While browsing the Web the other night, I stumbled upon a media literacy test on PBS’s website. As a 21 year old in 2008 I consider myself relatively media literate, so I took the test confidently. I’m almost done with my mass communications class, so I basically know what there is to know about being media literate.
A score of 6 out of 15 was a rude awakening. I pride myself in not believing everything I see on television and having an accurate knowledge of the media in general. After licking my wounds from my hurt ego, I began to think that maybe I’m not as up to speed as I should be. I obviously have more to learn about the world than I thought, and when I do get some spare time, maybe I should brush up on my media literate skills. I didn’t see the rush to start learning more about the media immediately, though.
I browsed through the correct answers to the majority of the questions that I missed and I was disturbed to learn that 68% of American children between the ages of 8 and 18 have television sets in their rooms. Also according to PBS, it is estimated that children view 40,000 television advertisements on average annually. These two statistics were just eye openers to the rest of the information.
While I am nowhere near the point of bringing children into the world, I do want my children to be independent thinkers that do not rely solely on the media for information. I want my kids to answer all 15 of the questions on this test correctly. As a firm believer in the theory that good parenting skills trump all, I began thinking that future parents are the most in need of being media literate. Children can only be media literate if their parents are, and if their parents relay their knowledge.
It is easy to find help becoming more media literate online. Many people, like Dr. Peter DeBenedittis actually have websites offering information about media literacy. The University of Michigan offers information about why media literacy is so important for children. According to the website, it is important not that children spend less time with media necessarily, but rather that they know how to learn how to read and understand media. The website offers ways for parents to explain issues and media to their children.
Even scientific research has started to explore the importance of media literacy for children. The University of Florida's Family, Youth and Community Services has gathered information and states that children between the ages of 8 and 13 use the most media, in particularly television. The same study mentions a list of tips for parents to use concerning their children’s media intake and message interpreting.
While it may seem that children in the preteen and teenaged years are the most in need of media literacy, it is unfair to condemn them to being responsible for interpreting media. Rather, parents and more importantly, future parents are the most in need of media literacy. If people my age begin to become more media literate now, when we have children of our own, hopefully we can train them to be media literate, as well. With more educated and aware parents, it can only be deduced that children will stand a better chance of being media literate, too. Future parents cannot assume we know everything about media, especially if we plan on raising children that are as smart, and hopefully smarter than we are.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Too Cynical for Reactions
Ultimately, one must let oneself be influenced by the media, and using the media as reason for one’s actions simply is absurd. The media can, however can have an impact on a person’s decisions and even contribute along with many other aspects to how a person reacts to situations.
After conducting an exercise out of James Potter’s Media Literacy, I have decided that I am a bit too cynical of media to let it have a tremendous effect on me. I considered how his 13 factors could be present in a violent movie and if they would increase the probability that I might react violently.
The basic point of the exercise was to look at 13 factors that could increase or decrease the potential of reacting to a form of media. I first thought of a violent movie and then an emotional/sad movie.
After plugging in the factors for each movie, I realized that I tend to have little reaction based on a movie. Sure, if I am the same age as a character or I’ve been in a similar situation, I relate better to a movie, but in general my reactions are very passive. Had I watched Saw with the motivation of looking for new ways to kill people, I may have been more likely to exhibit violent effects. Movies, though, are just movies. They are meant to entertain and little more than that.
Personally, I am too passive and rather scared of violent movies for me to be very affected by violent movies. I tend to not watch them in general simply because I don’t usually find them entertaining. I do react to sad or emotional movies like A Walk to Remember.
I do have a threshold for sad forms of media. It does not take much for me to cry, but my reactions seldom go further than the act of crying; I do not go out and mimic what I have seen in movies. A perfect example of my reactions to movies is Sweeney Todd. While this movie was very violent, the only parts I reacted to were the sad ones at the end of the movie. I left the theatre with slightly wet eyes, but nothing more. I did not see any reason to react to the movie; it was only a movie.
I do not have many direct or indirect effects of watching media. The reason for this is that I am simply too skeptical to messages I see in the media. My lifestyle and developmental abilities in general leave me trying to see all points of view that are brought up in any form of media. Even the most one sided media demonstrations can offer an opportunity to learn about anything. People who are affected entirely by the media are simply unable to make decisions on their own.
After conducting an exercise out of James Potter’s Media Literacy, I have decided that I am a bit too cynical of media to let it have a tremendous effect on me. I considered how his 13 factors could be present in a violent movie and if they would increase the probability that I might react violently.
The basic point of the exercise was to look at 13 factors that could increase or decrease the potential of reacting to a form of media. I first thought of a violent movie and then an emotional/sad movie.
After plugging in the factors for each movie, I realized that I tend to have little reaction based on a movie. Sure, if I am the same age as a character or I’ve been in a similar situation, I relate better to a movie, but in general my reactions are very passive. Had I watched Saw with the motivation of looking for new ways to kill people, I may have been more likely to exhibit violent effects. Movies, though, are just movies. They are meant to entertain and little more than that.
Personally, I am too passive and rather scared of violent movies for me to be very affected by violent movies. I tend to not watch them in general simply because I don’t usually find them entertaining. I do react to sad or emotional movies like A Walk to Remember.
I do have a threshold for sad forms of media. It does not take much for me to cry, but my reactions seldom go further than the act of crying; I do not go out and mimic what I have seen in movies. A perfect example of my reactions to movies is Sweeney Todd. While this movie was very violent, the only parts I reacted to were the sad ones at the end of the movie. I left the theatre with slightly wet eyes, but nothing more. I did not see any reason to react to the movie; it was only a movie.
I do not have many direct or indirect effects of watching media. The reason for this is that I am simply too skeptical to messages I see in the media. My lifestyle and developmental abilities in general leave me trying to see all points of view that are brought up in any form of media. Even the most one sided media demonstrations can offer an opportunity to learn about anything. People who are affected entirely by the media are simply unable to make decisions on their own.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Two and a Half Equals Eight
According to the Neilson Ratings found on Zap2it.com Two and a Half Men on CBS ranked number eight out of 20 for the week of March 24 to March 30. According to the ratings, 9,723,000 households, or 14,235,000 viewers watched the show. The show is about two brothers living together. One brother is a bachelor at its truest sense of the word, while the other is a divorcee trying to raise his son without exposing him too much to his brother’s free life style. Being a show with a more “adult” sense of humor, 9:00 PM on Monday is the best timeslot for the television sitcom.
The only other show in the same timeslot as Two and Half Men that ranked on the Neilson Ratings was Deal or No Deal which ranked 20th, with a rating vs. share score of 6.2/9.0, 6,972,000 households, and 10,140,000 viewers tuning in. Two and a Half Men has a rating vs. share score of 8.6/13.0. Although Deal or No Deal has a better ratio, it is filling a smaller share than Two and a Half Men. Obviously more people are watching Two and a Half Men which gives the show an advantage on the ratings scale. With the show ranking at a slightly above average eighth place, it is an interesting idea to ponder what a timeslot change would do to its ratings.
A timeslot change for the show would not be a complete disaster, as long as it were still showed later at night. With the joke and content of the show being for a more mature audience, it would suffer if it had to compete with more family oriented shows such as American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which all air at 8:00 PM on Tuesday, Monday, and Sunday, respectively.
If a timeslot change allowed for the same time, but different day, Two and a Half Men would be looking at competition from Dancing with the Stars which airs at 9:00 PM on Tuesdays on ABC, American Idol on FOX at 9:00 PM on Wednesdays, and The Apprentice 7 on NBC at 9:00 on Thursdays.
The ratings of Two and a Half Men would probably change drastically if it were to be aired at an earlier time when families are more likely to be watching television programs together. A later time slot might increase ratings, allowing parents an extra half an hour to put their children to bed before watching their show.
For now, Two and a Half Men holds strong in the ratings. With its time and day being perfect for its content, the show is bound to remain successful.
The only other show in the same timeslot as Two and Half Men that ranked on the Neilson Ratings was Deal or No Deal which ranked 20th, with a rating vs. share score of 6.2/9.0, 6,972,000 households, and 10,140,000 viewers tuning in. Two and a Half Men has a rating vs. share score of 8.6/13.0. Although Deal or No Deal has a better ratio, it is filling a smaller share than Two and a Half Men. Obviously more people are watching Two and a Half Men which gives the show an advantage on the ratings scale. With the show ranking at a slightly above average eighth place, it is an interesting idea to ponder what a timeslot change would do to its ratings.
A timeslot change for the show would not be a complete disaster, as long as it were still showed later at night. With the joke and content of the show being for a more mature audience, it would suffer if it had to compete with more family oriented shows such as American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which all air at 8:00 PM on Tuesday, Monday, and Sunday, respectively.
If a timeslot change allowed for the same time, but different day, Two and a Half Men would be looking at competition from Dancing with the Stars which airs at 9:00 PM on Tuesdays on ABC, American Idol on FOX at 9:00 PM on Wednesdays, and The Apprentice 7 on NBC at 9:00 on Thursdays.
The ratings of Two and a Half Men would probably change drastically if it were to be aired at an earlier time when families are more likely to be watching television programs together. A later time slot might increase ratings, allowing parents an extra half an hour to put their children to bed before watching their show.
For now, Two and a Half Men holds strong in the ratings. With its time and day being perfect for its content, the show is bound to remain successful.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Let it be, Neil.
It was with a recommendation of a colleague that I read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death. Postman wrote this book in 1985, but the book is not completely outdated. This book proved to be an interesting read that mentioned few points with which I agreed and an underlying cynical tone that I found to be annoying.
When Postman discussed the idea of censorship and the fact that books faced censorship by the governments around the world throughout history, he also discussed the tyranny that corporations have over the television airwaves. With a quick visit to the Columbia Journalism Review and a click on "Who Owns What", anyone would be surprised to see the massive number of different radio and television stations that are owned by the same few large corporations. Postman has a point that even though the government does not regulate the material on the airwaves, corporate companies definitely have the power to do so.
When Postman makes other accusations such as television is useful only for presenting “junk” entertainment and that Sesame Street is detrimental to education, he sounds like a parent complaining that McDonald’s made his kids fat. Sure, sitting a child in front of a television and expecting him to learn solely from the Cookie Monster is not going to benefit him. Television watching, like anything else, has to be done in moderation. In addition, his idea that because television shows are entertaining, there is a pressure on teachers to be entertaining, as well, is slightly far-fetched. I think that any teacher or student will agree that lessons with attention grabbing aspects are simply more fun for all parties involved. Why does television have to be an antagonist? At least children have shows like Sesame Street to watch so that they aren’t exposed to the spring break of shows on MTV.
It has to be understood that television, though it is a useful tool for disseminating information to the masses, was never viewed as solely an informational tool. Sure, when television first started replacing radios, it was informational and more than likely boring. People were probably so intrigued that they were watching rather than only listening to their news that even the informational aspect was lost in the mere entertainment that television still provides to its viewers. When Americans come home from work, they want to be amused.
Let it be, Neil.
When Postman discussed the idea of censorship and the fact that books faced censorship by the governments around the world throughout history, he also discussed the tyranny that corporations have over the television airwaves. With a quick visit to the Columbia Journalism Review and a click on "Who Owns What", anyone would be surprised to see the massive number of different radio and television stations that are owned by the same few large corporations. Postman has a point that even though the government does not regulate the material on the airwaves, corporate companies definitely have the power to do so.
When Postman makes other accusations such as television is useful only for presenting “junk” entertainment and that Sesame Street is detrimental to education, he sounds like a parent complaining that McDonald’s made his kids fat. Sure, sitting a child in front of a television and expecting him to learn solely from the Cookie Monster is not going to benefit him. Television watching, like anything else, has to be done in moderation. In addition, his idea that because television shows are entertaining, there is a pressure on teachers to be entertaining, as well, is slightly far-fetched. I think that any teacher or student will agree that lessons with attention grabbing aspects are simply more fun for all parties involved. Why does television have to be an antagonist? At least children have shows like Sesame Street to watch so that they aren’t exposed to the spring break of shows on MTV.
It has to be understood that television, though it is a useful tool for disseminating information to the masses, was never viewed as solely an informational tool. Sure, when television first started replacing radios, it was informational and more than likely boring. People were probably so intrigued that they were watching rather than only listening to their news that even the informational aspect was lost in the mere entertainment that television still provides to its viewers. When Americans come home from work, they want to be amused.
Let it be, Neil.
Friday, February 29, 2008
I, Reporter; You, Reporter; We Reporters
We live in a world that constantly offers us choices. iPods come in a variety of colors, phones, cameras, and now even computers can be bought in any color in the rainbow. People can choose their internet provider, their phone service, and who they buy cable from. Why then, are they subject to watching and reading news that others pick for them? It is a wonder why people are still watching news shows and buying newspapers written by journalists who very well are not concerned with the same news events and happenings.
The Gotham Gazette is a website designed by and for the people in the greater New York City area. The site allows viewers to choose areas of interest, ranging from arts to current political events. Locals can look up information about which stores have the most recently published books, or they can get the latest news and others’ commentaries about the changes in report cards at the local school district.
It is important for people to decide what is news-worthy and what issues are important to learn about. Sites like The Gotham Gazette allow everyone in its readership to gather information about exactly what interests them. Sure, there are news programs on televisions that the citizens of New York City all have access to, but not all of the citizens are interested in the same parts of the broadcast.
In addition to offering choices about which news to learn about, the website allows readers to write and post their comments about all of the topics featured on the website. Professional journalists cannot cover all of the areas of every town; the real professionals of an area are the people who live there; why not make them the journalists, too?
With an increase in websites like The Gotham Gazette, the future of news looks very personable. People in small towns can now rely on fellow citizens to learn about the happenings of the city and people who live in large metropolitan areas can focus in on the news that matters to them. No longer do people have to be bombarded with news that does not concern or even interest them. Why not learn about what you need to know exactly rather than skimming through paragraphs of news that has nothing to do with you?
The Gotham Gazette is a website designed by and for the people in the greater New York City area. The site allows viewers to choose areas of interest, ranging from arts to current political events. Locals can look up information about which stores have the most recently published books, or they can get the latest news and others’ commentaries about the changes in report cards at the local school district.
It is important for people to decide what is news-worthy and what issues are important to learn about. Sites like The Gotham Gazette allow everyone in its readership to gather information about exactly what interests them. Sure, there are news programs on televisions that the citizens of New York City all have access to, but not all of the citizens are interested in the same parts of the broadcast.
In addition to offering choices about which news to learn about, the website allows readers to write and post their comments about all of the topics featured on the website. Professional journalists cannot cover all of the areas of every town; the real professionals of an area are the people who live there; why not make them the journalists, too?
With an increase in websites like The Gotham Gazette, the future of news looks very personable. People in small towns can now rely on fellow citizens to learn about the happenings of the city and people who live in large metropolitan areas can focus in on the news that matters to them. No longer do people have to be bombarded with news that does not concern or even interest them. Why not learn about what you need to know exactly rather than skimming through paragraphs of news that has nothing to do with you?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Survivor
As the American public, we seem to believe everything that we see. Here, this fan obviously thinks that she knows how to win a "reality" TV show because of what she has seen during half an hour segments of edited film.
In class, we learned that in actuality, the contestants on Survivor don't actually spend all their time doing what we see on TV. They are usually sleeping because of lack of food and water, and what is on TV has been edited for ratings.
The book discusses automaticity, which is the idea that the brain filters media messages. There are triggers that allow information to come through and there are also traps that make people "more susceptible... to negative effects of the media". One of the traps is a false sense of feeling informed. This quote is a definite example of a person feeling wrongfully informed about something on the media.
After reading this quote, my immediate reaction is, "Oh, this poor woman believes everything she sees on TV." When it comes to Survivor, the person with the advantage is the person who can survive the longest in the elements. An audience that only sees the edited finished version of a show has no advantage over people who have lived the experience of being on the camera.
In class, we learned that in actuality, the contestants on Survivor don't actually spend all their time doing what we see on TV. They are usually sleeping because of lack of food and water, and what is on TV has been edited for ratings.
The book discusses automaticity, which is the idea that the brain filters media messages. There are triggers that allow information to come through and there are also traps that make people "more susceptible... to negative effects of the media". One of the traps is a false sense of feeling informed. This quote is a definite example of a person feeling wrongfully informed about something on the media.
After reading this quote, my immediate reaction is, "Oh, this poor woman believes everything she sees on TV." When it comes to Survivor, the person with the advantage is the person who can survive the longest in the elements. An audience that only sees the edited finished version of a show has no advantage over people who have lived the experience of being on the camera.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Max Headroom
It was an accident that I stumbled upon the old episodes of Max Headroom when cleaning out the closet at work. I couldn’t resist the temptation to watch what looked to be like such an ancient sitcom. After I searched high and low for a VHS player, I popped in the cassette and anxiously awaited what I hoped to be an entertaining blast from the past.
Boy, was I disappointed. The first Max Headroom episode I viewed was a weak cry for entertainment. I found myself confused and not sure as to what exactly was taking place on the screen in front of me.
Although the plot was jumbled and hard to follow, the idea that the media industry was so power-hungry and profit driven that it would literally kill for ratings was mildly amusing. If a sitcom from over a decade ago predicted such a blood thirsty, rating driven industry, it is questionable as to what the media industry has in reality become.
Perhaps we would kill for ratings? Would there be a good TV station and a bad station fighting over ratings and the good of the world? Maybe we do live in a society completely driven by results. One thing is for certain, Max Headroom became victim to the same group of people that it depicted as villains. Our rating driven media industry would not let a sitcom like Max Headroom last more than one appearance.
Boy, was I disappointed. The first Max Headroom episode I viewed was a weak cry for entertainment. I found myself confused and not sure as to what exactly was taking place on the screen in front of me.
Although the plot was jumbled and hard to follow, the idea that the media industry was so power-hungry and profit driven that it would literally kill for ratings was mildly amusing. If a sitcom from over a decade ago predicted such a blood thirsty, rating driven industry, it is questionable as to what the media industry has in reality become.
Perhaps we would kill for ratings? Would there be a good TV station and a bad station fighting over ratings and the good of the world? Maybe we do live in a society completely driven by results. One thing is for certain, Max Headroom became victim to the same group of people that it depicted as villains. Our rating driven media industry would not let a sitcom like Max Headroom last more than one appearance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)