activist groups. Ironically, it is used both as a means to protect innocent children and as a means to protect powerful corporations. To understand how this is true, one must understand how media literacy advocacy is currently organized in the United States.
A few local, regional and national non-profit organizations, established in the early 1990s, have functioned successfully and continued to grow (e.g., New Mexico Media Literacy Project, Center for Media Literacy, Center for Media Education, National Telemedia Council, Citizens for Media Literacy and others). More recently however, two large national organizations have been established, indicating an upswing in interest towards the benefits of media literacy education: Alliance for a Media Literate America (AMLA) and Action Coalition for Media Education (ACME). The contrasting goals of these two organizations, however, instigate infighting among media educators that illustrates the lack of any real agreement about the standards in the field. Media corporations have also jumped on the media literacy bandwagon, producing and promoting curriculum that integrates programming from their networks or content from their newspapers. The issue of “big media-produced” media literacy curricula, as some call Channel One- or Cable in the Classroom-sponsored curriculum, is what divides the discipline on the national level.
An illustration of this divide can be seen in the following description of the two national media literacy organizations. The AMLA, founded in 2001, aims to unify media literacy educators and provide networking and curriculum resources for individuals and organizations. ACME, founded in 2002 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, actively disassociates itself with AMLA, and is more activist oriented, focusing on media reform policy and social justice issues. Both organizations have held successful, well-attended, annual events that have attracted thousands of concerned citizens. Each of the groups possesses goals for increasing media education throughout the country. However, the contentious division between the two centers on their attitude towards the media industry. AMLA encourages partnerships between media-literacy organizations and commercial media makers, accepting funding from and developing curriculum for companies such as Comcast and Channel One. ACME, on the other hand, refuses any support whatsoever from media organizations and maintains committed independence from “corporate media ‘literacy’ and its PR machine” (Acme Coalition for Media Education, n.d.). Kellner and Share (2005) describe the division between the two groups as relating to three key differences: (1) AMLA stresses literacy over media, but ACME is the other way around; (2) AMLA suggests that media literacy belongs within an academic field, while ACME sees media literacy as more of a social movement; (3) AMLA takes a “more liberal educational approach” and ACME takes a more “radical advocacy position” (p. 13). This dichotomy is often the subject of heated debates and diatribes among members at national conferences, in publications, and in online listservs.
Potter (2004) suggests that any reasonable definition of media literacy needs to be re-conceptualized so as to be more useful and functional within the field of media literacy. He proposes a three-part definition composed of: (1) a broad overview; (2) a description of cognitive processes; and (3) purpose, this last element being the area to which my study most relates. Since Potter’s views are at the heart of my own research perspective, it is necessary to explain his vision for the theoretical future of media literacy. The following explanation of Potter’s definitional elements is provided to aid understanding of the problem under investigation.
First, Potter argues that a general umbrella definition is useful because it can provide an important rallying point for scholars, activists, and others to gather and gain a sense of group identity. His idea for this broad overview rests on the assumption that the more knowledge structures (e.g., media content, effects, industry, real-world and self) we develop and apply during mindful media exposures, the more likely individuals will be to use media exposures to meet their own goals and to avoid risks for negative effects.
Second, Potter posits that there are degrees of media literacy existing on a continuum, suggesting that knowledge and skills can continually grow and develop, based on the presence of two cognitive processes. These two processes, both actively involved in the construct of media literacy, are: the building of strong knowledge structures during an individual’s media literacy development and the application of media literacy knowledge structures and skills during exposures to media messages. In contrast, Potter indicates that people with low or no media literacy tend to process messages passively. This passive process is a state that allows the media to be more in control of interpretations, and subsequently, the effects of those interpretations.
Potter suggests that possessing higher levels of media literacy involves processing messages actively, rather than passively. Doing so requires, first, the acquisition of a good set of knowledge structures. To develop such structures, according to Potter, it is important to actively and consistently acquire and process information from both the media and the real world, and also to acquire a set of skills that will need to be continually practiced and improved. As such, Potter notes that highly media literate people:
(1) are more consciously aware of their goals for exposure
(2) make more conscious decisions about filtering these exposures
(3) more consciously make decisions about the meaning that is constructed through those exposures
The following example, which I adapted from student feedback prior to this study, illustrates these elements of mindful processing, the two cognitive processes that make up the second part of Potter’s definition.
Suppose a highly media-literate U.S. citizen was seeking information that would help her cast a vote for an upcoming election that would best serve the interests that most concern her (e.g. increasing funding for public education). To begin, she would actively start her information search with a clear awareness of her goal (e.g., making an informed decision that would benefit her and the causes she cares about). As she continued, she might attempt to access as many sources for information as possible, using her skills to critically evaluate each one for such things as accuracy, persuasive intent, and the degree to which the information meets her goal. Additionally, as she processes many different types of messages, she might access some of her knowledge structures about media content, media effects, and self. As a result, she might remind herself of certain production values used in news bites or advertisements (e.g. the flag waving in slow motion, editing that takes comments out of context, patriotic music) and resist adopting an attitude based only on an emotional response to such intentional and influential strategies. Thus, this individual has an increased (1) awareness of her goals; (2) ability to make conscious decisions about filtering her exposures; and (3) ability to make decisions about the meaning constructed through those exposures.
Third, Potter argues that purpose (i.e., the “why” behind media literacy) must belong in the synthesized definition. He explains that because building a media literacy perspective and applying it during media exposures requires a great deal of effort, the payoffs for doing so must be large. Generally, Potter claims, “the purpose of developing media literacy is to give the person greater control of exposures and the construction of meaning from the information encountered in these exposures” (p. 63). My study clarifies and develops the purpose aspect as it is stated here by investigating the reasons students give for wanting to increase their media literacy and apply it in their everyday lives. For example, the woman in the above example might indicate that she experienced a rewarding sense of satisfaction and self-assurance that she voted in a way that ultimately would serve her and her interests.
Approaches
Potentially, hundreds of varying goals exist within media literacy approaches ranging from promoting faith and social justice to reshaping communication policy to the facilitation of personal growth, with dozens of goals in between (summarized by Hobbs, 1998). Several scholars have categorized differing approaches to media literacy (Buckingham, 1998; Hobbs, 1998; Potter, 2004). In this section I will provide a brief overview of key concepts and principles, and broadly define three “camps” housing those who perceive media literacy in oppositional ways, positioning myself among them.
Key concepts and principles. Most media literacy conceptualizations involve recognition of and agreement on principles and key concepts. Recently, in an overview of the past 20 years of media literacy discourse, Buckingham (2003) pointed out four foundational concepts that underlie the framework used by most practitioners and scholars. Hobbs (2005) describes them as:
(a) production—recognizing media texts are consciously manufactured, often for commercial profit and often by media companies that operate on a global scale; (b) language—appreciating the codes, genres, choices, combinations that are used to construct texts; (c) representation—understanding media texts not as windows on the world, but as messages that selectively portray ideas, values, and ideologies; and (d) audiences—examining how messages are aimed at specific audiences and noting how audiences select and use media and make interpretations of what they read, listen to, and view.
Similarly, Christ and Potter (1998) explain that most media educators agree on the following media literacy training principles:
Media are constructed and construct reality; media have commercial implications; media have ideological and political implications; form and content are related in each medium, each of which has a unique aesthetic, codes and conventions; and receivers negotiate meaning in media. (from Aufderheide, 1997, cited in Christ & Potter, 1998, p. 8)
Schools of thought tend to depart from each other, however, when considering the aims of media literacy toward its recipients. Groups tend to differ in their tendencies to steer toward or away from media effects scholarship. These considerations and tendencies are related to beliefs about whether media audiences are active participants in the interpretation of media messages or more passive victims of powerful media influence.
Media literacy as an extension of traditional literacy. This relatively innocuous approach emphasizes the “literacy” in media literacy and holds a neutral perspective about the amount of harm the media effect in their audiences. It is similar to traditional reading and writing courses in that it encourages students to be able to “read” (i.e., analyze and interpret) and “write” (i.e., produce). The difference is in its expanded focus on newer forms of electronic and digital media instead of traditional print messages. The approach promotes an understanding and analysis of production codes and conventions and encourages students to produce their own media pieces. With this approach, the discussion of media effects is virtually absent. The next two approaches emphasize media effects, but each to different degrees and both in starkly contrasting ways.
Protectionism. This perspective emphasizes the “media” in media literacy, ignores the concept of “active audience,” and usually uniformly condemns popular culture while promoting the appreciation of high or classical culture. Leveranz and Tyner (1993) review this historical position often taken by media educators in the U.S. throughout the twentieth century. They suggest the protectionist stance toward media is derived, not from sound scientific research, but from reactionary assumptions such as:
(1) popular culture is inferior to fine arts as a subject for study; (2) popular culture directly causes anti-social behavior; (3) audience members have little control over the power of media; (4) Americans would prefer classical books and music to popular culture, once they were educated to enjoy them by those with discriminating taste; and most of all, (5) even though “the business of America is business,” commercialism in any form is bad. (p. 21)
The problem with this approach, which relies on the hidden (and sometimes not-so-hidden) agenda of the teacher or program leader, is that it ignores the students’ media preferences, underestimates the possibilities for popular media to function positively in students’ lives, and discounts the idea that students might already interpret media content in a relatively distant or critical way (Buckingham, 1990). Additionally, the approach is criticized for being reactive and defensive (Buckingham, 2003). Many protectionists encourage students to consume less media, especially television. Potter (2001) states that while the media may be responsible for many negative effects, they are also responsible for many positive effects. He opposes the idea the certain media messages are considered to be inherently “bad,” and claims it is a sign of media illiteracy to condemn a tool that can be used for many good purposes.
A broadcasting industry trade publication provides an excellent example of the way in which the apparently harmful nature of violent content can actually be useful and “good.” In an editorial defending its anti-censorship position, the author points out ways in which violent messages, often deemed as “bad” by health officials, parents, religious groups, or government, can be interpreted in an entirely different way: “The very children we seek to protect have often grown up meeting and defeating their deepest fears through vicarious violence—in fairy tales, read to them by their parents” (Broadcasting & Cable, 2004, p. 28). This view refutes the proposition that children need to be protected from media content and holds that it is the individual who determines the degree of usefulness of media content.
Critical media literacy. In stark contrast to protectionism, this camp is influenced by the critical cultural studies paradigm and holds the views I bring to this study. This view encourages critical awareness about the constructed nature of representations in the media; explores social, political, economical, and cultural contexts in which media messages are created (i.e., by whom for what purpose); and encourages learning about the ways in which individuals uniquely construct meaning from a message (Samali & Pailliotet, 1999). While protectionists aim to protect students, this approach aims to prepare them (Buckingham, 2003). It aims to help students develop knowledge and skills that will establish critical autonomy and a sense of empowerment over the meaning-making process that occurs during media exposures. Buckingham (2003) describes this approach as more evolved and “mature” than protectionism, and as one that “does not seek to replace ‘subjective’ responses with ‘objective’ ones, or to neutralize the pleasures of the media through rational analysis” (p. 14). In other words, while protectionism endeavors to enter into the students’ meaning-making processes, hoping to replace the “wrong” or “bad” beliefs with the “correct” or “good” ones, the critical approach gives students the tools to examine their own meaning-making processes and make changes only if they see fit. Critical media literacy enables students to make more informed decisions on their behalf while still respecting the pleasure that students enjoy from their media experiences.
One example of a critical media literacy approach is explained by Lewis and Jhally (1998) who contend that examining message context allows students to participate in a deep exploration of media texts. These authors argue that media literacy efforts should go beyond deconstruction and textual analysis to a deeper analysis of the political, economic, and social context surrounding the media and society. They assert that students of media literacy should be asking questions not only about how a message is constructed but why it is constructed. Additionally, students should be analyzing the media environment as a whole, and should consider not only what is left out of a portrayal, but why it is left out and in whose interest it is to portray the message one way and not the other. Analyzing the whole media environment involves considering the ownership structure and commercial nature of U.S. media and its relationship to public interest and democracy. Lewis and Jhally (1998) suggest that media literacy can help students develop skills that foster good citizenship.
For example, in my class, I show a Nike commercial in which it is easy to see how the creators expertly apply the Madison Avenue strategy of “emotional transfer.” They use lighting, camera angles, music, sound effects, and rhetoric to build an inspiring and motivating story of American athletic success. Words such as “I can” appear across the screen suggesting that if you try hard enough (and wear Nike clothing) you can be anything or do anything you want. When analyzing this commercial, my students are asked to think about all the stories that are left out of the picture and why. Most often, students bring up Nike’s use of unfair labor practices and sweat shops. This approach doe