Leslie Tran
31 March 2006
Profs. Halpern and Travers
Oral Thesis
Democracy and Media Literacy
Introduction
One of the hallmarks of a representative democracy is civic engagement, that is, citizen involvement with community and participation in political affairs. Whether it is through writing letters to congress or holding rallies in the streets, citizens have many opportunities to make their voices heard. Scholars like Robert Putnam assert that democracy requires a high degree of civic engagement. As citizens are part of the democratic process, government works better when people are involved.
In studying the interplay between people and institutions in America, Alexis de Tocqueville recognizes the importance of political and civic associations. For him it is the people that supply the fuel for democracy. Americans are able to overcome individualism and come together because they adhere to what Tocqueville terms as the “principle of self-interest properly understood.” In calculating the utility of virtue, men “are reduced to inquiring whether it is not to the individual advantage of each to work for the good of all, and when they have found one of these points where private advantage does meet and coincide with the general interest, they eagerly call attention thereto. Thus what was an isolated observation becomes a general doctrine, and in the end one comes to believe that one sees that by serving his fellows man serves himself and the doing good is to his advantage (Tocqueville 523).” When citizens realize that their self-interest coincides with the public interest and take note of their interdependence, they have a strong desire to form associations and work together to achieve their goals.
Unfortunately, some scholars note that the number of Americans in civic associations is dwindling. In Bowling Alone, Putnam makes the claim that civic engagement in America has declined. He notes that “collective forms of engagement, such as attending meetings, serving on committees, or working for a political party, had diminished much more rapidly over the last several decades than individual forms of engagement, such as writing to Congress or signing a petition. Both forms of engagement can have political consequences, but only the former helps to foster and reinforce social connections” (229). As a result of such decline, communities are becoming more fragmented. Less Americans are coming together to form social networks and build social capital.
To explain the decline in civic engagement, Putnam focuses much of his attention on how electronic media and entertainment is taking up most Americans’ leisure time. Instead of spending evenings socializing with community members or organizing campaigns at the local church, more Americans are choosing to stay at home to watch television.
I agree with Putnam’s assessment of modern-day democracy. The advent of technology and innovation is changing our approach to democratic practice and causing a decline in civic engagement. However, it is not the mere presence of electronic media that isolates most Americans from their communities. Technology provides society with many benefits and it does us little service to develop an adversarial relationship with the things that make our lives easier. Rather than solely examine the negative effects of technology use, one must also look at how readers and viewers use and interpret media messages.
Putnam cites numerous studies that suggest that not all viewers are the same. For instance, “selective viewers (that is, those who turn on the television only to see a specific program and turn it off when they’re not watching) are significantly more involved in community life than habitual viewers (those who turn the TV on without regard to what’s on and leave it on in the background), even controlling for education and other demographic factors” (224). Such studies point to a correlation between community involvement and one’s approach to media. What we choose to watch also correlates with our level of involvement in the community. As Putnam notes, “The more time spent watching news, the more active one is in the community, whereas the more time spent watching soap operas, game shows, and talk shows, the less active one is in the community (243).”
In this case, the “ideal” citizen is not only active in the community but also informed. Rather than view uninspiring television, he/she chooses to watch informational and educational programming. However, in the age of electronic media and spin, an informed citizen must have the literacy skills to sort through mixed media messages. In this paper I examine the intersection between politics and the media, and the need for media literacy. As defined by the Alliance for a Media Literate America, the goal of media literacy education is to “empower people to be both critical thinkers and creative producers of an increasingly wide range of messages using image, language, and sound. [Media literacy] is the skillful application of literacy skills to media and technology messages” (www.amlainfo.org). In the second part of this paper I discuss how educators can begin to think about incorporating media literacy into their curriculum.
Politics and the Media
“When no firm and lasting ties any longer unite men, it is impossible to obtain the cooperation of any great number of them unless you can persuade every man whose help is required that he serves his private interest by voluntarily uniting his efforts to those of all the others. That cannot be done habitually and conveniently without the help of a newspaper. Only a newspaper can put the same thought at the same time before a thousand readers…I am far from denying that newspaper in democratic countries lead citizens to do very ill-considered things in common; but without newspapers there would be hardly any common action at all…So hardly any democratic association can carry on without a newspaper” (Tocqueville, 517-518).
Alexis de Tocqueville clearly understands the role of mass communication in a democratic society. The media provides a forum for associations to unite under a common belief or goal. As Putnam writes, “Television [or media] at its civic best can be a gathering place, a powerful force for bridging social differences, nurturing solidarity, and communicating essential civic information” (Putnam, 243).
Unfortunately for the average media consumers, the line between entertainment and information is not so clear. In the realm of politics and public policy, that line is made even blurrier by political actors and the news media. One of the most basic requirements of democracy is a citizenry that can make informed political choices. In Policy Paradox and Political Reason, Deborah Stone lays out the art of political decision-making and what is involved in policy analysis. Stone notes that it is not the supply of information and news reports that is essential to the decision-making process. Rather it is the ability to interpret such information. She writes that “in the polis…information is interpretive, incomplete, and strategically withheld…When the newspaper reports that a share of General Motors stock sold yesterday for $80…we are confident that the information is accurate and that it makes sense to think of that kind of information as being correct or incorrect. But in politics, the important thing is what people make of such reports…Interpretations are more powerful than facts” (21).
Political candidates and policymakers are familiar with the old adage that says, “How we define problems is how we find solutions.” Stone points out that “because politics is driven by how people interpret information, much political activity is an effort to control interpretations. Political candidates and their campaign advisors are notorious for their creative presentation of information, otherwise known as ‘manufacturing an image’” (21). In controlling interpretations, political candidates manipulate numbers and omit facts to frame social problems in terms of their own agendas. The objective is to lead the public to believe that one politician’s solution is more superior to the others. As Stone writes, “Problem definition is…the strategic representation of situations. Problem definition is a matter of representation because there is no objective description of a situation; there can only be portrayals of people’s experiences and interpretations. Problem definition is strategic because groups, individuals, and government agencies deliberately and consciously design portrayals so as to promote their favored course of action (Stone, 106).
As political candidates are experts at using the media for their advantage, citizens have the job of critically examining the validity of political messages. What critical media consumers believe to be true depends on the source of the information and how it is presented. They look at the medium, the context of the message, and the choice of language to determine the reliability of the message. Such skills form the basis for media literacy. In making a political decision, media literate citizens are able to synthesize the facts, analysis the problem, and weigh the many options offered by competing politicians.
Media Literacy
The educational philosopher John Dewey (1916) points out that one of the most important roles of public education is to provide students with the skills to effectively participate in democratic society and to act as responsible citizens. Dewey maintains that it is the responsibility of schools to educate students for social change. In a similar vein, Paolo Freire (1972) presents an education model that emphasizes empowerment, critical thinking, and self-awareness. He advocates for what he terms as “problem-posing education.” “In problem-posing education,” Freire writes, “men develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation” (70-71). Freire believes that through problem-posing education, oppressed individuals and groups can be empowered to enact systemic change.
The educational philosophies of Dewey and Freire lay much of the groundwork for media literacy education. The goal of the media literacy movement is to educate individuals on how to use media wisely and empower them to take control of media messages. Before the media literacy movement took hold, parents and educators were worried about the effects of technology on youths. Studies that cited the high number of hours children spent in front of the television made parents anxious.
Those who were wary of technology’s influence worried that the younger generation would be negatively impacted by the sexual and violent content on television. Critics of electronic media blamed school shootings and violent crimes on such things as video games, rap music, and movies. Such fears were solidified in 1972 when the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior raised the connection between television violence and antisocial behavior (Goodman 2003). In order to protect children from these influences and end the dominance of electronic media, critics of media technology advocated for homes without video games and promoted national campaigns like “Turn Off Your TV” Week.
With the prevalence of media technology everywhere, it is difficult to control an individual’s use of technology and quarantine him/her from media messages. As Galician (2004) suggests, “A more enlightened and empowering parental practice would be to provide “immunization” (10). While electronic media can offer low quality content, the fact of the matter is that it gives its viewers pleasure and entertainment. Alvermann, Moon, and Hagood (1999) note that “the purpose [of media literacy education]…should not be to destroy pleasure but to explore them to uncover new and different forms of enjoyment” (35). There is great potential for the media and its use if individuals approach it with a critical perspective.
When it comes to the media, it is better to give individuals the tool to critically interpret and create media messages than to prevent or reduce media use. If we are illiterate in a discourse community, our only option is to ignore its messages or accept it. However, if we are critically literate, we are able to deconstruct information and challenge it (Harris 1993). Media literacy gives individuals the tools to think critically and analytically. According to Bergsma (2004), “At the heart of [the philosophy for media literacy] is an inquiry process developed into a construct called the empowerment education spiral and that consists of four components – awareness, analysis, reflections, and action – all designed to enable students to fully comprehend and act on the content, form, purpose, and effects of media messages” (156). Critical literacy enables people to deconstruct symbols and numbers to understand their implications and significance. As power is possessed by those who define the problem, media literacy acts to empower individuals by making them aware of the problem and enabling them with the tools to define it for themselves.
From Theory to Practice
The call for media literacy is clear; individuals must have the critical and analytical thinking skills to challenge media messages. However, the shift from theory and research to practice is still in its infancy. According to Goodman (2003), much of the momentum to bring media literacy into classrooms in the 1990’s “tended to come less from the grassroots than from government and private agencies. Among the agencies and organizations that played an active role were the National Drug Control Policy and the Center for Substance Abuse Preventions, parishes of the Catholic Church, lobby organizations for regulation of children’s TV such as the Center for Media Education in Washington” ( 14-15).