It seems media literacy (or the recognized need of it) has worked its way into the athletic departments of some major colleges. As this Associated Press article reports, the online profiles of college athletes are now being closely monitored, or, in some cases, banned altogether. This is all due to some troubles arising from questionable photos and video footage, as well as comments made by and about the athletes themselves. With Web 2.0, hard proof that the starting quarterback got drunk over the weekend is now available online. The locker room has been replaced with Facebook as the primary site for griping about coaches, and schools aren’t too happy about any of it. In response, some schools require their athletes to sign an “Internet ethics” policy, and others cover appropriate online behavior in their student-athlete handbook.

All of this is a bandage over the real problem, which is a lack of media literacy and plain old responsibility. Everyone, not just athletes, needs to understand the possible consequences of material that is posted online, and it needs to be taught beginning at a young age. Right now, few if any of the average college-age students have received any formal media literacy training, and one could argue that they make these mistakes because they weren’t carefully taught. Of course, knowing that a certain action could be hurtful doesn’t necessarily keep people from doing bad things–but at least they go into the situation with awareness, and they have no excuse but to take full responsibility for their actions.

When I was in high school, the athletic code was breached all the time but rarely enforced, even in the case where a student was found drunk by her father, who happened to be the coach of her gymnastics team. If that were to happen today, her father would have to stand up to the entire athletic department and explain why she should be exempt from punishment, even as a video of her drinking is playing on their computer screens. Accountability is always a positive thing, and it is a tough lesson that we must each take responsibility for what we do every day of our lives. People are people, and by definition we all make mistakes, but the Internet can completely change the lessons we learn from them.  Perhaps our mistake lies in not teaching students about the power of media, but the lesson–which some have not yet learned–should be that quick fix-it measures, like banning social networking or the signing of an Internet ethics policy, are not enough.

When advising MFA students producing video documentaries, faculty members in the Dept. of Television and Radio at Brooklyn College  have, for many years, cautioned strongly against copyright infringements within student works. They discouraged use of any part of previously produced media work, from a few bars of recorded music, to still images, to a few seconds of news footage.  For the most part students were commanded by lawsuit-fearing faculty members to steer clear of anything that might possibly be questioned at any point in the future by absolutely anyone interested in scrutinizing not-for-profit, student-produced films. 

I always felt the fear factor was higher than it needed to be, and that fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright code were not examined and discussed as widely as they should be among the students and faculty.  In part this is understandable because, as the Utne Reader’s recent online article, “How Fair use Got its Groove Back,” points out, fair use provisions are vague, and most of us in media education are encouraged to fear for our legal lives.  As a faculty adviser myself, I’ve been more liberal in my encouragement that MFA students include those few seconds of footage or that still image where it would help make an important point in the documentary.  After all, as author Julie Hanus suggests in the Utne piece, how can you engage in (very necessary) media criticism if you cannot invoke the media productions themselves?  It really can’t be done. 

Educators need to be bold, and need to challenge media producers as well as outdated copyright law itself.  After all, media scholar and producer Sut Jhally boldly challenged big corporate media when he produced his first video in the Dreamworlds series with the Media Education Foundation.  The Dreamworlds productions use clips from years of televised music videos to scrutinize the sexualized images of girls and women.  At first MTV went after Jhally, but their legal case essentially went nowhere.  It was a gigantic coup for media educators and critics, but it didn’t quell the fears of most media educators. Too bad.  Someone needed to take this on as a full-time project.  Especially now that digital media are fodder for so much more media, and so much more media criticism.

Now we have that project.  American University’s Center for Social Media (see their document “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use”) is taking on the whole issue of fair use and copyright law on behalf of media educators and artists.  People like the Center’s Patricia Aufderheide and Temple University’s Renee Hobbs are taking bold steps on behalf of those of us who are impassioned by the need for media literacy, which includes the need to use examples of media language to critique that language, with the goal of developing critical faculties among the youth and adults we’re committed to educating.  And that’s our commitment at the LAMP.

There’s a lot at stake here, and in this media saturated environment, we’ve got to be bold, not cowed.  We’re media literacy educators.  If we can’t take on big media ourselves, how can we possibly teach others to do the same?

–Katherine Fry

After his historic feat yesterday, Barack Obama prepares to give his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the United States in front of a reported 75,000 supporters. In a year of unprecedented accomplishments for a presidential election, the spectacle of a party’s nominee addressing his loyal pledges in such an open air manner seems almost a daunting moment of ultra-high expectations. Not just for the DNC, but also for the media covering it.

How does one capture such a massive gathering of political agents and spectators to be broadcast on the small screens of all those Americans tuning in from their living room? Surely, the organizers of this event considered the loss in translation of the scale they propose to the home viewers (and I’m sure, if they had their way, they’d have 10 times the attendees to see this speech). It makes me wonder if perhaps with all of the myriad media formats out there, that TV isn’t the proper way to capture this event. Perhaps somewhere in the new media that are emerging, a more appropriate medium (or mediums) exist. This sets a precedent for future acceptance speeches that should it be successful, generations to come may expect their party’s nominee to speak in front of live audiences this large (at least).

Who knows, there’s only the collective imagination stopping us from watching a presidential hopeful give us their leadership vision via Second Life.

The French broadcast authority announced today a ban on the marketing of television shows to children under 3 years old, citing developmental risks.  This is particularly bad news for infant-targeted cable television channels BabyTV and BabyFirstTV, who must also broadcast the following warning message: “Watching television can slow the development of children under 3, even when it involves channels aimed specifically at them.”

There has been much concern about the developmental risks of television for babies, especially since the American Academy of Pediatricians issued a policy back in 1999 which recommended that children under two watch no television at all (it should be noted that the policy has now expired, having passed its five-year mark).  Home videos such as Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby have long been under attack for their value, and some research indicates that far from doing good, watching these videos can actively harm a child’s language learning skills.

Let’s consider for a moment the fact that we live in a world where marketing to babies and creating entire television channels for them is real.  In this case the law addresses an issue of health, and not so much deplorable advertising techniques (such as marketing tobacco and alcohol products to minors).  It’s not the content that is necessarily found offensive, although that’s heavily implied.  In my reading, the backbone of the argument is the harmful effects of the medium in which the shows are delivered.  My guess is it will only be a matter of time before someone develops a “baby safe” television screen, and then we can really get to the core issues at play, like media literacy, parental guidance, ethics, obesity, education…I think we should stay tuned.

The Presidential Election is nearing a point where it will soon occupy most of our news media portals. Right now, we are on the precipice of the first African American presidential candidate announcing their candidate for Vice President. Following that will be a steamroll of activities (Democractic National Convention, then John McCain’s announcement of his VP, then the GOP Convention, and so on) that will be (if the candidates and news media alike have their ways) an endless chain of stories that culminates in the election of the next President of the United States.

Kids under the age of 18 may not be able to vote, but that doesn’t mean they can’t participate in the election. There are numerous online sites out there that provide activities to try to engage youth in the presidential election. I’m skeptical of the aims behind some of these sites that come from major media companies, as I am with most things that come innocuously packaged from media corporations (NBC’s olympic coverage has been the single, greatest branding exercise of any one event and period of time). That being said, I think that some of the election web portals for youth have a real opportunity to engage our children about the election as well as explore the ways media are used to wage presidential campaigns.

Enter scholastic.com.

They have launched an interactive presidential election hub that invites both educators and youth to discuss, explore and critique the 2008 Election. I invite you to do the same. I particularly enjoyed the Create a Campaign Poster under Games and Quizzes, where students are asked to use images and text to convey a political message.

Now that’s right up our alley…

My first love is mapping, as I spent a good portion of my professional life as a cartographer. I understand the power of maps - the ability to display information in a spatial manner that shows relationships, patterns, trends.

Alisa Miller from PRI did a video report on the way news is reported in the US. To say the least, it is illuminating. I encourage all of you to visit the link and watch. I know i plan on going back and rewatching it as soon as i post this.

The video can be found here.

Do we love to hate the villains? Or do we in fact, love them?

Isn’t Heath Ledger fascinating as the Joker in The Dark Knight? His make-up, his hair, his rasping voice, his devious plans - all scream ‘psychotic’ , and yet we are strangely drawn to him. If you ask me, and many will agree on this, he is more memorable than the Dark Knight himself. Why do we find a homicidal maniac endearing? Can this morbid attraction have larger consequences?

Movies have, since their birth, given plenty of opportunities for villains to
dazzle. So much so, that Norman Bates of Psycho remains a pop-culture icon to this day. His legacy will be continued by Hannibal Lector of Hannibal, Mr. Brooks of the movie by the same name, Anton Chigurgh of No Country for Old Men and many others who will be manufactured to continue this glorious tradition.

So, why did I root for the Joker? Firstly because I think portraying evil and menace so chillingly is no mean feat. Histrionic skills aside, the Joker was clearly sheer genius. He had a distinctive (and dark) sense of humor, no protective gadgets but a fearless persona nevertheless, he was fantastically clever (though completely evil), with a touch of sarcasm and lots of (bizarre) style. Smart, funny, brave, proud and stylish. What’s not to like? Batman himself was clearly deficient in many of these areas and having a cape, an armored car and an engineered voice didn’t exactly add to his charm.

I admit, I fell for the freak. And I imagine that I would have fallen harder if the Joker had been smarter and darker. But thankfully, I am not a Joker wannabe, and other than being good entertainment, the movie had little effect on me. What could a more innocent (or a more twisted) person learn from such movies? That the bad guys have more fun? That by terrifying people, they can make sure that the spotlight is always on them? That being sufficiently smart and wicked can guarantee them a spot on the early morning and late light news for a week?

That these movies glorify the anti-hero is apparent. But whether this portrayal is healthy or unhealthy is the subject of a long debate and a matter of personal judgment. If the makers of the movie aimed for packed crowds, they certainly got that. If they wanted their movie to be ‘most talked about’, they got that too. But remember, media effects are media effects, whether they are intended or not. We definitely don’t want such movies inspiring people to emulate psychopaths. The key is ‘detached  appreciation’, something that is perhaps easier for adults to understand. In an ideal world, we would watch these movies with the awareness of the neat line that separates  our world from Gotham, a line that separates reality from fantasy. We would be  terrified, intrigued and even impressed by the Joker, fully aware that these emotions  certain to a world and a person that does not, could not and should not exist. And at the end of the movie, we would leave the theatre with entertained minds and popcorn  flavored clothes, and the Joker would take his place with Godzilla, King Kong, Shrek,  Darth Vader, and Voldemort: the good and the bad in a different, non-existent world. This skill of separation and detached appreciation is what we need to pass on to our children if they are to appreciate entertainment happily and safely. Also, if there to see the Joker for what he really is: a joker.

–Radhika Ramesh

One of the best things about the John McCain ad  featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is the kind of response it’s gotten.  Paris’s mother spoke up briefly, but it’s the response from Paris herself that’s been getting a lot of attention.  Since it’s release about three days ago, her video has received almost 6 Million hits, and is indeed worth the watch.

Part of what’s wonderful about Ms. Hilton’s response is in the way she sends up political campaigning.  Her video is all about her public image, which is of key importance in any campaign.  She sends a clear message about the type of President she would be, speaks with conviction about her energy policy, invokes her love of the color pink, does her signature, “That’s hot,”and she also just happens to be caught sunbathing in a bathing suit and heels.  Barack Obama  and McCain have both  suffered from identity crises during the Presidential run, but Paris is clear.  We know who she is. 

More than that, her response loudly points out how ridiculous John McCain is for trying to draw a comparison between Barack Obama and herself.  In spoofing his ad, she shows it for exactly what it is: a really weak attempt to smear someone for being famous.  And let’s consider this for a second.  When you’re campaigning for President, aren’t you supposed to try to get yourself out in public as much as possible?  Don’t you want masses of people to like you?  I welcome Paris Hilton’s comic relief in all the media exhaustion that accompanies a Presidential election.  Maybe we should give some thought to that pink White House after all.

We’ve just received an invitation to host a table at Speaker Christine Quinn’s NYCyberSafety Summit at City Hall. The event will be this Saturday, August 9, and begins at 10am with speakers including our friend Rachel Dretzin, producer, writer and director of the PBS Frontline documentary, Growing Up Online. There will also be workshops for adults, educators and young people, covering topics such as online gang recruitment, how to integrate the Internet into the classroom, Internet safety laws and more. The LAMP will be side-by-side with Microsoft, Google, Symantec and other industry leaders helping families and educators learn how to have a safe and positive experience online. Click here for the flyer with more information, and we hope to see you on Saturday!

Here in New York City, after a resolution passed by the City Board of Health in 2006, you will find the caloric count listed next to most of your favorite fast food items on the overhead menus. The idea being that as long as you’re aware that the Double Whopper you’re about to order is almost 800 calories (alone, not including the large order of fries and soda you’ll most likely pile on), you’ll make your decision to proceed with or without your purchase informed and knowledgeable. I’m a big proponent of this measure because I theorize that it will cause a shift in the marketplace, where companies start offering more healthy options to their patrons in order to maintain their customer base (and perhaps even grow it). I don’t see the measure as going far enough, but I understand - baby steps.

The Associated Press recently reported on a study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) that explains how few nutritional options the average parent has to choose from for their children when they eat out. The center found 93 percent of 1,474 possible choices at 13 restaurant chains they examined exceed 430 calorie, which is apparently the recommended per meal number of calories for children. I was shocked to learn that there was in fact a recommended amount - my parents sure weren’t trying to stick to a caloric maximum when they were insisting I clean my plate. In fact, our family rarely ate out at fast food joints and restaurants because my parents recognized the indulgence and the poor healthy options offered. Which leads me to my point. Is this report from the CSPI really necessary? How many parents honestly think a meal that consists of deep-fried chicken fingers, deep-fried french fries, or a fried-cheese sandwich swallowed down with a sugary soda or juice could be anything but unhealthy? Instead of waiting for corporations to make the products they offer healthier, parents need to take a more proactive role in their child’s nutritional well-being.

This falls right in line with the LAMP’s goal, bringing families together through their consumption of media in order to make it a healthy and robust relationship rather than waiting for the media companies to make that decision for them.