Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Media Literacy’ Category

The comment on my previous post about the overlap between the digital media revolution and the transformation of higher education was quite perceptive.

The writer points out that how people consume and share information is vastly different now than even a decade ago, and that the changes have just begun. He goes on to observe that how universities adapt to how we share and receive information will be key to their survival.

For several years I taught an honors college colloquium titled “How Media Revolutions Change Everything.” We explored how family life, individual behavior, politics, government, foreign policy, religion, and education always experience fundamental changes as a consequence of media revolutions. The classroom is a great case in point.

For example, in the past I gave lectures, answered student questions, and discussed the issues. In this new media world I have students search basic information and answers to questions before class, and then “Skype in” experts from around the world to dialogue with us. I quickly discovered that long lectures were no longer needed.

And what’s more the students and I were able to experience personally and in real-time how the Internet, laptops and other devices connect the world and accelerate the globalization of everything. We were also able to see the importance of “media literacy” in understanding global change and its significance in influencing the future of higher education.

Read Full Post »

There is little doubt in this age of digital technology that television can be a powerful tool to cover senseless and violent crises and explore their causes. The horrible killing of nine innocent people  in the church in Charleston once again has me thinking about both the power and responsibility of television news.

Any new media technology will always be used, especially when it proves to be powerful. Over time serious users will perfect ways to make it more and more effective. In the case of television it’s strength is in its capacity to use carefully selected images and editing to dramatize. Extended television news coverage of major crises is therefore inevitable.

All of this raises questions about the potential for both positive and negative influences. These three have been swirling around in my mind:

1. What level and tone of television coverage informs the public most appropriately?

2. How much coverage of details about a perpetrator’s planning and background is appropriate? When might these details and images actually produce a celebrity status in the eyes of like-minded individuals and possibly encourage future assaults? And at what point might this coverage actually help achieve the perpetrator’s public relations objectives, and even those of sympathetic extremist groups?

3. And when might lengthy in-depth coverage move beyond mere observing and reporting into unintended participation in the event itself?

In order to address these and other questions, should television and other news media be  evaluating their own  impact on society and human behavior more visibly and more often… maybe even at times other than when a crisis has occurred?

And since media consumers are pretty much on their own to edit and evaluate their many  information sources in this 24/7 digital media world, is it also a good time to consider more media literacy courses and forums in schools, colleges, and community organizations?

 

Read Full Post »

Information transparency sounds like a wonderful idea. After all, what could be wrong with making everything public?

There are at least two problems: (1) This new media era of “Big Data” can overwhelm and confuse, and (2), people tend to hear only what they want. Too many are just waiting to prepare aggressive counter attacks, and with all available data in hand they can support almost any argument.

Philosophically I actually support the idea of transparency. However, especially when it comes to sensitive issues and crises, making all the data public too often becomes counter-productive. Flooding a new media environment with “big” data can create “media circuses,” where media outlets compete with each other for new facts that can gain them the upper hand and keep the story hot. Even a good “side story” can fulfill this competitive need.

Experiences teaches that in the case of institutions, and even some individuals, it is better to limit communication to those facts that explain exactly what actually happened. Assuming your brand identity is already well established, your strategy should be to release exactly what happened, what you are doing about it, and how this reinforces your basic values.

Transparency is a great idea. But in our digital technology age releasing everything can actually  generate confusing clutter, add to misunderstanding, and give adversaries all they need to support almost any opposing ideology.

Read Full Post »

Anticipating the upcoming primaries, it is only natural that I would be wondering if this election season will be any better than the last. I would hope that many past candidates are now ashamed of much of what they said and the mean-spirited tone of their attacks. Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?

Not too long ago my I-phone dictionary app greeted me with the word of the day “malarkey!  It is defined  as “speech or writing designed to obscure, mislead; ‘bunkum’…  as in “the claims are a lot of malarkey.”

As we prepare for a new primary season, let’s hope that there will be a minimal amount of malarkey. Processing it is a huge challenge for every media consumer. It feeds polarization and fuels extremism. When repeated over and over it is eventually accepted as true by too many partisans. And as it builds momentum it erases any chance of compromise, and can lead to hostility… and even anarchy.

What makes it worse is that technology today spreads malarkey so rapidly that many thoughtful people become overwhelmed and disgusted election dropouts. The world becomes so cluttered with conflicting  information that it is often impossible for even intelligent people to distinguish fact from fiction. Therefore, too many of them are dropping out simply because they think there are no decent choices.

Every day, understanding the consequences of media revolutions is becoming more and more essential to the survival of a civil society.

Read Full Post »

I began studying media in the 1960s when television was overtaking print as the dominant medium in society. It was soon apparent that TV was drawn to the dramatic and that camera framing, angles and movement; editing; close-ups; special effects; selective image montage; and other tactics could enhance the drama. Small demonstrations could look big and threatening. Isolated disasters could look huge and overwhelming. We learned that images of real life could actually be misleading. Indeed, TV had the power to become its own reality.

When digital and satellite technology added instant communication from all corners of the globe, video images of earthquakes, floods, avalanches, ice storms, blizzards, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, dramatic rescues, devastated cities, terrorist bombings, beheadings, street shootings, destructive fires, mud slides, droughts, train derailment, police brutality, endless political polarization, shopping center attacks, school shootings, threats of sleeper terrorists, and more, became a steady stream of horribly dramatic images of destruction and trauma all day long… every day!

Even weather reporting has entered this new instant digital technology era. New radar technology enables local weather reporters to use graphics and dramatic talk about potential severe weather to have people worried and glued to updates all day long.

I have lived in Texas almost 50 years. Every spring has been a time of unstable weather. Many days there would be storms in the area and we would watch for them to develop. But we went about our days fairly normally, sometimes driving through dramatic down-pours that would pop up.. Once in a while a tornado warning was issued for our neighborhood and we would have a tense night hoping we would be spared. Three times we had roofs replaced because of hail, and sometimes a tornado would pass nearby. A few pictures the next day would prove it. And then life went on normally.

Today, dramatic approaches to reporting keep many people nervously glued to reports all day.  A 20% chance is comforting, but a 40 to 50% chance can produce day-long anxiety. And there is almost always some level of chance of severe storms to warn about. And to make matters even more emotional, new technology enables instant images of the destruction that has just occurred, as well as ongoing video of the most dramatic examples of damage, flash flooding, overflowing streams and lakes, and emotional stories about the people who have lost everything. And those stories can go on for days while even more predictions of severe weather threats continue.

If you add all these daily images of a world in crisis to a constant threat of destruction of one kind or another in your neighborhood, what is the overall impact on the human psyche? Do you feel more fortunate to be alive? Is all this crisis information important to you? Do you feel better prepared now for personal crises? Or, are you joining those who are experiencing a growing overall lingering sense of anxiety.

 

Read Full Post »

Many people in the US think of their country as exceptional. Individual freedom and justice is promised to all. But there were too many reports this week about rather dramatic exceptions to those values. Authenticity earns credibility, and without it people will not believe what you say. Here are some of those reports:

*Live coverage of riots in the streets about police brutality in Baltimore, with demonstrations and similar problems in other cities.

*Scenes of “mean-spirited” political polarization in congress and on the campaign trail.

*A TV documentary about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam showing mass killing by US soldiers.

*Video recollections on PBS of North Vietnam rolling into Saigon, the US pulling out, and the South Vietnamese losing their country.

*Reporter recollections of Richard Nixon promising a truce in Vietnam, but then following  with an invasion of Cambodia and riots in the US streets.

*Documentary coverage of students at Kent State University being gunned down as they demonstrated their war opposition.

*Reported perceptions that the US makes promises it does not keep and draws “red lines” that it does not enforce.

ISIS beheadings imagined next to those of the US Vietnam My Lai massacre create a rather serious credibility problem for the US. Images of Middle East dictators cracking down on citizens pictured next to those of US police brutality certainly do not reinforce values of freedom and justice.

In a new media 24/7 cable news environment both live and imagined images will either reinforce or contradict promises of “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Authenticity is what earns credibility. And credibility is essential for people to believe what you say about your values.

 

Read Full Post »

My honors college class this spring has been exploring the topic “how media revolutions change everything.”  And next week we will consider the compelling and ever-changing topic of religion. In preparation for the class I made a list of just some of the issues:

1. Since television, and now digital media, how do people want to experience religion?

2. What has been the impact of new media on mainstream church attendance? How have worship services and Sunday school changed in those churches?

3. What accounts for the growth of on-line and broadcast religion? Of mega-churches?

4. Given the traditional concept of “separation of church and state” what accounts for the growth and aggressiveness of the religious right in politics?

5. What impact has 24/7 media reports about social issues such as racism, homelessness, and poverty had on religious people and church goers? How are they responding?

6. How have academic departments of religion and seminaries responded to media inspired changes in society?

7. How have religious institutions changed their approach to recruiting new members and building ongoing relationships with them.

8. How can a diverse democracy successfully deal with societies in the middle east and elsewhere  where religion and politics are one in the same thing?

Knowing the right questions and analyzing the underlying issues can provide much needed context for understanding situations and options. But just as with 24/7 “breaking” news and polarized political pronouncements, once again consumers of today’s media are on their own to separate facts from “malarkey.” And as confusing as it may be… we all are on our own to decide our responses and courses of action.

 

Read Full Post »

The presidential primary election season is underway and I have been reflecting again on just how much the game has changed in recent years. What does it take today to win a primary, and then a general election? And what role does new technology play?

When television became a dominant medium more than 50 years ago it literally changed the game in fundamental ways. Suddenly a candidate had to look good on television, be able to afford to buy time, and present the image of a confident leader able to make everything better. The Kennedy-Nixon debate was the classic example of how one candidate could hold his own on the issues, but still lose out to the one who looked more presidential on camera.

Now we are in the age of digital media. Looking presidential on television still counts, but even more critical is the capacity to build a highly motivated “community-of-interest” among like-minded individuals using two-way interactive media platforms. Such communities are not limited by geography and can be sustained over time.  And this same technology has the power to inspire them to attend rallies and vote on election day.

Election districts are also shaped differently in this new media age. Today, districts are clusters of like-minded people with their boundaries drawn by the most powerful party. Representatives are expected to champion their district’s thinking. This generally results in taking extreme positions on issues. And the situation keeps getting worse.

In presidential and gubernatorial primary elections this same kind of extreme thinking will take place. Confusion then develops when the winners must adjust and broaden their appeal in general elections. Candidates are often driven to say things they can’t sustain after elected. Then, their popularity fades and the political pendulum can easily swing from one party to the other.

The intensity of 24/7 news and ongoing community-of-interest building activities can keep these ideology-driven issues hot long after elections. This requires year-round fundraising which continues daily. More and more money is needed, and it only comes with clear voting expectations. This is what has put wealthy individuals and corporations fully in charge.

A new media world would seem to have the power to reduce the cost of campaigning. But the opposite has actually occurred. It takes huge amounts of money to sustain this constantly changing political game, including to pay for the last-minute negative attacks which many consultants believe win elections.

It’s amazing to think that it’s television imagery and community-of-interest building technology that enabled all these changes and contributed to this mess. Time heals, to be sure. But let’s hope it does not run out before another promising society collapses. Lessons of history can be sobering.

Read Full Post »

This week Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House without the concurrence of the President, breaking all established protocol for a state visit. This event had me thinking again about how the balance of power is supposed to work versus how media revolutions in the past have been able to significantly disrupt it. And the more I thought about it the more I could see media influences once again contributing to this disruption.

In the US we have a checks and balances system designed to balance the power between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. But with each media revolution, from print to TV to digital and Internet technology, the balance of power has shifted in favor of those branches and individuals who understand and use the new dominant medium most effectively.

For example, among the 425 members of the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate, only those who know how to use television and digital media effectively are able to attain widespread visibility and influence. The executive branch, by virtue of its administrative importance, has greater media access and so the president has the advantage of his powerful “bully pulpit.” And the judiciary’s “court of last resort” function tended to diminish its media access and influence, although recent hot constitutional issues might be changing all that… producing more balance disruption.

The appearance of Netanyahu before the US Congress is still another development in this changing media dynamic. Was the US speaker of the House’s invitation to speak to Congress without consulting the US President a pure Republican political move?  Was Netanyahu’s interest in coming primarily influenced by his impending bid for re-election back home? Was this just a dramatic  example of an inevitable permanent shift in the balance of power? Or was it a horrible blunder with negative consequences for the Speaker and/or the Prime Minister?

Whatever the motives, television and digital media and the ability to use it clearly made this event possible. And yes it could change the protocols for conducting foreign affairs in the future. Are we better off? Only time will tell. Change is difficult no matter how it comes, and this is still another example of what I mean when I argue that “media revolutions change everything!”

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Cities cannot escape media revolutions, especially when those revolutions bring new technologies that intensify, multiply and expand both messages and relationships.

Neighborhood problems are exposed more dramatically. Poverty is more difficult to ignore. Frustrations of minorities come more to the surface. Management issues are scrutinized more consistently. News coverage changes from daily events reporting to intensive issues investigation. And these same new technologies help extend a city’s story far beyond its borders.

These dramatic changes in how individuals and communities communicate have had both good and bad consequences. The very technology that has the potential to bring people and neighborhoods together has often magnified their problems and exacerbated divisions. And while communities of interest can come together on-line, such virtual communities are often not geographically aligned and end up stimulating conflicts.

What seems to differentiate cities from nations, however, is that mayors and city managers tend to be less political and more pragmatic in dealing with these new problems. Issues related to neighborhoods, poverty, immigrants, water, energy, air quality, climate change, etc., are real and urgent but have little to do with political ideology or religion.

This reality has led some analysts to imagine groups of city managers and mayors from around the world meeting on a regular basis to address our recent and violent international problems. For example, the current crisis of immigrants joining ISIS and other extremists to bring terror to the world has become basically a city problem. Is it therefore not reasonable to think that groups of city leaders meeting from around the world might be able to find pragmatic solutions?

In short, countries have national identities, histories and borders to be concerned about. And world organizations get caught up in those politics. But cities have immediate problems to solve, and invariably address them pragmatically. Therefore, maybe cities really can lead the way to more effective international problem-solving.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »