Screen-agers ... and the decline of the "wasteland.".(television)

Newton Minow himself tells the story that the two words from his 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters he originally thought would stand the test of time were not "vast wasteland," but rather, "public interest." (1)

He had intended his remarks that described the media environment of the 1960s not so much as a condemnation, but as a challenge, and a reminder to broadcasters that, as owners of the airwaves, viewers have rights, too. "Never have so few owed so much to so many," he said. "It is not enough to cater to the nation's whims--you must also serve the nation's needs.... For every hour that the people give you, you owe them something." (2)

But whether one sees the significance of the speech as a lament or as a challenge, the focus of the speech is overwhelmingly on the content of television--the programs, the production values, the storylines, the "product." This is because the Chairman's challenge issued from a set of assumptions common in the 1960s, not only about technology and the economics of broadcasting, but also about the power of visual images and about the receiver skills of the audience to make sense of those images. These in turn came from assumptions about education and about how children learn about their world and their role in it.

Against the use of television as an economic engine of a consumer society was posited the "better" use of television--"to teach, to inform, to uplift, to stretch, to enlarge the capacities of our children." (3) The vision of educational television in the 1960s was as a temporary substitute for, or an extension of, the teacher whose function was to pass along the accumulated knowledge of (primarily western) civilization to the receptive ears, eyes, and brains of children, sitting quietly in order to take in the teacher's words of wisdom. Expanding this teaching approach with television, and later computers, not only proved ineffective in achieving educational goals but was unmasked in later decades by the exploding diversity of American culture as a narrow and elitist interpretation of human experience--whether past, present, or future.

But there were deeper assumptions, as well, about the role and function of communication in human society and the privilege of the scientific method as the preferred way of describing human experience. The common model of human communication at the time used the concepts of stimulus/response, cause/effect, and sender/receiver. The goal was to have the receiver "get" the message sent by the sender in an unimpeded path, without "noise" or degradation. The highest goal was "fidelity" of the message from sender to receiver and back again, with the original sender becoming the receiver and vice versa. (4)

Receivers were not perceived as participating in the process much at all. Although readers of print messages were assumed to be intellectually stimulated and, to some extent, radio "engaged" its listeners, television was thought to be passive because "nothing was left to the imagination." Furthermore, the prevalent hypodermic or "bullet" theory of communications assumed that message receivers, especially children, were rather passive "blank slates" over which message senders, such as television broadcasters, had the awesome power to influence "for good, or for ill." "Your industry possesses the most powerful voice in America. It has an inescapable duty to make that voice ring with intelligence and with leadership," observed Chairman Minow. (5)

LITERACY IN A MEDIA AGE

Forty years later, we are looking not just at a changed world of communications technology, but a changed world of education and a dramatically changed psychological understanding of how human beings, especially children, learn and grow in understanding about themselves and the world they inhabit. With children exposed to hundreds, even thousands, of images and messages each day through not only television but also videos, DVDs, music, video games, and, of course, the Internet, educators are becoming less concerned about the overt (or even latent) messages in a specific media experience than about the internal process a young person (even a toddler) goes through to make sense of the mediated world around him or her.

A few years after Minow's speech, noted communications theorist David Berlo provided a clear rationale for why schooling should no longer be about knowledge acquisition, but rather about knowledge processing:

If in 1961, Minow's concern was about media content and measuring it against some arbitrary standard of "quality," today, in the twenty-first century, our concern must be about the process of internal meaning-making. This process includes the ability to "read" a mediated message (whether print or electronic) by translating the visual and verbal languages used, putting the message in context with other messages and with one's current reality, and ultimately evaluating whether one wants to pay attention to and internalize this message or not.

It is, in effect, a new kind of literacy for the twenty-first century--media literacy--and it is spreading rapidly in classrooms and in schools, not only in the United States, but around the world. Indeed, countries such as England, Australia, and Canada are a decade ahead of the United States in training teachers and implementing media literacy across the curriculum. In England, for example, the concept of "moving image education" is a core component of language arts instruction beginning in the earliest grades.

I want to be clear that the introduction of media literacy into our nation's schools is not an excuse for the producers of media to abandon all standards of production, propriety, or even aesthetic taste. But I propose the growth of media literacy in U.S. education circles makes obsolete the very question of whether the television landscape in the twenty-first century is "better" or "worse" than in 1961. How so?

Author Douglas Rushkoff calls the current youth generation "screen-agers" (7) because their media use is not distinguished specifically as television, video games, movies, computers, or even telephones, but simply as a series of screens which they both access and manipulate in a constantly evolving stream of shared communication. This capability, in turn, is transforming the use and impact of media in everyday life:

* Screen-agers see media not as discrete products that can "impact" them or their culture, but as elements of a multimedia mosaic that is their culture.

* Screen-agers "read" and "write" seamlessly, using images, sounds, and words.

* Screen-agers experience the world not in physical boundaries, but as an instant global network of connections and interconnections.

In this kind of world, the content of a specific media message is no longer all that relevant. It is only one of thousands received every day. What is important is facility with asking questions, with problem-solving, with being able to access a message, then to analyze and evaluate it, and finally, to communicate your point of view resulting from your inquiry.

In its recently released MediaLit Kit, the Center for Media Literacy, one of the pioneering organizations behind the media education movement in the United States, identifies Five Key Questions for media literacy. (8) These, in turn, flow from Five Core Concepts that have evolved from media literacy practitioners and scholars around the world. Starting with simple versions of the questions in the elementary level and moving on to more sophisticated analysis in upper grades, students learn how to apply the questions to any message in any medium. It is a multilayered "Framework for Learning and Teaching in a Media Age." (9)

Core Concept #1: All media messages are "constructed."

Whether we are watching the nightly news or passing a billboard on the street, the media message we experience was written by someone (or probably several people), pictures were taken, and a creative designer put it all together. But this is more than a physical process. What happens is that whatever is "constructed" by just a few people then becomes "the way it is" for the rest of us. But as the audience, we do not get to see or hear the words, pictures, or arrangements that were rejected. We only see, hear, or read what was accepted. Helping people understand how the media are put together--and what was left out--as well as how the media shape what we know and understand about the world we live in is a critical first step in helping them navigate their lives through a global and technological society.

Key Question #1: Who created this message?

Core Concept #2: Media messages are constructed using a creative language with its own rules.

Each form of communication--whether newspapers, TV game shows, or horror movies--has its own creative language: scary music heightens fear, camera close-ups convey intimacy, and big headlines signal significance. Understanding the grammar, syntax, and metaphor system of media language increases our appreciation and enjoyment of media experiences, as well as helping us to be less susceptible to manipulation. One of the best ways to understand how the media are put together is to do just that: make a video, create a Web site, or develop an ad campaign about a community issue. The four major arts disciplines--music, dance, theatre, and the visual arts--can also provide a context through which one gains skills of analysis, interpretation, and appreciation, along with opportunities for self-expression and creative production.

Key Question #2: What creative techniques are used to attract my attention?

Core Concept #3: Different people experience the same media message differently.

Because of each individual's age, upbringing, and education, no two people see the same movie or hear the same song on the radio. Even parents and children do not see the same TV show. This concept turns the tables on the idea of TV viewers as just passive "couch potatoes." We may not be conscious of it, but each of us, even toddlers, is constantly trying to make sense of what we see, hear, or read. The more questions we can ask about what we are experiencing around us, the more alert we can be about accepting or rejecting messages. Research indicates that, over time, children of all ages can learn age-appropriate skills that give them a new perspective with which they can "read" their media culture.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates