Posts Tagged ‘media’

Blog Action Day: Media Literacy and Climate Change

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

I was thrilled to see that the cause for this year’s Blog Action Day was climate change–it’s something all of us at The LAMP hold very dear. Last March, we participated in and helped promote Earth Hour, a campaign encouraging individuals and cities to turn off all their lights for one hour to raise awareness about climate change. Of course, this is great, and it’s an effective visual way to demonstrate the power that a simple act can have on the environment when people work together for a common purpose. But one thing puzzled us–during the hour, people were asked to email and call friends and share their Earth Hour experience with them. What about the power used by those devices?

It’s easy to ignore the impact media has on the environment. A lot of us are guilty of leaving our cell phones in the charger long after the battery has fully charged, or of leaving computers on overnight, or of leaving the television on when nobody is watching it. However, our phones, computers, televisions and gaming systems can also be huge energy hogs–for example, around 2/3 of the energy used by mobile devices is the result of them being fully charged but idle in their chargers. Video gamers may use as much energy in one year as the entire city of San Diego. In August 2009, 60 Minutes reported that Americans throw out roughly 130,000 computers every day, and about 1 million cell phones every year. Even when e-waste is earmarked for recycling, it may have to travel thousands of miles to be processed.

In addition to forgetting to turn things off, it’s easy to fall prey to marketers whose business depends on convincing you that you NEED a hot new phone (even though yours works just fine) or that you NEED a more high-powered computer. When you do decide to buy a new gadget, how closely are you evaluating the impact it has on the environment? Not all gaming systems are equal, many of the materials used to make electronic devices have to be shipped from other countries, and something with a shorter battery life will need to be charged more frequently.

This is where media literacy comes in. One component of being a more literate media consumer is that you understand the media choices you make, and this extends to making thoughtful media purchases. Our addiction to electronic devices uses up a lot of energy; the IT industry emits as much carbon dioxide as the aviation industry. It’s difficult to underplay just what that means.

In response to this, The LAMP has been hard at work developing and seeking funding for a program which would use media literacy to address climate change, explore how our media choices impact the environment, and devise ways we can each minimize that impact. We also accept recycled equipment to use in our workshops, so if you decide you want or need a more souped-up Macbook or camcorder than what you currently have, you can send us your old one.

Meanwhile, remember that even though our digital devices can do an awful lot of cool things, when used thoughtlessly they can also do the opposite.

–Emily Long

LAMPcamp – Day one

Monday, July 13th, 2009

Circle_2

When we walked into the room, the first thing we thought was “Oh my goodness, so many kids!” Originally, we had contracted to do LAMPcamp for the Prospect Park YMCA, we had figured on 12-15 kids (even split between boys and girls). Well, the room was brimming with 29 future LAMPers who looked at us with a little confusion. We didn’t have much time so we started right in (and so much we hoped to accomplish on our first day), passed out their LAMPackets for the week and moved everyone into a circle.

Circle_8

We showed them some basic interview techniques and then handed them the camera. They were supposed to switch back and forth interviewing the person seated next to them, then handing off the camera, and going around the circle. With so many kids, we pulled out another camera and got the other side involved in the same activity.

Circle_3

And even while this was going on, we still had kids idling doing nothing. So we chatted them up. Asking them about all sorts of things regarding media: Facebook vs. MySpace (“MySpace is so boring” “Facebook is for adults” etc.), Sidekicks vs. Smartphones (They all decided that DC’s phone needed a massive upgrade), TV vs. hulu/youtube/limewire (“Why would you need to listen to the song on your phone when you can get it for free at limewire?”), etc. Finally, we made it through the opening interviews, which meant it was time for our Media Scavenger Hunt.

Once out on the street, the LAMPers really engaged with the urban environment, trading off taking pictures and videos of different instances of media they encountered. Scav_6 And because we had such a short period of time to work with, we really had to cut short the full exploration. But every single kid had the exact same thing to say at the end of the Hunt: “I never realized how many advertisements and media there are in the neighborhood before we stopped to look today.” Score!

We broke into smaller groups (2 boy groups, 2 girl groups) and discussed the media projects each group will be working on for the rest of the week. Here we’ll really be able to engage in a deeper exploration and conversation about topics that really interest them. We’re looking forward to what these obviously creative LAMPers will come up with.

Some of the best lessons and interesting experiences from the 1st day:
- On the Scavenger Hunt, our LAMPers found a bodega that had a wall panel overflowing with cigarette ads (who didn’t know why they’d never seen a cigarette ad on TV), sitting next to another panel that was advertising NY State’s “Quit Smoking” campaign.

- When we broke into girls-only and boys-only groups, one of our male LAMPers asked why we did. It was stated to allow us the opportunity to explore topics and to talk about things that we don’t feel comfortable saying in front of the opposite gender. He replied “I don’t act differently around girls.” Really? Don’t you say things with other guys that you don’t say in front of girls? “Oh, yeah, i guess i do.”

- During a short discussion about “What defines a guy?”, after answers like “your father, your brother, your uncle, etc.” we got ‘Michael Jackson’. Someone replied to that “Michael Jackson ain’t a man, he talks like a girl.” Many were quick to defend Michael but it also led to an incredibly rich discussion about what makes a “guy” (deep voice, big muscles, anger, etc.) and how did they derive this image.

Already we can see that time is a very precious commodity, and we have so much to accomplish by the end of this week. On Wednesday, we’re getting a presentation from Daniela Capistrano on her work at MTV, and then we’re going to break back into our small boys/girls groups and really get to cracking on our media projects.

If any of you would like us to explore anything in particular with our LAMPers, leave us a comment on this site or drop as a line on Twitter: @thelampnyc

Catch ya on Wednesday!

Again With the Susan Boyle Youtube Video

Sunday, April 26th, 2009

Oy.  I finally sat and watched the entire Youtube video of Susan Boyle performing recently on ‘Britain’s Got Talent.’  I had to.  I’d been reading about it all over the Internet.  Well, actually, I’d been reading comments from fellow media scholars on a listserv.  I try to shield myself from some forms of popular culture as long as I can.  I actually never watch American Idol or related programs.  But that doesn’t mean I’m some sort of pop culture snob.  I love the show “Brothers and Sisters,” and one TV season, years and years ago, I was absolutely hooked on a segment of “The Bachelor.”  It was like watching an amazing train wreck.  But I digress.

Susan Boyle certainly does have talent.  Her voice is beautiful.  Everyone was buzzing about her and especially about the video of her surprising the studio audience and panel of judges who, by the rolling eyes and snarky comments during her introduction, were expecting a train wreck of sorts themselves.  That she surprised them is quite an understatement, by the way.  They were shocked that a woman of her age, who looks the way she looks, could sing…. really sing.

The obvious comments here are that we should all be ashamed of that audience and those judges–and ourselves–for assuming that those who deserve to win on a TV program showcasing artistic talent should be physically beautiful by the standards set by over 100 years of visual media.  That we should never again assume that someone–a woman–who is 47 (gasp!) should dream of hitting it big through her talent and determination, despite the fact that she looks so completely like someone’s ordinary, middle aged mom.  Shame on all of us for our superficiality and our emphasis on a woman’s looks and youth.  We’ve all learned our lesson.

Of course, we haven’t.  That’s why this video has been given so much buzz.  Susan Boyle’s appearance on British TV, and her subsequent big win, will fade away quickly and she will be replaced on the program with more young, skinny, booby, plastic women who may be able to sing a little, but who don’t have nearly the raw talent that she does.

But all of that is not really what I was wrapped up in as I watched the video.  Though angry with Simon Cowell and all the rest of them for that matter, I was mostly amazed at the very fact of the video.  Who set up  those cameras that focused on Susan?  There was at least one backstage and one on-stage.  Why do we see such deliberate, focused footage of her backstage before she goes on?  And who were those guys waiting back there with her? Do all of the participants get the same coverage?  It all seemed a bit rehearsed to me, like a dramatization of an actual event.  Or the staging of a would-be event.  And what about that song, “I Dream A Dream?”

I’m not saying it was a dramatization of a would-be event.  Clever editing can create the illusion of events that didn’t exactly happen the way they are presented later on Youtube (or any other video venue).  There was something weird about those first cut-away shots to the audience and the panelists.  We were all visually set up to be surprised by the amazing transformation of this ugly duckling into a beautiful swan once she opened her mouth.

But as one media scholar pointed out, it wasn’t actually she who was transformed.  It was us, the audience.  She stayed the same.  We were transformed from a culture/media-shaped expectation that she would embarrass herself because she wasn’t physically fit to be on that stage, to an audience appreciative of her talent IN SPITE OF her physical shortcomings.  

This video on Youtube made us all into fools.  Or did it?

 Today’s New York Times Styles section article about Susan Boyle just put us right back into our naughty, looks-obsessed ways.  The article deals with the necessity, even the science, of stereotyping, and how snap judgments are made about people, things and situations because it has some sort of survival value that goes way back in time.  No room for history here.  In that article, Susan Boyle herself is quoted as saying that, with regard to people judging you on your looks, “There’s nothing you can do about it.”

All of this ignores how we’ve been shaped by our media.  To make a short point from what could be a very long diatribe, visual media such as television (and digital extensions like Youtube) have been training us for years to value appearance so that it becomes center stage.  Ask any young (or old) woman and she’ll tell you,  the pressure is on to look not just good, but hot.  

It wasn’t always that way.  Really.  Maybe that was a long time ago.  But Susan Boyle and her beautiful voice are around right now.  Let’s see how long we give her visual media attention that’s NOT ultimately about how she looks.  Oh, that’s right, we never did.

–Katherine G. Fry

In the Absence of Access

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

In LAMP workshops on the news, we encourage our students to constantly ask questions about what they see and hear.  We want them to think about why a story is being reported, why certain adjectives might be used in describing what happened, what are the facts and how do we know what is true, why certain images are run with the story, and so on.  In order to understand the news in any form, it is also key to consider the source. Sources can be biased due to personal experience or for business reasons, and sometimes sources are even paid. However, recent events in Gaza got me thinking about another side–what happens when there is no source?

Media are most usually barred from an event or place for political reasons, as they famously were during the Buddhist monk protests in Myanmar during the summer of 2007.  In this situation, news often comes from citizen journalists who somehow manage to break through established barriers. Even then, however, the number of people who can report are limited, as walls are made greater and stronger by officials charged with restricting media and press freedom. A tree falls in a forest, even if no one is there to see it, but the report that follows is vastly different from what can be provided by an eyewitness account. All we have left to look at is the event that already happened, forcing the reporter to act as a detective with only a few solid facts to use. Example: Almost any news story from Guantanamo.
As mentioned earlier, this is happening right now in the Gaza strip, with Israel barring journalists from entering the battleground. The international news is dominated by Gaza, and yet nobody is there to tell us what’s happening. Israel claims that some of this is tactical, as they fear the media would allow Hamas to see too much of their military operations, thus compromising their efforts. There is evidence to back this up, as the media spoiled rescue efforts of the Jewish hostages in the 1972 Munich Olympics, and television has been blamed for assisting terrorists in the recent Mumbai attacks.

Freedom of press relies upon unfettered access. That is without debate. Nobody likes it when someone tells them that they just don’t get the right to know about something, like right now when we don’t get to know about Gaza. The question of whether or not the public needs to know, or has a right to know about everything that happens everywhere in the world, is a slippery one. But, it all comes back to the central point that when watching the news, we have to consider how we know what we know.

Poverty and the Media

Wednesday, October 15th, 2008

In our news workshops, we talk a lot with our students about how the news is made.  One thing we discuss is why some stories get lots of  coverage, and others get none at all–essentially, what is traditionally considered news and what is not.  The lesson that “if it bleeds, it leads” is not an easy one, especially when there are so many other important stories out there which also deserve the level of urgent reporting that is afforded to a story about a car crash.  So, on Blog Action Day, when we’re asked to consider poverty, think about it: How often does poverty make the news?

With this in mind, I started doing some research and found that the answer is, for the most part, not very often.  Poverty is an ageless problem, and like AIDS or cancer, it’s hard to imagine it being eradicated.  There have always been poor people in the world, and we know that, even if we don’t all have to think about it every day.  Generally, we’re not interested in the news media telling us something we already know, and so the challenge becomes making an old issue newsworthy right now.

We have seen that this is no minor feat. Before he confessed to the media about cheating on his wife, John Edwards was one the most prominent Americans especially devoted to the issue of poverty in our country.  In May, he announced the Half in Ten campaign to cut poverty in half ten years from now, and embarked on a three-day tour of some of America’s most impoverished communities.  As reported by journalist Peter Dreier, only one major newspaper covered the event in Philadelphia where the campaign was unveiled, perhaps because it was drowned out by news of Edwards’ pending endorsement of Barack Obama.  The 2007 poverty tour got more coverage, happening as it was during the North Carolina senator’s campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.  In both cases, we have to wonder if John Edwards or poverty was the real story.  If John Edwards runs a 2009 poverty tour, will the coverage be about the issue, or will it be about a fallen politician trying to restore his career?  (Let’s also not miss the irony that coverage was minimal when Edwards was trying for change that actually affects our lives, but coverage on his private life was top priority.)

As I continued to look at poverty in the media, I realized that perhaps an even greater issue may be the way that poverty is represented.  Impoverished individuals and nations are often portrayed as “the other,” making it hard for us to relate to them or otherwise be inspired to help.  There also exists the pervasive stereotype that poor people are a class of uneducated, unemployed, lazy addicts who may even be abusing the federal welfare system paid for by our tax dollars.  When statistics about poverty are presented, it’s easy to feel that the problem is so overwhelming that it is totally out of our hands.  Giving up is simpler.  Move on to something more manageable.

And, unfortunately, this is true.  The problem of poverty is not something one of us can fix on our own, and it isn’t manageable if only one person is addressing it.  But when we all work together, the fight against poverty is one we can win, and one that must be won.  If you think you’re not affected by the fact that, as of 2007, 37.3 million Americans are at or below the line of poverty, then think again.  When massive amounts of a population cannot afford permanent housing, basic healthcare or food for their families, we are all at risk.  Microloans, like those given out by the Grameen Bank, have proven effective–58% of Grameen Bank borrowers have been lifted from poverty.  Poverty is a huge problem, but you do have the power to make a difference.  Visit the Blog Action Day website for organizations to which you can make a donation, or, if you can’t spare the money, take time out to volunteer.  Work at a soup kitchen or food pantry, donate clothes and blankets to the homeless, build houses, help out at a free clinic–the possibilities are endless, and they won’t cost you a dime.  I like volunteermatch.org and idealist.org for volunteer opportunities, but there are several websites that can help.  Perhaps years from now, poverty will be a thing of the past.

Photos from our Family Media Scavenger Hunt

Monday, July 14th, 2008

On Saturday, July 12, the LAMP held its first Annual Family Media Scavenger Hunt in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park.  Families gathered together to go on a hunt for media in their neighborhood, taking the time to think about and break down media messages they see every day.  Many of our participants were surprised with what they saw when they stopped to look at their surroundings in a different way.  Afterwards, the group enjoyed lunch, discussed their findings, and a raffle was drawn for some amazing prizes.  Visit our flickr page to see photos of the fun!

The Newseum

Saturday, July 5th, 2008

Davin Hutchins over at the American News Project did a recent video exposé on the brand spanking Newseum in Washington, DC. It’s pretty critical of this multi-million dollar facility that celebrates the 1st Amendment and calls itself the “World’s Most Interactive Museum”. I haven’t been to it yet, but I’ve heard from those who have that it is overwhelming, but not captivating. Even though it is heavily sponsored by big corporate Media companies, it has an admission fee of $20, which seems prohibitive when a museum like this should be open to all comers.

Check out the video over at American News Project site and feel free to offer us your comments if you have in fact visited the institution.

The Mouse is Mightier than the Sword

Thursday, June 26th, 2008

In his contributing article in the Opinion section of today’s New York Times, Daniel Kimmage calls for the use of a different kind of weapon in the war on terror: Web 2.0.  While researching a report for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty which was released in March 2008 on jihadist media, Kimmage discovered that Al Qaeda’s grasp of user-generated web content is tentative at best.  He suggests that we do whatever we can to encourage increased Internet freedoms in areas targeted by the terrorist group, saying, ”There is a simple lesson here: unfettered access to a free Internet is not merely a goal to which we should aspire on principle, but also a very practical means of countering Al Qaeda. As users increasingly make themselves heard, the ensuing chaos will not be to everyone’s liking, but it may shake the online edifice of Al Qaeda’s totalitarian ideology.”

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.

The definition of irony?

Friday, June 20th, 2008

Whenever I encounter a criticism of the media by the media, I become IMMEDIATELY skeptical. Seems such a one has landed in my RSS Reader. I subscribe to well over a dozen blogs and journals that touch on some aspect of media literacy. One of my favorite (and oft-cited here) urls is Ypulse. It does a fantastic job of accumulating posts from other sources about our youth and media. Most times, it typically gives a little blurb about the article they’re highlighting and lets the reader figure out their own opinion on it. Sometimes, they editorialize. And, sometimes the editorial gets it wrong.

Such is the case with their link of the news that Jamie Lynne Spears (younger sister to Britney) has finally had, at the age of 17, her much discussed and anticipated baby. Ypulse takes the opportunity to use this announcement as a way to address the recent discovery of a pact made between a large group of teenage girls in Gloucester, MA to purposely get pregnant. They take the stance that part of the reason this pledge was made at all was because of all of the recent coverage of celebrities (and in the case of Jamie Lynne, underaged) glamorously caring their babies to term. They back this up with the MTV article, and then follow it with a link to a CBS News report on the pregnancy sorority. The article is loaded with assertions that have no academic data to support, but what’s worse is CBS’ inability to point the finger at themselves, and report as if they were independent of their own network’s celebrity-glamorizing programming.

This segment particularly grabbed my eye:

Of the students who are pregnant in Gloucester High now, Ireland speculated to Chen, “Maybe they felt lonely or something.” She agreed that Hollywood attaching glamour to teenage pregnancy may also have had something to do with the situation.”

Is it just Hollywood who’s attaching glamour to teenage pregnancy, or is the Tiffany network at fault too?

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License