Larry D. Lauer

The consequence of the digital revolution has been an explosion of information, much of which is not checked for accuracy or objectivity.  24/7 news channels, bloggers, and websites that bring information together with various motivations all require consumers to become their own editors. Is it therefore possible to teach consumers how to be selective editors, and to understand the importance of consuming a wide range of viewpoints? If so, where and how can this education take place? And who should be responsible for making it happen?

For example, is it possible for the news media themselves to assume some responsibility for generating a greater awareness of the situation? Certainly traditional news networks and newspapers could offer ongoing public service messages that point out the need to regulate one’s own information consumption. 

With greater public awareness it should be possible to get other initiatives noticed as well. For example, parent-teacher organizations could offer programs on media literacy. I know from experience that these are eager audiences for programs about the effects of media. Other service and religious organizations are also likely to take notice and find such programs to be of interest to their constituents.

Public awareness should also make it easier for schools to offer various types of study units. Elementary teachers  can offer activities that show children how to select the media they use. Social studies and english teachers can incorporate study units into more comprehensive courses. Complete courses on media literacy can be offered for the more highly motivated students.

Think tanks, foundations and associations could be asked to sponsor many of these school and community projects. And some of them might even want to launch projects of their own. Books, articles, study materials, and videos can be produced to support the cause. Websites can act as portals leading to even more information. Blogs can offer ongoing media criticism. And social media campaigns can generate ongoing conversations. All of this has the potential to produce widespread public awareness, and even behavior change.

Experience suggests that the key to increased media literacy is therefore a multi-faceted effort, i.e. combining media messages with more comprehensive courses and public programs. This simultaneous mixture of initiatives could  reach large numbers of people. And even minimal knowledge can make a significant difference. It does not take long to convey how important it is to have an accurate account of what is actually happening in the world, and how to get it. It’s just a matter of getting started.

Read Full Post »

The amazing influences of social and mobile media are becoming more clear every day.  They establish and maintain social and professional relationships, and those relationships  number in the thousands for many. They  facilitate the instant exchange of brief messages and have the potential to move masses of people to action. Thus, these are extremely effective relationship building and marketing tools.

For example, universities establish contact, foster interactive relationships, and drive responders to a website for more information. These tools also motivate desires to visit campuses and attend events. Likewise, special interest groups are able to stimulate followers to assemble, and oppressed people can connect across closed borders. Examples of success in relationship building and motivating to action are endless.

But MIT professor of “the social science of science,” Sherry Turkle, raises a different kind of concern. Her concern is the longterm psychic and social effects on individuals who live day-to-day in this virtual world.  In her book Alone Together, Turkle  explains  how her research is indicating that young people are using on-line relationships to avoid the difficulties of real human interaction.

Turkle reports that many of her interviewees are choosing texting over actually making a phone call and talking to someone. Instead of writing a letter or having a real conversation, an instant short message posted or tweeted is preferred. In the final analysis, Turkle’s fundamental concern is that those who spend much of their lives in this digital world are losing their capacity for sophisticated problem-solving conversation, and for genuine human intimacy.

It’s only fair to also mention here that many of my students and colleagues disagree with Turkle and feel that the opposite just might be the case. Their argument is that relationships are only begun on-line, or by using social media tools, and that they can be the beginning of a meaningful social, and even intimate, relationship.

These questions therefore are important to ponder: What do these new tools do well, and what do they not do? It continues to look like they build relationships and stimulate action extremely well. But they do not deal with sophisticated problem solving, and they do not achieve a deeper understanding of complex issues. For these outcomes, other media and face-to-face human interaction are required.

Read Full Post »

When I first began my studies of media the television set was just coming into our homes.  As we rearranged our furniture and our family communication patterns changed, it was impossible to miss seeing just how dramatically a new technology changes how we live. 

For many of us in middle and upper class homes in the US, the TV set came into the most used living room or den in our home.  It was placed where all the comfortable furniture could be arranged around it.  And from that moment on, when in that room it would be impossible to ignore that screen. It would also be nearly impossible to carry on a conversation. In fact, when walking into that room everyone in the family quickly developed the habit of immediately turning on the TV set, then sitting and staring at the screen for hours… and rarely talking with anyone.

Some speculated that TV actually contributed to families falling apart.  Prior to television many of these families shared dinner conversation together, gathered in “sitting rooms” to read and discuss the issues of the day, and many times even solved basic survival problems. Those that communicated in this way tended to develop a sense of unity, and when they actually faced survival together they developed extremely strong bonds.  But with advances in transportation more people were working some distance from the home, and with the advent of television there was little or no interaction in the evening.  In fact, there often would be more interaction and problem-solving at work than at home! 

And so TV actually became a new problem for many families. And it had nothing to do with its content. People were watching whatever was there, and were watching it all night long. They were using it more for escape than for educational enlightenment.  They would sometimes ask for better programs, but then they still mostly watched action adventure, mindless comedy, and sports. They were using it for escape.

With experience, it became clear to producers that television was a very different medium with its own unique characteristics. It was most powerful when it contained less information and more drama. And when the drama was set in the context of suspense or conflict, it became even more gripping.  So in order to attract larger audiences even news programs would have to contain less detail and more emotion. Producers would soon find new ways to accentuate drama and conflict with camera framing, camera movement, editing, special effects, and scripting.  Now with almost all of TV content favoring drama and violence the question became: What impact will all this violence have on our children?

Was violence on TV going to make children more violent?  Would constant diets of emotion make them more emotional?  Television was now becoming a kind of baby sitter for many parents, taking pressures off them for hours each day. But with what consequences?  Soon there would also be an ever-growing amount of sex on television. Would this make children more promiscuous?   Some journalists reported that by the time a child becomes 18 he or she will have spent more time with TV than in school!

Looking back one might conclude that the world did not come apart as a consequence of  TV.  But most would agree that the world did change in significant ways. Now, how do we yet again deal with the consequences of  even newer technology, i.e. the Internet, websites, social media, blogs, camera phones, and more?  Can we now get even more lost in a virtual world of bits and games?  Do families do anything meaningful as a group any more? Can hours in a digital world reduce our capacity to think or concentrate?   In the final analysis, will “digital children” be able to deal with the incredibly complex problems we face in the world?

It must be noted here that there are many kinds of family settings in the world, and assumptions made for the purpose of this analysis will not apply universally. Some families are in severely challenged urban neighborhoods,  some in primitive rural villages, some in middle class and affluent suburbs, and others are in cultural and religious settings with different values and priorities. But in each of these settings, technology is having its influence on families.  How are all these children being affected? Where children were already at risk, are they now at greater risk? Or will they be connected to better ways of growing and surviving?

Our challenge continues: We must come to know the good and bad of new technology. It is an inevitable and continuous global game-changer. Then, we must learn yet again how to make the most of the good.

Read Full Post »

“How Media Revolutions Change Everything”  is the title of a TCU Honors College colloquium I will be leading this fall.  These honor students come from all academic disciplines, and enrollment is limited to 18. This will truly be an adventure in ideas for all of us, as we will be pausing to think about the consequences of media more than we will be consuming it. 

Our goal will be to consider how the ways people think and act change, and how various segments of society change,  when a new communication medium becomes dominant. For example, does family interaction and behavior change when a new medium is introduced in the home?  And do political campaigns, schools, churches, and even governments, change as a consequence new media as well? We will consider all of this, and more.

Most agree that significant change in all these areas is observable, and that there are compelling questions about how it impacts each of us. In thinking about our adventure, however, I quickly realized that we must first determine  just “how to go about thinking about” these issues. Otherwise our initial opinions are likely to be mere personal biases based on previous selective perception. So to inoculate this danger we will first discuss, and possibly revise, these  four preliminary assertions:

1. Every issue has a framework or context that should be outlined before forming any opinion. Otherwise, it is not likely to be an educated opinion. For example, should we not clarify the basic background factors that made each topic an issue in the first place, and also identify all the key questions that should be answered?

2. Next, we should not clarify the arguments that form the various opinions that are currently held about each issue?  This analysis is really an individual “imaginary debate” exercise, and should lead us to a clear understanding of how different opinions get formed.  

3. Now should we not differentiate “taking sides” from “possessing the truth?”  And will this not generally lead each of us to a conscious awareness of the dangers of ongoing polarization?

4. Finally, is it not wise to articulate that a final way forward for any issue is rarely known at the outset, and that usually ultimate solutions evolve only after initial compromises and later revisions based on implementation and  experience?  

My students and I are about to embark on an exciting exercise in constructive thinking about media. This should lead to a better awareness of how our lives are changed, sometimes dramatically, by the media we choose to use most. Stay tuned… more weekly posts are sure to follow!

Read Full Post »