Module 2: Visibility Closing Thoughts

/in /by

At the beginning of Module 2, we were called to ask ourselves where we fall in the “ideological continuum” of constructivism or protectionism (Tollefson, 2016).  In chapter 6 of Volatile Knowing, we are reminded that we “have lost the ability to look back, having ceded our own definitional authority to those who own the spotlight (Tollefson, 2010).  Where do these two notions intersect? The intersection is known as visibility.  Visibility contains many facets and the following mediums I will discuss explain the complexity of visibility and the differing ideological perspectives found within.

While many subscribe to the belief that the mass media is perpetuating intolerance and stereotypes, Carlos Cortes takes a different stance.  In “The Children Are Watching: How The Media Teach About Diversity”, he explores stereotypes, generalizations, and labels.  “We all use-we need to use-labels for groups of people” as it aids in the communication of social issues, Cortes argues (Cortes, 2000).  He does not dispute the idea that media contains some level of stereotyping.  In fact, he even says “it may be occurring” (Cortes, 2000).  However, he mentions a solid point-groups stereotype as well, therefore, media is not solely to blame.  Cortes goes on to suggest  3 central points regarding the media: 1. The media recognizes that consumers learn multi-culturally; 2. media realizes their part in internalizing stereotypes; 3. media uses stereotypes to meet consumer expectations and desired reactions/outcomes.  I agree with Cortes’ constructivist view on the media and that in order for students to thrive in this diverse society, “schools should help them learn to work analytically with evidence” from the mass media (Cortes, 2000).

I found Larry Gross’ article, “Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media” to be particularly fascinating as it had personal relevance.  It reminded me of an anecdote I will share as I believe it corresponds well with this piece.  I have a co-worker who is my superior.  She is a kind, hardworking, and opinionated wife and mother of two.  A couple months back, the subject of television came up and she said her children worship the Disney channel.  It prompted me to inquire if they watch ABC Family (now FreeForm) as well.  To which she replied, “no, I do not allow my kids to watch ABC Family”.  Her reason was she did not want her children being exposed to alternative family units/lifestyles (i.e. gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.).  I feel this is exactly what  Gross was referring to when he discussed the ongoing media “maintenance of the ‘normal’ gender system that requires that children be socialized -and adults retained-within a set of images and expectations which limit…their conceptions of…what is proper for men and women” (Gross, 2001).  Sexual minorities are victim to mass media power and frequently disregarded.  Echoing Tollefson’s view of inversion visibility, Gross concurs by saying “the most effective form of resistance to the hegemonic voice of the dominant media is to speak for oneself” (Gross, 2001).  I, too believe we must question “the instruments” of power in the media and reverse the invisibility in order to move towards a society where power resides within each and every one of us (Tollefson, 2010).

In Chapters 3 and 4 of our textbook, Karen Sternheimer discusses the largely prevalent issue of cyber-bullying and the argument of whether or not the media is hurting our intellectual makeup.  In regards to cyber harassment and social networking, Sternheimer argues that while the Internet can be a dark place, “it clearly can help people who may feel isolated and alone find a sense of community and acceptance” (Sternheimer, 2013).  While parents are fearful of the excessive exposure of their children through these medium platforms, Sternheimer believes “people are gradually learning to protect their privacy” more effectively, and are better equipped to determine what is real versus what is not (Sternheimer, 2013).  Conversely, in the journal “Advertising to Children and Teens: Current Practices” it is strongly recommended that research be conducted “to assess what age (if ever) children can discern the [messages] in [modern] media” and defend against the “persuasive intent” (Common Sense Media, 2014).  While I do agree with the article’s protectivist approach to steady research on the relationship between media messages and children; my views align more with Sternheimer’s constructivist belief that in this progressive society, children are  being given the tools to navigate the cyber world.  Instead of condemning this media shift and panicking that this generation is suffering mental setbacks because of it; we should choose to see “what we gain from these changes” and how visibility can “enhance our education” (Sterheimer, 2013).

 

Module 2 Readings

/in /by

The readings and videos in this module presented a number of very important points having to do with major problems in society. They dealt with topics such as gender, sexuality, race, cyber bullying, and education and the ways in which media can have a great influence on them. Many even went a step further, and provided different suggestions in how to either fight against harmful media, or ways in order to work with it to further important causes.

First off, the two videos about the “Smurfette Principle” and the “Bechdel Test” were very well done. Never before had I heard the term Smurfette Principle, but it is very aptly suited. Even though it is obvious seeing this principle happen in movies and televisions, it became something that was just kind of expected because it occurs so constantly. Then seeing all of the example movies flash by on the screen of where this occurs was rather startling, especially because there were some that I recognized which it did not even occur to me that the woman was playing a Smurfette role. It is very disturbing that this is such a common occurrence and the Bechdel test definitely seems like a good place for movie makers to start at.

The chapter from Larry Gross’ book was definitely an important read. It is truly a huge problem how unrepresented as well as misrepresented minorities are in the media, and as the chapter pointed out, homosexuals are particularly disadvantaged. It is truly an embarrassment that there is still so much inequality in society and that the media may even be used to continue to keep people down. Media, especially movies and television, have the potential to aid largely in shaping people’s views and ideals. Gross even goes as far as saying that they have in fact “become primary sources of the common information and images that create and maintain a world view and a value system” (Gross 407). This means that there rests so much power in the media and people definitely take advantage of that power. Minority groups are very often left out or could be portrayed in a wrongful manner. The author also mentions ways in which people can resist the media, the most effective of them being, “to speak for oneself” (Gross 418). This is such a hard thing to do though, especially when media is blocking you out or putting your ideas down. You need to have so much courage to truly step into the light and strive to make a real difference but it is such an important matter for people to do so. The author makes an incredible point in saying, “the ultimate expression of independence for a minority audience struggling to free itself from the dominant culture’s hegemony is to become the creators and not merely the consumers of media images” (Gross 419). Even though this is not talking about advertisements, I feel that quote relates a lot to the final point in step 4 of deconstructing an advertisement having to do with being both a citizen and consumer.

The information from Gross connected somewhat with chapter 3 in the Sternheimer textbook as well. It talked about intolerance, specifically homophobia, and cyber bullying, along with the tragedies that it has caused. The anecdotes in particular were truly heart-breaking. It goes to show how powerful an effect people and the use of media can have on others. This is something we all must take to heart. We need to think through what we are doing, think about what affects our actions cause, and use media wisely.

I really liked the chapter from Volatile Knowledge. There were so many points that caught my eye and wanting to become a teacher myself, there was a lot that I could relate to. One quote that I liked a lot was: “Perhaps the biggest problem that Americans are facing as a society is that we have a hard time believing in possibility, imagining that things could be otherwise” (Tollefson 125). Sadly, this is very true, even I myself have admitted to being like this. I have just accepted things. I have been pessimistic and thought that things won’t change. But this is not at all an acceptable mentality to have. We should be fighting to improve our society rather than just waiting for something to hopefully come. The readings and other materials in class have definitely been an inspiration to me. A second point that caught my attention was the notion that “all students [are] to be held accountable to the same high achievement standards” (Tollefson 125) no matter inequalities between what are available for each child. This also connected to my Computer Literacy for Educators class where we learned that you cannot teach to the same standard for all students because there is no “average” student. Every student is different in their resources, their upbringing, their strengths and weaknesses, etc. It is definitely wrong and irresponsible to hold students accountable, especially when what is being expected of them is completely unrealistic. Lastly, the points about the visibility of power and the ways to change that were very interesting and I definitely agree with the ideas. There are far too many private interests and powers working behind the scenes, and teachers more often than not are the ones that get the blame for any issues that arise when they are not truly the ones with that kind of power. For both teachers and parents to combine their influence together in order to disturb the current status of corporate powers is a nice idea. I just hope that that would be enough and that something like that will really come together someday. In a society were money is power and voice, it is such a frustration.  But obviously, we can’t give up in wanting and striving for change.

There were so many important lessons that could be learned from this Module’s materials. While it is of great importance, it can be somewhat disheartening reading and seeing just the surface of some of the infinite problems with society and media use. But hope was still present as well. Learning and teaching about these issues and generating and circulating ideas in which we can overcome them and help society is of dire necessity.

Module 2 Reflections

/in /by

“Drew was later charged and found guilty of three misdemeanor computer crimes in federal court, but the conviction was later thrown out on appeal” (Sternheimer, 2014). What constitutes murder? I am no lawyer and of course have no legal background but what I have read in the chapter of slander through media and cyber bullying, I feel uneasy and distrustful in the legal system. For example, the story of a mother who used social media to imposter as a young male and gain the trust of a minor to emotionally torment and generate revenge for her daughters bullying. Is the act of telling someone to kill himself or herself by jumping off of a bridge any different than actually pushing the person off? Does the blame not have to land on the same person who holds causality of the effect? Although her intention at first may have been to protect her own child and to see what may have happened, it seems Drew had lost her control and ultimately lost her own self by slandering a child who would never deserve such disrespect from a grown woman.

Another example of a “would be crime” is the story of Clementi and Ravi, two different roommates with different beliefs. As one roommate held antigay beliefs, the other was openly homosexual. The closed-minded antigay roommate used media as a tool for bullying in which resulted in the death of Clementi. Media in pop culture has conveyed many homosexual members as very flamboyant and extravagant, a stereotype of that culture now widely believed. According to Cortés, (2000), “Such clues should never harden into assumptions that all individuals who belong to that group must think, feel, or behave a certain way. At that point generalizations have rigidified into stereotypes”. If the media had not conveyed such stereotypes for homosexual males in that way, the generalization made by the antigay roommate would have never existed or perhaps his antigay views may have never existed. Again the question comes to mind, what constitutes murder?

“Is popular culture turning us into a nation of shallow idiots?” (Sternheimer, 2014). According to people who frown upon popular culture believe so. Sternheimer states many critics tend to only focus on popular culture and not the unequal distribution of educational resources. But does the blame really fall on the broad shoulders of media relaying pop culture, as critics tend to argue? Or can the media of which information is conveyed be better expressed across the boards to better facilitate educational learning? Media can be an educational tool for the 21st century that no other children in the past of educational history have had access to. When people tend to think of media the most mainstream idea tends to involve tabloid magazines, “entertainment weekly” platforms and other popular culture, just as the critics tend to argue. What Sternheimer brings to counter argue is not in the expression to dismiss the existence of pop culture influence on youth, but the apparent misuse of a great platform for which education can be utilized. For example, a student at the age of 10 may be able to utilize media that pop culture is normally expressed through such as a vLog or videoblog. Would it be expected that the 10 year old child is from a public school in a low socioeconomic neighborhood of an urban city, or at a private, or even more affluent public school in a richer neighborhood? The latter would be the common assumption in my opinion as well as in Sternheimers argument of relying on educational disparities.

In “Out of the Mainstream: Sexual Minorities and the Mass Media”, Larry Gross attempts to explain how many minority groups find themselves “out of the mainstream”. Minorities are constantly being misrepresented through the media, in particular homosexuals. Typically, media characterizations use popular stereotypes as a code which they know will be readily understood by the audience, thus further reinforcing the presumption of verisimilitude while remaining “officially” innocent of dealing with a sensitive subject (Gross, 2001). I found this statement to be very interesting because it is on point in describing what happens when minority groups receive attention in the media. They are presented to play every bias and stereotypical role that in reality does not represent them at all. Reflecting on my friend who happens to be a gay man and all the shows/movies I watch with gay characters in them (Modern Family, Mean Girls, Vampire’s Diaries, Dallas Buyers Club etc.) seem to have something in common, each character is CLEARLY “gay”. However, what makes someone gay? If I would have been asked this question growing up and being constantly exposed by this false representation of homosexuals that the media portrays, I would have stated a gay person to be; flamboyant, fashionable, high pitch tone of voice, dramatic, and over the top if referring to a gay man. If referring to a gay woman I would have said, boyish body, men’s haircut, tough, and non-attractive. Thankfully, I have educated myself, learned, and continue to learn about these false representations the media has on homosexuals. My friend who happens to be gay could not be more opposite of what the media defines a “gay man” to be. A question that arose through reading this article and reflecting on the media that is being aired today is, what made these stereotypes become acceptable to the public?

From the perspective of inverted visibility, then, “accountability” as a spotlight is perfectly controlled – steadily and brightly illuminating those things that serve the corporate-state in their visibility, diverting attention from those behind the spotlight whose hands are directing its beam” (Tollefson, 2008). This to me translates, when looking at a child/student who exhibits discipline and maturity we first notice these aspects in relation to the child/student (subject). According to the inverted invisibility theory, the diverted attention from the parent/teacher allows the subject rather than the ruler to be illuminated. This coincides with what Foucault calls disciplinary power.

Learning about all the new ways that exist when it comes to advertising children was frightening. Especially when reading about mobile advertising, “Mobile marketing also can involve content targeting children or teens based on their being inside of or in the vicinity of a retail location (Common Sense Media, 2014). I ask myself why have we taken it to such extremities? What is the outcome of having such type of advertisement? It seems to me from reading this article and learning about the 5 core concepts that number 4 seems to take part in this type of advertisement. Number 4 represents: Media have embedded values and points of view. I believe this type of advertisement has embedded a personalized value. By personalizing based on your location, companies are much more likely to show you something relevant. Companies are taking a sensible approach by finding out what you are interested in and then personalizing your message. This type of advertisement just gives me the creeps.

Module 2

/in /by

The third chapter in the text book, “Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture” by  Karen Sternheimer (2013) talks about bullying alot. To be more exact, she talks a lot about cyberbullying. This is a topic that I love learning about. I think it is a big problem that we are having. I have always thought that it was underplayed though. But, the way she makes it seem is that when a teenager is pushed to the point of suicide by cyberbullying, the media goes crazy. I really thought the statistics involving suicide was interesting.  According to the text, “fourty-five to fifty- four- year- olds were the group most likely to commit suicide”. Yet, we hardly ever hear about news story involving older people taking their lives. Any time a teen commits suicide (which are the group less likely to take their own life), the media jumps all over it. I am not saying that it is not a big deal, don’t get me wrong. However, I do think that if the media is going to make it seem like teens are “the most at risk”, they should really put the true statistics out there.  Karen Sternheimer (2013) talks a lot of about sexual orientation and how people are cyberbullied for it. Which leads to to them taking their life. I love how she talked about the subject, however, there are many other reasons people get cyberbullied, that I wish  she would have talked about. Although, I understand why she did that. The media, usually only talks about big news stories. So of course, if a teen is bullied because of their sexual orientation, the media is going to jump all over that. Cyberbullying is something that really hits home for me. I was bullied a lot in highschool and some people would say some mean things.  I had a friend kill himself and people who all of the sudden decided they did not want to be my friends anymore, would say things like “You should go kill yourself like Matt”. Or another great line that stuck with me throughout the years was, “If your dad had two legs, he would run away from you like everyone else!”. They seriously picked on the fact that my dad lost his leg as a teenager. They would post these comments on my Myspace.  Karen Sternheimer, mentions how cyberbullying effects children because not only are they experiencing bullying at school, but cyberbullying provides a way for the bullies to follow them home. I remember feeling so embarrassed because this was all online. So everyone could see what these “friends” were saying. Have any of you had any experiences with cyberbullying? If so, how did you deal with it…did you tell anyone?

To go along with bullying, stereotyping can be a form of bullying. However, generalizing is not. I do agree with Cortes (2000) in the article The Children Are Watching. That there is a big difference between stereotyping and generalizations. I think people mistaken and confuse the two a lot. It is normal to make generalizations. I think that because people confuse the two, they think that we should not be making generalizations about people because it is stereotyping (which could be considered bullying). Coretes (2000) says, “We all generalize. We all need to generalize. We create categories of items, actions, or ideas, and then develop generalizations about common (although not necessarily identical or universal) characteristics of those categorized items. After reading this piece, I learned that it is completely normal to generalize, which I had always tiptoed around to avoid any controversy. Did anyone else confuse the two terms generalizing and stereotyping? Or am I alone here?

In today’s society, we are surrounded by media. It is all around us.  Karen Sternheimer (2013) talks about how popular culture is making people “lazy”. She says that “many parents are made to feel guilty for choosing to allow some television viewing when there is no concrete evidence of harm”. She also says that certain technologies like video games or texting are “unfamiliar” to adults now. Although, they have some experience with video games, their video games are not as advance as the ones today. Also, they never had texting growing up. I can see where it is easy to blame these technologies for changes in youth. However, I think youth are different just because they have different experiences and have these things available. Of course, it is not going to be like how it was when their parents were their age and they would go outside and play. They have the internet now, unlike their parents. So, at times, they may want to stay inside and play on the internet because it is available to them. I do not believe it is fair to blame media, just because the media is available for them to use. “The average American adult spends several hours each day in this television world, children spend even more of their lives immersed in its “fictional reality”.”Gross (2001) He is saying that television has became the primary source for people to get their information. He also mentions how the “assumptions, beliefs, and values of heavy viewers of television differ systematically from those of light viewers in the same demographic groups”. So you can see where the beliefs of  Karen Sternheimer and Gross vary. Gross is blaming media in a way for the change of thoughts due to technology and Sternheimer is saying that television has no effect. I can not say where I stand with this topic right now. It is something that I would like to learn more about.

“The biggest problem that Americans are facing is that we have a hard time believing in possibility and imagining that things could be otherwise”- Tollefson (2008). I really liked this sentence, I completely agree with it. I think that people get stuck in their everyday routine that they do not often stray from the path to question things. The media gives people power. However, we need to try to take away some of the medias power to impact people. “The media environment for children and teens has changed dramatically in recent years, and so, too, has the advertising environment.” (Common Sense Media 2014) Advertising today is crazy because of the help of media. The media uses certain techniques to attract children to see their ads. They post them on gaming websites, videos the children watch on Youtube, banner ads and children’s networks on the television. The way we can take control of this power that the media has, is to research how often young people are exposed to advertisement and what age groups companies are targeting. Children are the “financial runners” of the household today. They can manipulate their parents into buying things they see advertisements for. This is why I believe it is crucial, that we teach the children how to be media literate and see the “hidden messages” in the media they see.

Module 2 Readings

/in /by

After completing the readings for Module 1, I was given a strong background of media literacy. When going through Module 2, I was given a deeper look into media literacy and the vast amounts of hidden messages throughout media. Being made aware of the connotations within media, I find it even more important for everyone, especially youth to be media literate. “Visibility is often times controlled by those in power, meaning that media makers with power can hide the truth to those with little or no power” (Tollefson, 2008). I feel this quote, given by Professor Tollefson, is fitting because it brings attention to the fact that media is made with underlying intentions for those viewing it. Which, again brings me back to the importance of media literacy for both youth and the rest of society.

Being enlightened on how media can manipulate an image or provide a deeper meaning behind an image with simply the graphic design of the image, ad, commercial, etc., was disturbingly surprising. I found this to be disturbing because it was not something I was previously aware of, nor looked for within media; but, due to my new found knowledge of the connotations within media, I am now constantly on the lookout for possible hidden meanings throughout media. When completing activity 12, I noticed when flipping through several channels there was significantly more men than women, and when there was a woman she was most of the time a lesser counterpart to the male. This reminded me of the Smurfette Principle, where a story contains a predominately male cast with only one female character (Sarkeesian, 2011). Furthermore, the Bechdel Test has been created to measure a female character’s importance and involvement throughout movies. To not be considered a movie containing the Smurfette Principle, a movie must contain two or more female characters with names, whom interact with one another, and if they communicate about something other than the male characters (Sarkeesian, 2009). Overall, I made the unnerving discovery of the immense amounts of inequality throughout media today.  Americans spend several hours a day watching television (Gross, 2001). Which, gives those within media the power to possibly manipulate the abundance of people whom are watching television. Specifically, media can persuade consumers to purchase products, in turn making those whom have power within media more money. Due to children being so easily persuaded, Anup Shah states in his article, Children as Consumers, that children basically male the food market big money (2010). Thus, displaying the way that media is used to manipulate those who are exposed to it.

Ultimately, Module 2 opened my eyes to the disturbing truth behind media and the hidden messages it can display through its images. Because it is so easy to manipulate media, it is crucial for children and all of society to be media literate. Not only is it important for everyone to become media literate, but it is crucial to educated children on media literacy. I find this to be crucial because as they grow and develop, children should be aware of the possible lies and/or manipulations displayed throughout media. Thus, the importance of media literacy.

Taylor Wing Module 2 Recap 6/6/16

/in /by

I would like to begin my recap of module two by expressing my appreciation of how this course is going and my ability to navigate through each module, my increased understanding of voice thread, and how much I enjoy the readings and feedback from my classmates. This week’s readings have helped me understand media study by the five core concepts of media education. As said, “All media messages are constructed” (). If all media messages are constructed, then they can be destructed. The most beneficial concept I got out of the reading is the visibility concept, and how important the questions of why is this message being sent? I am eager to read more about how the media is manipulated those with less power and what kind of power/ profit do media makers use? Another concept I enjoyed reading about is the Smurfette Principle, which is based off of the meaning of tropes. Tropes often perpetuate offensive stereotypes. “The Smurfette principle is the tendency for works of fiction to have exactly one female amongst an ensemble of male characters” (Pollitt 2010). In the past this has been more common than in today’s society. There are movies and TV shows that discriminate women, but more often sexism is not the common issue anymore. The media is beginning to change in a positive way. The chapters for this module I read by Karen Sternheimer has given me more insight on child stereotypes within the media from the past to present.
Stereotypes shape how consumers operate and how viewers form opinions. Not all generalizing and stereotyping is considered a bad thing, but more of a necessary thing to describe people, places or things, for example, Carlos Cortes states, “We all need to generalize. We create categories of items, actions, or ideas, and then develop generalizations about common characteristics of those categorized items” (Cortez 2000). It is almost impossible to avoid generalizing and stereotypes. This article gave a great example of a light switch put into a category of light switches. On the other hand, I agree with what Lindsey has to say about stereotyping homosexuals and generalizing them all into one small category of the same. We need to make generalizations about things in everyday life, but it does not need to be stereotyped.

Module 2 Reflections

/in /by

Module 2 made me think deeper about the media and its affects on society. Like so many others I have gotten lost in the media and I am truly not a critical thinker. I simply believe everything I hear and see with out a second guess that it could be wrong information. Both Module 1 and 2 have taught that there could be far more to the story than one thinks. Tollefson (2008) states, “…that the biggest problem that Americans are facing is that we have a hard time believing in possibility and imagining that things could be otherwise” (p. 130). The first thing that I thought of when I saw this is politics. People can be persuaded and deceived very easily when they think that the person who is speaking is credible. As a critical thinker I ask, “but where is your credibility?” Persuasion and deception goes far beyond politics, what I found interesting, and actually never thought of was how easily supermarkets can manipulate consumers. When I moved to college my mom gave me a grocery-shopping hint: never go through the middle aisles! My first year, I didn’t listen to her, but then as I got into eating healthier, I realized she was seriously right. All of the unhealthy food is in the middle aisles of the grocery stores. Tuttle explains that supermarkets strategically place food items so that consumers can be drawn to them as they shop. What stood out to me the most in his article was his example of cereal boxes and how they are designed. I remember when I was little I loved Golden Crisp cereal (THE ONE WITH THE BEAR!) However, I did not like the Honey Smacks (the one with the frog), probably because when I was little, bears were a lot more appealing to me than frogs were. Once again, advertisement won me over. Anup Shah’s article, Children as Consumers, explains that children basically make the food market big money because they are so easily persuaded (2010). Cartoon characters don’t seem that harmful, however there are other sources of media that are far more dangerous for children’s developments, especially when deception is involved. Shah (2010) states, “…manipulation of imagery, fake news and more are so prevalent that young people in particular are vulnerable to a lot of influences from all angles” (p. 6). As I mentioned in my VoiceThread one of the biggest problems with media and young children is body image. I have seen so many young girls, look at themselves and absolutely hate their bodies simply because it doesn’t look like the photoshopped model on the cover of Victoria’s Secret magazines. Not only did Module 2 made me realize how deception in the media can be harmful to society, it also taught me the danger of social media and inequality in the media.

In chapter 3, Sternheimer asks the question, “Does Social Networking Kill?” This is still something that I struggle with understanding. I have seen how social networks can have a negative impact on your mental health and especially self-esteem. In my opinion social media is very harmful to young people. Sternheimer explains, “…the Internet allows for uncensored and seemingly anonymous speech, enabling angry, often hateful websites free rein” (p. 49). My question is, what can society do to change this negative aspect of social networks? I am a fan of social networks but I can see how they can be harmful. Media can also be harmful in the way that is lacks diversity and can extremely stereotypical. Americans spend many hours a day watching television (Gross, 2001, p. 407). As we scroll through channels we see how little diversity there is in the media, as we all saw in activity 12. Gross (2001) gives the idea that there are “elites are (mostly) white, (mostly) middle-aged, (mostly) male, (mostly) middle and upper-middle class, and entirely heterosexual (at least in public)” that dominate the media (p. 406). As I become more media literate, I will pay more attention to how the media plays a huge role in what we perceive. Not only will I be able to recognize lies within the media but I will be far more aware of the inequality that mainstream mass media evokes.

Module 2 Re-Cap!

/in /by

One of my favorite parts of this class is talking about marketing!  Therefore, reading about product placement and Shah’s article which describes children as huge consumers is right up my alley.  Although I don’t believe that it’s ethical to market to an audience that doesn’t understand why they want what they want, I find it fascinating to read the research which talks about how the characters on cereal boxes are designed to catch a child’s attention and how the ‘tween’ age is one of the largest spenders because they are constantly re-defining the meaning of what is ‘cool’ or in style.  It is so hard to be a parent in an age when your child is being marketed to all day long.  But who is to blame for our kids wanting the brand name ‘My Little Pony’ toys?  How much can we blame the media when we, as parents, just want to make our children happy when the industry is playing to that need?

As I read the assigned text for the class, I realize more and more how I wasn’t right in feeling like the media is to blame for all things bad.  I learned from Karen Sternheimer that contrary to my original belief, the American childhood is easier and more luxurious now than in the early 20th century.  I always thought it would have been so much nicer to be a child in a different time but the reality is that if I can grown up in the 1920’s, I would have probably been poor or working at a young age to help my family and probably wouldn’t have had the opportunity to finish school.  After completing the reading from Cortes (2000), I realized how many generalizations are taught within our schools and how I am guilty of generalizing so much and sometimes not really looking into something further to get the full story.  I agree with the reading that children (and adults) need to be taught the differences between stereotypes and evidence-based generalizations.  Making a generalization is something we have to do daily in order to survive.

For instance, if I am driving and the car in front of me hits the brakes, it generally means that they are coming to a stop and I need to follow suit or risk hitting them.  However, on the other hand, Larry Gross (2001) helped me to see that the media tells us what life is like through ‘reality’ television.  In my mind I know it isn’t real but there’s so much ‘reality’ TV that sometimes it’s hard to reject that it it’s only a charade.  For example, not every homosexual male is scrawny, emotional and weak which ties back in to the stereotypes.  The media expands on what the audience already thinks is reality and pushes the boundaries.  Tollefson (2008) and Foucault showed me that discipline isn’t a bad thing and that it may be necessary in order to regulate or help things run more efficiently and although I agree that we need a healthier system that isn’t based around the elite, I also think that the elite hold the money which equals power and that’s why things are a certain way.  The key is to have everyone on the same page and really help our educational system out: for the future of our world!

Module 2 Reflections

/in /by

This has been a very eventful learning week to say the least. After completing the readings and watching the videos my mind was a bit overwhelmed. However the concept of visibility is clearer to me now once I was able to dive on into the course material. Since the week started out identifying five key questions us media literate people need to ask ourselves while reconstructing a media advertisement. I realized my media literate skills could be using some improvement. The five key questions are as listed (1) who created this message, (2) what creative techniques are used to attract my attention, (3) how might other people understand this message differently than me, (4) what values, lifestyles, and point of views are represented or omitted from this message, and finally (5) why is this message being sent. These questions are vital in using the correct tools to pull apart an advertisement and see what is really about. After establishing the knowledge of these tools the once hidden messages will now be able to become visible to our eyes and identifying the true message. Another hidden message theory I learned about was the Smurfette principal. This principal has to do with the unfair casting of men in movies and TV shows. In more movies than we realize there are only men dominating characters. Media sends out the wrongful message that women are weaker and women only exist in relation to men. Media does a wonderful job stereotyping woman and their roles in media. The Smurfette principal reveals that women in movies are often only pointed out as sexy figures or a sidekick to a strong man. Many movies such as Transformers a hit movie appears to be sexist modeling the only woman as a sexual figure. Often times this principal is not pointed out too often since sexism in movies is so normalized in the media. Based off the Smurfette principal was the Bechtel test. This test will be able to help you identify the importance of women in movies. If the movie can pass three simple questions, then the movie may appropriately resemble women. The questions are (1) does the movie have two or more women characters that have names, (2) do the women talk to each other, (3) do women talk about something other than a man. Both the Smurfette principal and the Bechtel test reveal the ways genders are often unequally valued in media especially movies. I challenge you were there any of your favorite movies that passed or did not pass any of these two principals?

The next topic I found important in this week’s readings was stereotyping. In Cortes article Struggling with stereotyping it address the issue generalizing verses stereotypes. There is often a difficulty in distinguishing the two in media and their meanings are misunderstood. Generalization can be described as group common things or groups of people in the media. Stereotyping can be described as pointing out the differences in groups and are quick to assume things that may not always be true. Cortes used the words “some and many” to describe commonalities in generalization and “almost or all” to describe stereotyping. (Cortes p. 149) I learned that generalizing requires more media literate skills to help clue together common groups in what they might do, and having an open mind. Opposed to stereotyping where there is resistance to new knowledge. Certain groups of people ought to act and behave a certain way is stereotyping which is wrong. We can never assume anything about people or cultures and their norms just because media reveals it in a certain way. Media enjoys being stereotypical towards groups of people and does not realize the offense that is being made. No culture or any person should be seen in a negative light.

Another example of stereotyping within media is the norm of men and women’s sexual orientation. In Larry Gross’s article Out of the Mainstream: Sexual minorities and the mass media, Gross describes the hardships lesbian women and gay men go through since there are often picked out and placed in a negative light in the media. The two major ways I read about how these men and woman are wrongly stereotyped is their families are not classified as normal and the wrongful way they are portrayed in movies. “The process of identity formation for lesbian women and gay men requires the strength and determination to swim against the stream” (Gross p. 410). Society is failing to accept that there should not be such a label on the norm. This article describes gay people having to go the extra mile to feel accepted in society. We live in a day and age where there should not be a labeled norm on what a family is. Families come in all shapes and sizes and are a community of people who love each other and want to feel valued. Gross’s article also touched upon how gay people are very often seen as invisible in the media (Gross p.411). When a gay person is starred in a movie they are often victims of violence, ridicule, or villains. They are also placed as misunderstood characters that are silly or weak. Media has been in denial that they are attacking people that are part of our society. Media needs to take a change in the direction of how all people are represented. We are all humans and need to be respected for the way that we are.

In Karen Sternhrimer’s book Connecting Social Problems and Popular Culture another terrible topic was introduced. The topic was realities of suicide and cyber bullying of the LGBT youth community. Reading this section was heartbreaking to see how student aged children not part and parts of the LGBT community are cyber bullied. “In a Colorado county study found that LGBT youth were more than twice as likely to report electronic harassment than those who identified as heterosexual (nearly 30 percent versus 13 percent)” (Sternheimer p. 53-54). That statistic really crushed me. Today it is likely that there is growing awareness and acceptance of gays and lesbians in society over the past years. My hope is that teachers now will intervene in these horrible situations and help instill in students the harms of what cyberbullying can do to a person. This section of visibility has opened my eyes to the harms media places on individuals. We are all affected by the media in one way or another. Learning to be aware of our media surroundings and treating everyone with respect will help flourish our individual media literacy.

Nicole Greenberg Module 2 Readings

/in /by

Sorry for the late post, work has been unexpected and crazy lately!

I was mind blown after watching the Smurfette Principle and the Bechdel test. I was surprised, yet completely aware, of the fact that women are often never seen in media, but if they are, they are used more as a sexy prop rather than a character- who does not only talk about boys the entire time. I loved her questions, “Are women in the film? Do they have a name? Do they talk about something other than men?” because as I watch any movie and or TV show, it’s scary how easily I can answer no to those questions. To me it seems like typical Hollywood because as I am taking this class, and becoming more familiar with media literacy, I have been noticing a lot more about how women are portrayed in movies, ads, TV shows etc.

After getting a little upset over the way women are seen in media, I moved onto reading the Media Lit Kit. I thought the 5 questions and 5 concepts are really important while watching movies, TV or even just looking at ads around town. Now that I have read this kit, I can never stop thinking about these questions and concepts while I attempt to enjoy TV now. I am actually pretty happy about this though because just over two weeks of this course has really opened my eyes to the reality of media, which is really helpful for me as a future educator.

I then went on to read Chapter six “The Inversion of Disability” of your novel Volatile Knowing. I can honestly say I was a little lost because of the usage of higher vocabulary and that I lack knowledge of certain references in education but if I am correct some of the main ideas include that teachers and parents are lacking a conclusion of why education is the way it is today and possibly how media is effecting education. I really liked the question posed, “What possibilities might exist for children in neighborhood schools if parents’ and teachers’ interests were successfully joined?” because I too have wondered this. I am not exactly sure the context in which is behind your question but if I was asked this, with no prior knowledge of an answer, I would assume great things would come of parents and teacher uniting. I think children could have many new opportunities if their parents and their teachers were able to come together, rather than act as two separate forces. I believe positivity is one of the biggest key factors in a child’s education and I think if teachers and parents come together, it can motivate the community to become more positive and bring everyone together.

After being extremely enlightened by Chapter 6, I began reading Carlos E. Cortes’ “The Children are Watching”. One of the first terms Cortes mentions is stereotypes- something we can never escape, especially in media. Then he poses a really great question asking the reader, “How can students learn about gender differences, the basic belief of various religions, and the core threads of diverse ethnic experiences without developing group stereotypes?” He then informs us on two solutions, which he claims are not easy to grasp but one major solution is informing students on the difference between generalizations and stereotypes. He then states the second solution is for students to use the distinctions to somewhat challenge or critique media. I think both of these ideas are very important for children to learn and distinguish because being open to other people’s cultures or religions is important for a child’s perceptions on generalizations and stereotypes. And although these generalizations and stereotypes are inevitable because society uses labels for everything, they can learn when it is appropriate to questions the media and its uses of the two.

As I began reading Larry Gross’s article titled “Out of the Mainstream” I was again a little confused because of his usage of high vocabulary but one thing I picked up quickly was his clear argument that people are very into television, which is not good. He writes, “The average American adult spends several hours each day in this television world, children spend even more of their lives immersed in its “fictional reality.” I feel as though adults get sucked into media very easily, which shows children get even more sucked into it to the point where they’re in a “fictional reality” because they are not yet aware of media literacy. Another major factor of his article talks about minorities and claims their positions and interest will not only be ignored, but as well will be discredited. I feel as though there was a slight connection between this idea and the assignment where we channel surfed and look at races, gender and disability. As I wrote in that, I only saw 3 minorities on the TV- 2 African Americans and one Latino male who were all on the news because they were being portrayed as criminals. I am not positive this connection works but I feel as though minorities are not portrayed positively on TV, if at all. Therefore, their responses to media and claims then become disregarded. Again, I am not positive if this is what Gross is trying to claim but that is how I comprehended it.

I then chose to write about Common Sense Media because the title “Advertising to Children and Media” really caught my attention in a somewhat negative way. I always find it chilling to hear about how much TV children are exposed to. The article shares several ways in which advertising to children can be done. For example, they can see ads on television, or gaming or completely away from technology like going to McDonalds and getting a free toy with their meal.

The article discusses all of the ways children are exposed to media and advertising and concludes by saying the media and ads are at an all time high. They claim, “…recent years have seen an explosion in new avenues for young people to be

exposed to advertising through media.” Children involved with social media, television, restaurants, movies, etc. are all being exposed to the media and most of them are still very unaware of media literacy or the effects media has over them.

This leads me to the last and most broad reading of all, chapters 3 and 4 of Sternheimer’s novel Connecting social problems and popular culture: Why media is not the answer. Again, this text is very dense and full of some really great points but I am going to discuss ideas and points that I found most intriguing through reading the text.

One of the biggest issues Sternheimer discusses in chapter 3 is suicide. She writes several news headlines such as “Mean Girls: Cyber Bullying Blamed for Suicide” which shows how much attention these suicides get. She then quotes The Washington Post who claims, “It’s just a matter of when the next suicide’s going to hit, when the next attack’s going to hit.” This quote is truly devastating because of the truth that lies behind it. Everyday there is another innocent child who commits suicide due to cyber bullying and it is becoming out of hand. Chapter 3 is full of statics on cyber bullying which is chilling just to read it.

Then I read Chapter four, and almost giggled to myself, because as I was writing this entire blog post I had television going on in the background and got distracted by my cell phone a handful of times. Then I read the first couple sentences of chapter four and almost spit my drink out when I realized how not-funny it was and how serious it actually was. I couldn’t answer one color she had asked of us. After I look at my phone or watch TV, I realize how zombie like I become afterwards. It drains my energy and I forget that I am sitting with my friends or my family. I am aware of my wrong doings and after I have been in this class I have been trying a lot more to stop sitting on my phone while doing homework because it takes up more time once I have to go back and reread each article several times! Then when I read the line, “Most recently, TV has been blamed for ADHD and even autism” which was sad to hear. Whether the research proves this or not, the fact that it’s even a controversial topic is scary. Sternheimer then moves on to an even touchier subject, which talks about low-income families. She writes, “Clearly, low-income families have more pressing needs, like food and rent, before buying a computer or buying internet” which shows how much technology has an effect on society. This can lead students to have an unequal learning experience because they are not caught up with technology.

Overall, media and advertising has a huge, often negative, effect on society. Thought all the readings, it is seen that children are most commonly targeted by advertising and media which is terrible because they are vulnerable and naïve. With more readings like these, society can become more aware of media’s power and effect it has over everyone.