The buzz around the neighborhood here in Brooklyn lately has been about patrons of the the local branches of the Brooklyn Public Library visiting porn sites on the library computers.  No doubt this isn’t the only place where wrangling of the issues is happening.  

The issues in our local discussion have run the gamut from the importance of access to information for all, to how can we shield young children from seeing this in the library?, to why don’t the pervs (term used in local parents discussion list) do this at home?, to why should only those who can afford a computer at home be able to access porn, while those who can’t afford one be denied access to it?, to watching porn leads to masturbation in public and/or to rape, which allegedly occurred in one library branch, according to someone from www.SafeLibraries.org, who was interviewed in a story published this week in the Brooklyn Paper (www.BrooklynPaper.com).

 Wow, and that’s only a sampling of the issues that comes up.  There’s more.  What about accessing controversial information in a public place that receives government funds?  Where do you draw the line when vulnerable groups (children) could be harmed?  Who gets to decide?  What about free speech and freedom of the press?  All of these questions have been raised in the past with regard to hate speech.  So far, unless a direct link between the speech act and a harmful (i.e. illegal) behavior can be proven in a court of law, the speech must be protected.   

Hard to swallow?  Well, that doesn’t mean, in this particular case, that children in libraries must be forced to view porn.  Actions can be taken to sequester computer terminals in such a way as to make them hidden from view.  And underage youth can be (and are) monitored closely by library staff when on the computers.  All good ideas, and great compromises. 

I hate to use the cliche “slippery slope,: but that’s just what you’re on when designated deciders start deciding which speech acts in which venues to protect and which to bar altogether.  We’ve got a Patriot Act that closely monitors us now; we’ve got a sometimes much too cozy relationship between the press and government which leads too often to prior restraint.  We need to maintain our freedoms as much as we can as often as we can.  Thank goodness we have media forums that allow us to get the discussions going and keep them going, even if we don’t agree with each other.    

Don’t like porn?  Hate the use of women in many of the images and narratives?  I don’t blame you one bit.  I’d much rather talk and write about what I don’t like out there than call for censorship.  I do it already with my two very young children.  I think they appreciate it. 

Katherine 

I recently watched a new PSA airing on MTV.  It’s meant to make a point that young heterosexual women are the largest growing segment of the U.S. population becoming infected with HIV.  

You can check it out right here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ZBzMOV9Js  

My first reaction was to be really angry about it.  And that reaction hasn’t changed after two days.  In this PSA we’re taken from soft porn to almost snuff.  I get the point they’re trying to make, but instead of giving me something serious to consider, it makes me want to strangle the producers.  But I’m a much older woman than those targeted by this PSA.  I guess being much older gives me the breadth and history of seeing images of women where sex and violence (from men) come together, putting women in a completely powerless position (and how much more powerless can you get than dying?).  It’s a sequence that, culturally, we’re used to seeing.  I’m sure that’s why they thought it would make an impact.    I’m trying to imagine a similar type of commercial that might be used if the point being made was that young heterosexual men was the fastest growing segment of the population being infected with HIV.  

I can’t imagine the producers would merely switch the roles.  That wouldn’t work because we’re not used to seeing young beautiful women shooting young men after having consensual sex with them.  It would seem bizarre, and that’s what would stick with people, not the message about HIV.  But here, the message will likely stick–for those who aren’t critical about the gender and sex implications– because the imagery makes sense on some sort of ghastly, historically reinforced, culturally-relevant level.  I abhor the history behind these images as much as the images themselves.  

Katherine Fry 

Terms I like to use to describe the differences between young people and their parents when it comes to the use of digital technology are sociological/anthropological metaphors that are now used every day. The term digital “native” describes young people who have grown up learning and using digital technology. It is innate to them. Their parents, however, a generation (or two sometimes) ahead of them, are digital “immigrants” because their exposure to digital communication came later in their lives, even if they are now comfortable using many digital technologies. It is not innate to them, and some aspects are still often perplexing (like constant instant messaging, multitasking with various media, and the like).

Like all metaphors, “native” and “immigrant” in this case molds a way of thinking about how today’s very young and older generations differ from each other in the ways they communicate — which has everything to do with how they develop relationships, relate to the world and even understand who they are. The metaphors have become commonly accepted among media scholars and others who study new media and young people. The Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., just announced a lecture series on “Digital Natives” which I highly recommend because of the topics and the speakers. The first lecture will explore how young people think, learn and play. The title of the talk is “The Anthropology of Digital Natives” and will be delivered by scholar and child development expert Edith Ackerman, currently a visiting scientist at MIT. This lecture will be held Monday, April 7, at 4 pm.

Since many people can’t make it to the Library of Congress, the lecture will be streamed live at www.loc.gov (which is where I’ll be tuning in). I’ll be reminding you of all lectures as they near, but for a list of all the speakers, titles, dates and times, please visit http://www.loc.gov/kluge. This is an outstanding opportunity to hear from first rate scholars studying Internet communication and young people. And stay tuned for information about our own LAMP panel discussion about the Internet and young people coming up later this spring at a location here in New York City.

-Katherine Fry

Like everyone else, I’ve been focused on, and riveted by, the news of Governor Spitzer’s recent resignation and the events leading up to it.  The headlines, particularly in the New York papers, have gleefully blasted the whole debacle on the front pages in the past few days.  The pundits are going crazy with this one.  And it doesn’t look like it’s going to end very soon.  

While it’s difficult not to watch a train wreck in progress, I have to wonder about this story as news. What?  The champion-of-morality New York state governor gets caught participating in a prostitution ring, ending his political career, and that’s not news?  Certainly it is dramatic and timely.  It even has high consequence because the people of the state are experiencing the loss of this once-promising leader.  These news values–drama, timeliness and consequence–are touted by journalists as reason enough for an event to be considered news.  But while everyone’s busy chewing on this juicy bit, it’s helpful to consider another, less tantalizing perspective.  

This is ratings stuff, it’s high circulation stuff, it’s titillating and it makes money, but it’s not really that important.  We’re not paying close enough attention to the news that really matters to us.  What happened to the history-making Democratic primary?  What about the economy, and specifically Bush’s economic stimulus package and it’s consequences for the economy?  And how did the economy get to where it is today? Oh, and what about the war in Iraq?  

Anyone? 

Back in 1985 media scholar Neil Postman published a cross-over (from scholarly to mainstream) bestseller, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” which explained, elegantly and simply, how television had changed the cultural conversation from the age of print because of its strengths as a visual, high-stimulation medium and its weakness in discouraging logical thought, the kind of thinking encouraged by reading and writing.  Postman spent a good deal of that book and others decrying what the introduction of electronic media meant for news and for the health of the Democracy.  

While not everyone agrees completely with Postman’s dire observation–that we are, literally, amusing ourselves to death–I have to agree with him that when the major forum of cultural conversation turned from print to television, we saw a dramatic shift in news.  News has become that which makes good pictures.  It has become increasingly about entertainment.   As a news historian I’m well aware that news has always contained elements of the sensational, from print to the Internet, and there was NEVER a time when news was objective.  But in the age of electronic media we’re more easily swayed by bright lights and the drama of the moment (which happens to change moment by moment in this age of 24 hour news) than we were when we only had print sources to rely on for news and information.  

Today we have little time for information that isn’t sexy at all, but happens to be extremely relevant.  In short, the switch from one dominant mode of communication to another brings with it enormous changes that have political, social and cultural consequences.  The Internet is quickly becoming the new mode of conversation.  I wonder at how the news is being shaped differently now as the Internet supplants television.   

Politicians have always paid hookers for sex.  It’s not a good thing for anyone involved, but it’s always happened.  Wars, the economy, and broad-based social problems have always been there for citizens to work on.  Which of these are we encouraged to spend our time considering?  The news media aren’t just presenting us with what’s out there.  They’re making decisions based on a number of factors, including money and medium.  It’s good to be literate in all of the factors involved in shaping our news, and in shaping us.  And it’s good to start early.

Katherine Fry

Education Director

Given the recent posting about the Target ad, the recent discussion on the Park Slope Parents website about kids and commercials, and our upcoming LAMP workshop, “Make a Commercial/Break a Commercial,” for 7-10 year olds, I thought it would be a good idea to say a little something about advertising.  

An ongoing concern for many adults, mostly parents, advertising is considered by many to be one of the evils of our commercial media system because of its potential effects on children. 

There are lots of things to talk about when talking about ads on TV:

•  how they represent females and people of different ethnicities;
• how they encourage junk food habits;
• the subtleties of product placement in television programming that “naturalize” brand names within narratives, etc.

All of these are worth discussing at length.  

Some parents try to avoid these issues by banning television altogether, or at least commercial television.  While each family has its rules and its reasons, something I encourage is watching commercials with children (of all ages, though there is some evidence that children 5 and under can’t readily distinguish commercials from other types of programming on TV).  When you watch commercials with children you have a great opportunity to critique the methods of persuasion being used, especially in commercials aimed at them.  

Images, sounds and words are used in incredible combinations to attract and excite children about toys, food and lots of other goods and services.  By watching together and talking about why some commercials are appealing,  adults are given a chance to sharpen their own critical thinking skills, and children are given a terrific opportunity to learn from the adults around them.

And let’s face it, kids are surrounded by advertising everywhere, so even if they aren’t watching commercials, they’re exposed to advertising in all kinds of other places, indoors and out.  It’s best to give them sharp skills early.  With an adult’s help, TV can be a good teaching aid for kids.  

Recently, Bob McChesney, a leading media scholar, interviewed Sut Jhally, founder of the Media Education Foundation, about children and commercialization.  The discussion is about the larger issue of what it means to grow up in a commercialized world.  

You can hear the radio interview at: http://www.will.uiuc.edu/media/mediamatters080106.mp3 

And register your child for our Make a Commercial/Break a Commercial workshop at the Park Slope YMCA for 7-10 year olds, starting Monday, March 24th.

Katherine 

Education Director, The LAMP    

I was curious to see how Frontline would handle the issues surrounding teens and the Internet in their documentary “Growing Up Online” which aired last night.  I was pleased to see that the producers chose an even approach.  They didn’t try to scare parents, but they did make the point that children are growing up in a very different kind of world today, where their reality includes face to face and virtual worlds–both play a major role in how they socialize and identify.  

Without being preachy, they got across the message that parents need to try to see this world from their kids’ point of view and not rush to judgment and action out of fear alone.

• One of the parents who was featured was too intent on acting out of fear and ended up alienating her children.  
• Other featured parents were more open about how their children used the Internet, and, though filled with anxiety, were more open-minded.  In the end they (with the exception of one family whose child, sadly, committed suicide) had much more healthy relationships with their kids.  

The one critique I have is that the doc featured suburban kids for the most part.  I would love to have seen the inclusion of inner city, even rural, families featured.  Teens in those environments have different stresses and different issues to deal with everyday.  These include poverty, lack of parental guidance in some instances, violence and lack of substantive activities and/or support at home and at school. Their relationships with, and use of, the Internet might differ as a result.  

Realistically, I know that PBS was offering programming to their base viewership.  As a result, the program was targeted at that group.  

We invite you to go to the PBS site and watch and comment on the program  All of the issues included in “Growing Up Online,” including social networking, cyberbullying, loss of privacy, online predators, identity creation and the like are worthy of much more open discussion by parents, teachers and other adults WITH kids.  

I applaud the beginning of the conversation that this documentary offers.  We at the LAMP can continue the conversation here in the neighborhoods of Brooklyn.

Thanks for checking in,

Katherine Fry

Education Director, The LAMP