Media Literacy II

This sections readings address mediated communication, the production and consumption of messages through technologies of various sorts.  The type of communication under discussion includes everything except face-to-face communication.  I see two broad themes in this section's readings: 1) media provides a method of accessing information in the environment in the absence of direct experience, and 2) media technologies shape the interaction between human beings and their environment.

Absence of Direct Experience

Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion, published in 1922, provides an earlier take on what I believe are similar issues that arise in thinking about media and media literacy today.  Lippmann's work takes up the use of media in the early 20th Century and particularly in the wake of World War I.  He wrote in Public Opinion that the "real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance."  The only way to deal with the "variety" and "permutations and combinations" is to "reconstruct" the environment "on a simpler model" (Lippmann, 1997, p. 11).  Lippmann uses the word stereotype to identify the tool human beings use to manage a complex environment in the absence of direct experience.  The use of stereotypes is matter of economy.  Lippmann writes that "modern life is hurried and multifarious, above all physical distance separates men who are often in vital contact with each other ... There is neither time nor opportunity for direct acquaintance."  So human beings notice a trait marking a "well known type, and fill in the rest of the picture by means of the stereotypes we carry in our heads" (Lippmann, 1997, p. 59).

I noted in another piece that the "capitalist mode of production for profit has necessitated (and facilitated) greater interdependence among a wider range of people in terms of breadth, i.e. geographic extent, and depth, i.e. increase points of interaction.  The result of this socio-economic integration is an extended reach of unintended consequences of human action and an increased difficulty on the part of individuals in recognizing the source of their personal 'troubles.'"  I see this as a structural issue, a social issue, as opposed to a cultural issue.  The issue here is a change in objective conditions as opposed to interpretations of what those changes mean.

Like Lippmann, who saw stereotypes, generalizations, etc. as constituting a pseudo-environment to which people react, Gee (2012) sees ideology and theory as methods of making sense of a complex environment.  Though Gee is not clear on this point, I think he sees a difference between generalizations and theory.  He defines theory as a "set of generalizations about an area ... in terms of which descriptions of phenomena in that area can be couched and explanations can be offered" (p. 13).  So theory might best be considered as organized generalizations.  Generalizations and theories about the world are shaped, Gee says, by human interaction with the social and physical environment.  Jan et. al. (2011) note a number of significant factors shaping socialization, and I would add generalizations as well.  These include family, schools, economic background, friends and associations, among other factors (p. 198).

Gee (2012) draws a useful distinction between tacit and explicit theories.  When generalizations and theories are made apparent, they can becomes objects of inquiry, they become factors in evaluating claims (p. 13).  Gee further suggests we think about tacit and explicit theories as existing along a continuum (p. 16).

Media Technologies, Extensions of Man (and Woman)

Sourbati (2009) makes a useful distinction between the analogue media moment and the digital media moment.  The analogue moment was about providing universal service, in the form of physical access to mass media technologies.  In the digital moment, however, "there is not a straightforward correspondence between access to a network and the ability to use a service."  On one hand, there is an expanded array of services provided by the "transmission infrastructure."  Additionally, access to the technology does not equate with being able to use the services provided (p. 249).  Sourbati argues, therefore, for the importance of teaching media literacy skills in the local context, relying on local resources, e.g. volunteers to assist users.

Traditionally, when when we think about media, we think of mass media forms such as newspapers, radio or television broadcasting, movies.  Something that struck me this week was that various social media forms - Twitter, Facebook, etc. - should perhaps also be considered mass media forms that allow a person to communicate a message to a large amount of people.  Just as newsreels and radio provided war news to the home front during World War II, Twitter and YouTube are being used by protestors and revolutionaries in the Middle East to communicate information to people around the world.

Braman's (2009) discussion about the "convergence of communication styles" adds something useful to our discussion.  Braman notes that media have, in the past, been distinguished by the "number of message receivers," the "nature of interactivity," and the "difference between synchronicity and asynchronicity" (p. 57).  Traditional broadcast mediums, she says, are characterized by one sender with many receivers and no direct interactivity and are experiences synchronously "by its entire audience."  She contrasts this was telephony and "personal letter writing."  Braman says that the Internet "blends communication styles in all three dimensions" (p. 59).

I appreciated the definition of media literacy provided by the United Kingdom's Office of Communications, cited in Sourbati (2009): "the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts" (p. 248).  However, I think this definition is insufficient for determining the relationship between media literacy and information literacy.  Is media literacy integrated into our current working definition of information literacy?  When we speak about media literacy, are we talking more about the instrumental side of the literacy equation?  What is the relationships between communication and information?  Are all messages information?

Braman, S. (2009). Change of state: Information, policy, and power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jan, M. et. al. (2011). Public opinion & political socialization through the lens of media. European Journal of Scientific Research, 55 (2), p. 196-206.

Lippmann, W. (1997). Public opinion. New York, NY: Free Press. 

Sourbati, M. (2009). Media literacy and universal access in Europe. The Information Society, 25, p. 248-254.