It is unfortunate for the producers of PBS Frontline‘s “Digital Nation” that the Kaiser Family Foundation’s landmark survey results were released last week. I say this largely because “Digital Nation,” a 90-minute documentary on digital media use in the United States which premiered last night, did not provide much in the way of new information. My main takeaway was that young people use a lot of media, but this is something I already knew (and I would venture a guess the typical PBS viewer knew it too). The KFF results support much of what I and many others have believed for a long time, but perform the additional service of indicating through metrics just how wide the digital divide can be, and how much that divide has grown within the last five years. As “Digital Nation” presented interviews with MIT students, scholars and die-hard World of Warcraft and Second Life players talking about heavy media use, I couldn’t help thinking that this was all redundant. I get it; people are wired all the time. But what does it mean?

When I learned that that PBS Frontline was making ”Digital Nation,” I expected to see something covering the nation. Instead, we mostly saw New York City, Cambridge, parts of California and South Korea. I understand that South Korea was held up as a foil to media use in the US, perhaps even as a cautionary tale of where we could be heading: Internet Rescue Camps and classrooms of second-graders chanting songs about netiquette. However, there are so many more regions in the US which deserved treatment; I would rather have gotten a look at, for example, the ways that digital media is impacting rural areas rather than spend time on Korea. Other American communities I wish were covered include those which are impoverished, undereducated, underemployed or multinational.

As for what was covered in “Digital Nation,” the film was divided into halves. It began with education and learning, which included the segment on South Korea and also spent time speaking with people studying the cognitive effects of new media on the brain. This is where we learned that young people use an awful lot of media, and in some ways it distracts them from their studies, but in other ways using media may make students more focused. The second half covered gaming, and looked at the online and offline communities created in multiplayer games like World of Warcraft, and also how Second Life can be used to fulfill both personal fantasies and business meeting needs. Following this was a look at gaming and the military, and covered the use of video games as treatment for soldiers with PTSD, but also at the use of predator drones in war zones, a practice which is eerily reminiscent of playing video games.

None of these topics should be left out of an examination of our digital nation, but to cover essentially only learning and gaming leaves out a lot. Working in media literacy, as I do, I was disappointed to not hear media literacy mentioned once. There was also no discussion of how digital media influence our democracy, consumer habits, economy, physical health or interpersonal relationships. Right now, major decisions are being made about broadband access, net neutrality and the limits of free speech on the Internet, but none of that was included either. In all fairness, this is a tall order for a 90-minute documentary, and I do think that “Digital Nation” might have been better served as a series. I admire the work of Rachel Dretzin and Douglas Rushkoff, and I am positive that they could have provided valuable insight on the complexities of a digital culture if they had more time. I agree with Cathy Davidson of HASTAC that this is a transitional documentary, and I wish it were more than that. Still, could have/should have/would have does very little good, so as it is, “Digital Nation” is valuable as a snapshot summary of a thin slice of living in a digital world. You will probably see some things in “Digital Nation” that look familiar, but you will not get a comprehensive look at our digital nation.

–Emily Long

One example of a mission was, “How can fisherman only catch the kind of fish that they can sell?” The player on this mission would then work to solve the problem, perhaps by designing a new kind of fishing net, or by going out to talk to fishermen about the obstacles that keep them being more profitable while also sustainable. The player would then create a design using the game’s platform, and that design would be shared with the expert, who could potentially put the ideas into practice. Players earn points for missions, and can also work in “tribes” to collaborate on a mission–for example, a player who has chosen to play in Mexico City but who actually lives in India might do well to partner with someone with someone in Mexico. As players gain more points, they move up on the leadership board, and have the opportunity to win sponsor prizes. The difficulty also increases with the more missions players accept.

The director of The Ten Project is John Tattersall, who also administered the demo. He has filmed 16 seasons of “Survivor,” been nominated seven times for an Emmy in cinematography, worked with various philanthropic organizations throughout the world, having visited 90 countries and lived in 18.  He certainly has a great idea with Mega-City Hero, and hopes that it will be an after-school program in urban and rural schools all over the world. I personally love the empowerment it brings to young people to have an impact on their world, and the interaction between players and professionals who can use some of that creativity to work on problems in their city. I love that the kid in India and the kid in Mexico can work together and share ideas about how urban problems are solved or viewed differently in each of their countries. When we at The LAMP talk about working with teachers to integrate and explore new media in their classrooms, this is the sort of thing we’re talking about.

My concern is the territory of need that may prove an obstacle to the game being a success. In particular, I wonder about access. The teacher sitting next to me was saying how she loved the game but wasn’t sure if her students would be able to participate, because the game is Web-based and her school doesn’t have a decent Internet connection. In addition to needing the Internet connection, players also benefit from having access to things like digital cameras that they can use to present and share their ideas, and interact with each other across the globe. There is also the issue of how media literate the children and teachers are in a certain area. Low-income schools and communities may be able to get computers with government grants or philanthropic support, but the machines are useless if they are not also provided with the media literacy that is necessary for them to be productive, responsible citizens of the digital world. In his presentation, Mr. Tattersall spoke about wanting to engage squatter communities and slums with the game, but I’m not sure yet about how they would be able to do that without expensive equipment.

To be fair, Mega-City Hero is not going to solve all the problems of the world, nor does it intend to–I don’t think it was created to address or solve the issue of access or poverty. In order to have the greatest impact with the broadest spectrum of players worldwide, Mega-City Hero will need to incorporate organizations like The LAMP, One Laptop Per Child, Kiva and many, many more doing similar work in their countries. Truly, this is a project of gigantic proportions, and I think it is an incredible opportunity for young people to make a positive change and consider the impact they have on the world around them.  Because it is so large, it will move in baby steps at first in relation to the scope of the vision Mr. Tattersall described for us last night. Yet they will nonetheless be giant steps to a world of empowerment, creativity, understanding and growth.

–Emily Long

I seized upon the video game detail.  Whether or not video games are the direct cause of violence is difficult to know, and studies have been done which point both ways on the issue.  In the case of Nicholas Browning, there may have been other elements involved–relatives and friends told the defense psychiatrist that they had seen Nicholas being by parents, and that he and his parents abused alcohol as well.  Friends recall Nicholas venting a great deal of anger about his father, and that he joked about killing his family.  However, I think there is something to Nicholas’ recollection of being in a trance-like state on the night of the killings, and also to the reports that he was playing video games immediately before and after the killings as well as the day following.  Nicholas may have played video games every day of his life, so logging several hours in front of a console (his house had two) might not have been unusual, but that doesn’t weaken the point that the teen may have had an unhealthy relationship with video games.  It can be hard to distinguish between fantasy and reality, especially when video games are used as a retreat–the world you want to live in and the world you actually live in start to blur together.

In themselves, video games are not necessarily a bad thing, but like any other unchecked addiction, too much time spent with them can lead to trouble.  Nicholas Browning certainly represents a worst-case scenario; more often, video game addicts grow alienated from friends and family, or their health suffers from a sedentary obsession.  None of the above is acceptable, and it is just one reason why all of us here at the LAMP feel so strongly about media literacy.  If you’re worried about violence in your community, media literacy might not take away the guns but it can take away a lot of reasons for pulling the trigger.  Violence is glamorized in many aspects of popular culture–as a path to fame, fortune, strength, power, sex and more–and that has to stop.  It will stop when we demand that it stops, and not a minute sooner.

Help us in our mission to make New York City a happier and healthier place.  You can make a difference by sharing this post, or by making a small donation through the link to NYCharities.org at the bottom of your screen.  Thank you in advance for your support.

At first, this conclusion seems backwards.  When you kill another character in a game, you’ve eliminated your opposition, so you should feel a sense of victory, right?  And when you’re killed, it means you’ve lost, and what feels good about losing?  Dr. Ravaja theorizes that this is because even when we operate in a virtual world like a video game, our real-life sense of morality doesn’t entirely switch off.  Although we know intellectually that we didn’t really just kill someone, we feel a little bad about it.  When we die, we’re relieved from the stress of playing.

This was surprising to me because so much past research has suggested that violent video games desensitize a player, blurring the lines between a virtual world of no consequence and a real world where murder holds many, many consequences.  Like Dr. Ravaja, I’m a little relieved at the implication that gamers aren’t completely turned off when their games are turned on.  Given the fact that violent video games aren’t going to disappear, I find the new perspective to be somewhat comforting.