Flags of the European Union

Today, the European Union released a set of recommendations “on media literacy in the digital environment for a more competitive audiovisual and content industry and an inclusive knowledge society.” This follows a communication on media literacy released at the end of 2007, which was a first step towards creating a unified audiovisual policy across the EU as relates to media literacy in advertising, film and the Internet. And earlier this month, the commission released a report called Digital Europe, the findings of which included indications that people with lower education levels go online more frequently.

I’m happy to admit that all this news made me positively giddy, most specifically that the European Union is putting so much focus on media literacy. The reports rightly recognize that media literacy is a key to a stronger economy and more inclusive society, taking it far beyond the argument that it promotes Internet safety. (At The LAMP, we call it cyber wellness, as ‘Internet safety’ seems to immediately conjure images of danger that are not very productive.) I have personally found that this point is constantly invoked in the “selling” of media literacy here in America, and while there are many perfectly good reasons for this, increased Internet safety is not the only reason for media literacy. But, items about privacy invasion and harrassment invasion are picked up by the mainstream media faster than you can say ‘ratings,’ so that’s most of what people respond to.

With that, the thing I appreciate most about the recommendations made by the commission is its scope. I struggle to think of anything that has been ignored; the document addresses copyright law, the need for emotional understanding of media, advancement of European heritage and culture, media literacy as economic stimulus, media literacy as a means for building community, the need to preserve the health of the print media industry, and also emphasizes that adults and elderly adults also need to be media literate (not just young people).

All in all, it’s really pretty remarkable. Maybe that’s because I consider media literacy to be a serious passion, and my business. Maybe it’s because I was annoyed at reading that President Obama is appearing in a documentarywith Kelly Clarkson, and his remarks have no substance beyond telling kids to study hard. At moments like this, I feel like I live in some kind of Twilight Zone, where my part of the world exists on a plane that is totally different from where everyone else lives. (PS, I know I exaggerate here.)

Your call to action is to let your representatives know that media literacy is a priority. Write or call your New York City Council representative, New York State Senator, or, if you’re not in New York, reach out to  elected officials for your area. Tell them it’s time they started to see what legislators around the world see, and ask them to fund media literacy.

–Emily Long

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.

I’ll spare you a recap of the entire article, but let’s think about this concept for a second, and what might happen if it were to be instituted.  It would be nearly impossible to enforce this law, since as they say, on the Internet nobody knows you’re a dog.  Credentials and identities can be easily faked, as with the fake Steve Jobs blog.  Libel and copyright lawsuits follow, of course, and free speech is ultimately somewhat inhibited as a result, but in the end the efforts by a government body to regulate who can post what on the Internet is nothing more than a silly attempt at policing our intelligence.

It is up to us, the people who read blogs and otherwise surf the Web for content, to question the reliability of what we find.  When you read a scholarly report, it is expected  and suggested that you look at the citations and assess the source for yourself.  When writing a paper of your own, you’re expected to assess your own sources.  Why should it be any different for something you find on the Internet?

Regulation of the Web is a tricky topic.  A conversation about free speech online easily turns to online child pornography and material that seems designed with malicious intent, such as instructions for how to make a bomb.  (For the curious, see the results of a Google search for “free speech online” which results in over 10 million hits, and you can join the debate.)  In the end, however, it is and always should be our responsibility to ask questions about the things we see and read both on the Internet and in the real world.  It’s up to us to determine reliability and perform our own “due diligence” before accepting anything as gospel.  Perhaps the efforts of Mikko and the EU Parliament would be better spent by investing in media literacy and the critical thinking skills that go with it.

A Google search for “underground press” “iraq” yields little, but by no means does that indicate it does not exist.  (Not able to speak or read Arabic, I can’t search any native languages, and the search terms may also be too obvious.)  Wherever the underground press is, in whatever form, it is in our best interest for it to thrive online, and for the journalists, bloggers, vloggers and everyone else to be afforded any anonymity they desire for their safety and the safety of their families.  As they say, attention must be paid, and this applies not just to oppressed communities in the Middle East, but those in all countries. The discussion of global Internet freedom is a complex one.  It is no less complex than the issues surrounding freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.  But if we are truly in Iraq to promote democracy and freedom, we have to support a free media landscape.

You can’t hear it, of course, because they are so skinny, but the statement was loud enough when the lower house of Parliament in France passed a law yesterday which would make inciting “excessive thinness” a crime.  If the law passes in the Senate, then offenders could be punished with a fine of over $70,000 and three years of wearing the same clothes (pinstripe prison jumpsuits).

Although I abhor the marketing of rail-thin figures as ‘models’, I’m not sold on the value of this law.  For one thing, it seems a little vague.  What is excessive for one person may be healthy for another, and the only person who has the right to determine what is and isn’t healthy is a doctor examining the person in question.  (Milan got this right in 2006 when they decided to use a standard measuring tool, in this case, BMI.)  I also worry because inciting excessive thinness can easily be a side effect of a media message without being the message itself.  Consider an ad for Calvin Klein.  On the surface, the message they’re sending me is to buy their clothes, but under that, they’re telling me I need to be skinny to be sexy.  But, they may also be telling me that I need to have money, be heterosexual, be of a certain race or any other number of things, depending on how I choose to interpret the message.  Can we really start prosecuting people based on subliminal ad messages?  Would holding marketers accountable for every possible message mean an end to subliminal advertising, or would it just make the practice more refined? On the other end of the spectrum, is it fair to focus only on messages inciting excessive thinness and not look at messages that may incite excessive fatness?

Writing as someone who has zero experience with the law on pretty much any level, I do think this law can do some good if it is passed by the French Senate.  For one thing, it would make pro-an(orexi) a and pro-(buli) mia websites criminal because they advocate extreme and abusive attitudes towards health and body image.  The pro-ana and pro-mia sites wouldn’t shut down overnight, if entirely at all, but a strong measure denouncing them would still send a powerful message that a disease is to be treated, not touted like a pair of Jimmy Choos.  I would love to see models with a bit of meat on their bones at the next Fashion Week, or mannequins at the mall that, were they human, were of such proportions that they could stand without supports.  However, a law needs to be specific in naming the practices which it makes criminal.  Until then it’s fairly toothless as far as I can tell, with far too many loopholes.

I could write pages on this, and I won’t, but I do want to add that no matter what happens with the law against inciting extreme thinness, my biggest concern will always be with the culture of thin.  I don’t think realistic ads or models with a few more pounds are enough to stop a society from believing that thinner women are prettier women, but I am a supporter of holding people responsible for the messages they send–that’s why I hope the French law is revised in such a way that it is clear enough to really effect change.

Don’t miss this opportunity to make media a family affair!

So what does this have to do with us?  We’re writing on this now because French public radio/television workers went on a 24-hour strike yesterday in protest of Sarkozy’s ban, but it’s also a good time to check in about what exactly ads are for: revenue.  A world without advertising would not necessarily be a good thing!  Entertainment is a very important part of our popular culture, and it is largely fueled by advertising.  Sure, advertisers do a lot of things to make us want something, or even suddenly think we need something, but with media literacy you can make smart choices.  An educated consumer is a good consumer–and we are all, adults and children, consumers.  In my opinion, banning advertising creates more problems than it solves (see our earlier post about this).  The real answer is to understand the media around us.

One way you can do this is to sign up for our workshops starting this month at the Prospect Park Y.  Choose ‘Programs’ from the menu above for exact dates and times, and email info@thelampnyc.org to register.  Even if your child has taken a class before, he or she will undoubtedly learn something new the second time!

As of January 1 of 2008, the United Kingdom’s ban on ads for junk food on TV aimed at youth 16 and under came into effect.  The ban was instituted by Ofcom, the independent regulator authority for the commu nications industry in the UK.   (Click here to read about why some groups opposed the ban–you’ll be surprised!)The move was made in response to the growing rates of childhood obesity, but is an outright ban going too far?  Tell us what you think!