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

In 2007, the FTC issued a set of guidelines that advertisers should give surfers the chance to opt out of having their data tracked by advertisers. Again, these were just guidelines, and not legally binding, thus empowering advertisers to regulate themselves, and in turn putting the onus on consumers. The report yesterday was a review of these guidelines, and mostly redefined the terms of what is considered behavioral advertising (for example, serving up an ad based on one search term is no longer considered behavioral advertising). However, it did nothing to address the issue of self-regulation, which, in the wake of the report, seems to be the thing most advocacy groups wanted the report to discuss. So really, not much has changed. Self-regulation can continue to remain at the bottom of an advertiser’s priority list, if that’s where they want it.

Should the FTC have a heavier hand in regulating advertisers and behavioral advertising, or should we, as consumers, take responsibility for what we do and don’t want to see? Some argue that if the FTC did more regulating, it could squelch an industry which is constantly moving and thrives on innovation. I see that point, and I understand that advertising is an important part of new media. However, I also think that nobody but me should be responsible for my media choices, and we all should know our rights as consumers. Right now, opt-out information is usually buried in fine print, demonstrating that advertisers still know the meaning of subtlety. I should be given the option of whether or not I want to be bombarded by ads when I’m just trying to search for directions online, and I think advertisers should have to give me that right and let me know my choices, loud and clear. The power to surf ad-free? Now, THAT’S innovation.

As of now, mtv.com is currently running ads and online content for shows such as “A Double Shot At Love With The Ikki Twins,” “Bromance,”  “The Hills” and any number of music videos that are highly sexualized.  So, wait–your kid is on mtv.com and you’re worried that they’re seeing an ad about Plan B? What about the depictions of casual sex, the objectification of women, drugs and alcohol, body image and relationships?

I am completely aware of the heated debate around sex education, early termination of pregnancies and abortion.  I respect viewpoints on all sides.  No matter what you as a parent believe about these issues, understand that your kids are already getting a plethora of mixed messages about sex from the media.  Maybe you’re not ready to have “the talk,” but there is another kind of talk you cannot delay, and that is about what your kids are seeing and doing online, what television shows they watch, the movies they see, the video games they play, etc.  I consider myself a fairly well-educated person, but even I am confused when a Plan B banner ad is running above a clip of the scantily clad Ikki Twins licking frosting off their suitors.  Again–you think the ad is the only thing wrong with this picture?

Bingo! This is what we here at the LAMP have said many times before in our workshops and materials: Media needs to be a family affair.  It’s not enough to set up filters; you have to actually talk to your kids about it and learn how to use it yourself.  Too often, I run into adults who look down on new technology as trivial or beyond their ability to understand, and the simple response is that it is not.  I think that we will look back on ourselves years from now, and wonder why we didn’t act sooner.  Schools also have to take the step towards utilizing new media in their lessons, and in tandem with this, administrators and federal funders need to make this possible by allocating money.  Stringent rules (like blocking YouTube from all NYC public school computers) are not the answer–an attempt to standardize something so complex as the Internet does not benefit anyone.

In my view, much of the antagonism adults feel towards new media has been created by sectors of the media itself.  It’s true that online predators exist, and that hateful and inappropriate material floats around in cyberspace.  What’s also true is that these stories are generally reported with more frequency than the positive things that happen with the Internet.  Unfortunately, however, fear of the unknown has prevailed, enabling big media to own the way we view things and turn our heads.  My hope is that the MacArthur report will reach educators and adults who are are paralyzed and overwhelmed by new media, and help them wake up to change and new responsibility.  If you have children, you’re already at an advantage to learn–have them teach you.  You might be surprised.

It’s true that you can’t trust everything you read online, and we at the LAMP encourage our students to ask questions rather than take something at face value.  However, you also shouldn’t trust something in print just because it’s in print.  In fact, I would argue that in some ways you should be less trusting of print news than of web news, all for a little thing called the hyperlink.  When I read a news story online, I love it when every claim made by the author is backed up with a hyperlink which brings me to the source of the information, because it helps me make my own decisions about what I’m reading.

Let’s make an example: Suppose Jimmy Journalist claims that yesterday the sky was green and the grass was blue in Boise, Idaho.  To me this sounds crazy, and I’m inclined to ignore it, until I click on the hyperlink attached to the claim and see for myself that the source he used is a highly respected professor who is able to explain, from a scientific perspective, how and why this phenomenon is possible.  I still don’t have to believe it, but I have respect for the fact that the journalist made his reporting transparent enough that I can check things out for myself.  Imagine if William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer had to use hyperlinks when writing about the destruction of the Maine.

Therein lies part of the problem–nobody is required to use hyperlinks today.  Most articles I read in online versions of print newspapers (like the New York Times) do not link back to their sources.  This makes sense sometimes, as not all sources are from the Internet, but in most cases there is something online that can be used to back up a claim.  As far as I know, it’s never been standard practice for newspapers to include complete bibliographies for every article I print, but I wish it was.  Until then, long live the hyperlink, and journalism that makes use of it.

Summer Vacation 2008

Originally uploaded by merfam

As our Education Director, Katherine, heads out of the city on a long car-saddled road tour of our western landscape, it brings to mind the storied tradition of the assignment that usually awaited students on their first week back into school:

An essay describing what they did on their summer vacation.

When I authored these reports in my youth, they were exclusively written down on a sheet of paper, and then read in front of a classroom. I might even bring with me small trinkets and mementos that I could display for my audience that would aid in illustrating my adventures, but that is as fancy as i would get. Nowadays, there are so many incredible ways a student could tell the story of their summer. I’m curious if there are in fact teachers, parents or even students who spend their months off by capturing them via a blog, or a video camera or even a digital sound recorder, who will then later share this interactive presentation with their classmates.

Man, just thinking about that kind of report makes me wish I was on summer vacation.

p.s. Let us know by e-mail if you give or receive an assignment like this: dc@thelampnyc.org Happy Summer!

I myself am not a particular enthusiast of typefaces and fonts, but a very smart review of FontStruct recently appeared in slate.com by Jason Fagone, who is a typeface enthusiast.  The article is well worth reading, commenting as it does on the role of typography in history and the power of how letters are designed, not to mention yet another Web 2.0 community that may one day be comparable to YouTube.

And if you ever doubted the power of typeface to send a subliminal message, take a look at this–if nothing else, it’s good for a chuckle.

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