That’s when I realized that being media literate involves a whole lot of nothing. Literally, no thing. I don’t mean in a Buddhist “Everything is no thing” kind of way. (I wouldn’t go from zero to zen on our first blog trip together.) It’s that reading media messages requires noticing what’s not the thing we’re supposed to be noticing. What are you not seeing, hearing, reading? Who’s been left out? Or at least pushed to the sidelines?

"He Can No Longer at the Age of 98" by Francisco Goya

It’s much like the concept of negative space in art which the Getty Museum summarizes this way: “The area around the primary objects in a work of art is known as negative space, while the space occupied by the primary objects is known as positive space.”

For example, in this drawing (left) by 19^th-century Spanish painter Francisco Goya, the disproportionate amount of negative space accentuates the figure’s vulnerability and isolation.  So the negative space helps the artist express something he wants us to know or feel about the primary object–the positive space–which is the man.

Okay, so that’s fine for paintings, but how does that help us read media messages? In this iconic 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson presidential campaign commercial, the camera is trained on a little girl counting the petals of a daisy she’s plucking. The negative space here is the sky around her head, possibly also the trees and flowers. Since the girl takes up much of the positive space, she’s more important than anything else in the frame. Now if we go a step further in identifying the negative space, we could say it includes adults, the city, all that isn’t children or nature. Take that one step further and consider what children and nature mean: purity, innocence, goodness, that which we want to protect.

Still from the 1964 Lyndon Johnson campaign 'daisy ad,' created by Tony Schwartz

So what is not in the picture increases the importance, and the value, of what is in the picture. Once she’s counted to ten (not exactly in order, but she’s multi-tasking so we’ll cut her some slack), a male voice begins an eerily familiar countdown. The camera zooms into the girl’s eye and dissolves into the harrowing silhouette of a mushroom cloud. While the explosion is the primary object in that frame, it’s contrasted with the primary object first established–the simple sweetness of a little girl in a field of daisies, the picture of innocence, peace, hope. Even without the soundbites of Lyndon B. Johnson and narration giving the political context, the message is clear. Daisy girl, and those who prioritize her: good; atom bomb, and those who prioritize arms and the military: way bad.

In a mass media universe, the primary objects tend to be the people, ideas and practices that align with the dominant culture. In this case, a little white girl picking daisies illustrates purity and innocence. Now, what if this little girl was black? Or in a wheelchair? Would we only think “innocent” or would we also think “poor” or “helpless?” And how might that influence the impact of the message?

It can be so hard to notice the negative space of our mainstream messages and what’s missing from the public eye, that one filmmaker decided to make what’s missing actually go missing. Director Sergio Arau highlighted the invisibility of Mexicans in America by making them truly invisible in A Day Without a Mexican, a mockumentary in which all Mexicans mysteriously disappear from California overnight. The non-Mexican characters, especially those who unconsciously rely on Mexican labor, only notice how vital a role our Latin neighbors play in daily life when there is no one there to cook the food, work the farms, pick up the children. The invisible become visible by becoming invisible. And by doing so, the hope is that the invisible can take up positive space, moving from the margins towards the focus of our media, our awareness, and our communities.

And whereas in artistic terms, the “negative” in “negative space” doesn’t necessarily mean derogatory, in a mass media context, by repeatedly making someone or something missing or secondary, we convey that the person or thing is less valuable, less desirable, or just doesn’t belong.

Often, what’s chosen to be primary objects in the media tap into social and cultural beliefs which are so ingrained that noticing them can be like asking a fish to describe the feeling of water. Men in leadership positions, wealthy people who are white and straight, women as caregivers…the list could go on for days. Naming the communities, ideas and realities that typically inhabit the positive space while acknowledging that which is relegated to the negative space of our media landscape may feel uncomfortable, pointless or just mean-spirited. I’d suggest this comes from a primal human impulse to belong–we don’t want to seem critical and be out of step with the mainstream, with the world we’ve always known. Back in the day, when we roamed with our tribes, not belonging meant no food, no shelter…until finally, curtains for the outcast.

"Rosie the Riveter" in WWII morale-boosting ad

Until we acknowledge what’s missing in the messages and images we encounter every day, those people, ideas and practices will remain invisible and less than. The result? Those who are unrepresented must work harder to become empowered to take up space in their own lives and communities. Those negative space ideas and practices don’t gain a foothold to become worthy of mainstream exploration or resources. Consider how we’d feel about women in the workplace, let alone the women themselves, if the image of Rosie the Riveter never existed.

Taking a cue from paintings, if we begin seeing the people and ideas that typically inhabit positive and negative spaces in the media as complementary and then see complementary as meaning equally valuable, interchangeable, we might become more flexible in our thinking and in our lives. A Latina at the head of a boardroom table in a magazine ad for JPMorgan Chase, a white father grocery shopping in a Cheerios commercial, a differently-abled person playing the summer blockbuster Rom-Com lead… the obstacles to these becoming common symbols in the media are real and pervasive.

So perhaps the first step is in our imaginations, and in our willingness to put on media-literate goggles and ask, “What’s the primary object here? Why should that occupy the ‘positive’ as opposed to the ‘negative’ space? What makes it more important than what’s left out or secondary?” It’s when we start asking these questions that we liberate our minds. By questioning what’s given, considering whether we agree or disagree, deciding whether these values support the world we desire, or help us wake up to what’s important, we can imagine alternatives that don’t yet exist. We can find the inspiration and the courage to take action in some way: to voice dissent, demand different versions of our world than what we see in the media, become more empowered members in our communities.

–Angela Martenez

Angela Martenez is a non-fiction writer, documentary maker and community mediator. Follow her on Twitter: @AngelaMartenez

Cartoon by Sam Milai for the Pittsburgh Courier

In honor of Black History Month, The LAMP dedicates February’s Gaslight to African American pioneers in news media.

February 3, 1947: Percival Prattis becomes the first African American news correspondent admitted to the press galleries of both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition to his work as a journalist, Prattis was a civil rights leader working to advance the African American press. A veteran of World War I, Prattis joined the Pittsburgh Courier in 1935, became editor in 1956 and retired in 1962. He has been noted for his ability to unify black newsmen behind the fight against discrimination of African Americans in the press, particularly in the years around World War II. Prattis’ ability to directly observe Congress allowed him to report on government proceedings with firsthand knowledge of events, and he could apply his unique perspective as an African American veteran and leader of the early movement for civil rights.

February 8, 1944: Before Percival Prattis integrated the Congressional news galleries, Harry S. McAlpin integrated the Washington press corps when he became the first African American admitted to a White House press conference. McAlpin was advised against going to the press conference by Paul Wooten, reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune and President of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA). Wooten informed McAlpin that he was not welcome in the press conference, that he would be given the notes taken by others in attendance for use in his reporting, and was told he could join the WHCA if he agreed to stay out of the press conferences. However, McAlpin attended the conference in the Oval Office anyway, and made a point of stopping by President Theodore Roosevelt’s desk. The President shook his hand and said, “I’m glad to see you McAlpin, and very happy to have you here.”

Malvin R. Goode

February 13, 1908: This is the birthday of Malvin R. Goode, who became the first African American television news correspondent for ABC in 1962. It happened that the lead ABC correspondent was on vacation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Goode was called upon to report in his absence. His 1995 obituary in the New York Times notes that Mal Goode was recommended to the position by his friend Jackie Robinson, and anchor Peter Jennings considered him a mentor. Before going on television, Goode worked at the Pittsburgh Courier while Percival Prattis was there, and continued the fight for civil rights long after his retirement from ABC in 1973.

Michaele Salahi getting friendly with Joe Biden

Now, aside from the obvious stupidity of publicizing pictures of yourself posing with leaders of the free world at a very exclusive party to which you were not invited, I have to say I disagree with part of David Segal’s criticism. He points out that by posting photos on Facebook, the Salahis erred by making public the traditional, time-honored Power Wall (i.e., physical wall of photos of yourself with important people). The Power Wall used to exist only in offices or homes, but not anymore. Years ago, if a photo was to be seen at all, it had to be printed, so the print itself was not a big deal. Now, choosing to print a photo indicates that it is something special, and so the pictures you display in private are carefully curated by you or someone close to you. For the purpose of striking awe in someone sitting across from your desk, a traditional Power Wall is still effective, but the days of owning your image are long gone. That client can walk out of your office, find you on Facebook or Flickr, and see any old picture they want; the word ‘authorized’ means very little. Your real power wall is on Facebook, and you demonstrate power by making sure you are not tagged in photos you don’t like. One would think this would be understood in an Administration which was put in place due largely to its wielding of social media.

While a large part of this has to do with social media and technology, another part of this has to do with media itself. One of the basic points of being media literate is understanding the power of imagery, which is something we generally take for granted. The Salahis certainly did. I have plenty of friends who have posted photos on Facebook from the time they met a famous actor, shook the hand of Barack Obama as he campaigned for President, and even one friend who snapped a shot of herself with the Dalai Lama, but the difference is that no rules were violated in the process. It’s really the very well-known context of Michaele Salahi’s shot with Joe Biden that makes it so inappropriate to share, and the fact that she shared it demonstrates idiocy, naivete, lack of foresight or all of the above. But if Biden–or any other White House officials who allowed personal cameras into the event–didn’t think that photo would turn up later, he was not much better.

–Emily Long

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.

Do you think grass-fed beef is tastier? Or healthier?

Have you gushed about how good cage-free eggs are?

Or perhaps, someone just told you that commercially available milk is produced by cows that are fed beef?

The Animal Rights movement is not new. So is the campaign to switch to sustainable food. We’ve read about the issue, seen footage from hidden cameras, seen photographs of animals in meat factories. The movement is part of advertisements, celebrity endorsements, even a community on your social networking website. We’ve seen it all. Almost.

Documentary films? The idea may not be very original. After all, a documentary film is just a collection of clippings, you might say. But Earthlings (2005) is, arguably, the most compelling film ever to be made on the exploitation of the animal world by us humans not only for food, but also for clothing, entertainment, scientific research and to serve as pets. (The film is in segments: Part I, Part II, Part III.) Adding a celebrity touch is the narration by Joaquin Phoenix and the music by Moby.  Undercover investigations exploring this issue are not new, but never before has such footage been compiled into such a comprehensive commentary. Isawearthlings.com calls the film ‘thought provoking,’ but it’s much more than that. It is heart-wrenching. It makes you feel the pain of the animals. By juxtaposing images of the second World War, the Holocaust and the KKK with equally, if not more, unpleasant images of miserable, tortured animals, the film aims to show a parallel between racism and the ‘speciesim’ human beings are guilty of when they subjugate other inhabitants of the planet.

These are images that will stay with you long after you watch the film, as they did with me. I can’t think of too many people who will want to watch it again–that is, if they are able to finish watching it the first time. Earthlings is proof of our  collective guilt and human beings don’t like to be told they are monsters. We are kind and gentle, aren’t we? We are fair and merciful. The guilt is overpowering for some. For others, the images are too gross to digest. Feeling gross inspires quite a different set of reactions, one of which may be to stop watching the film. The film may have aimed for sadness, for a feeling that some injustice is being meted out, a feeling of a burdened conscience. However, if you feel sick, you will feel just that and nothing else. Consequently, after the grossness has passed, you will slather your factory produced sausages with ketchup.

And now on to some humor and some animation. The Meatrix series is a spoof on the extremely popular Matrix series (of course!). The protagonist is the pig Leo who joins the trench coat clad cow, Moopheus and the stylish hen, Chickity, in a mission to abolish factory farming and revive the good old family farm. Each of the three films in the series (The Meatrix, The Meatrix 2, The Meatrix 2.5) is a funny Flash animation about 4 minutes long (well under the 95 minute run time of Earthlings).

The Meatrix is about an issue that Earthlings also touches upon: Factory farming. Factory farming treats animals as commodities to be exploited and results not only in unimaginable animal cruelty, but also in grave health risks for people who consume mass produced animal products and in irreparable environmental pollution. The message of these films is loud and clear: Factory farming is bad. Switch to sustainable food. Support family farms. The film also clearly enumerates the ‘Whys’: Why have humans turned to factory farming? Why is factory farming bad? Why should we go back to family farms? The films are humorous. They’re short.  They’re educational sans the blood and bones, and they’re also kid friendly.

While Earthlings focuses on the animals and the their systematic torture by human beings, The Meatrix’s focus is primarily on how factory farming is bad for people and how we can eat and live healthy by supporting family farms. Earthlings is definitely the more poignant and moving of the two, but The Meatrix is certainly more pleasant and less guilt inducing. Which explains why many people I know liked it better. Earthlings is probably the adult version of The Meatrix. While both the films are about similar issues, the approach, like the focus is quite different. Earthlings goes for your heart. The Meatrix goes straight for your brain. Some would says ‘appeals to emotions’ Vs. ‘appeals to logic’. And some would take that to mean ‘appeals to women’ Vs. ‘appeals to men’. But I am not going there!

Earthlings and The Meatrix are wonderful examples of the fact that the media can and often do serve as the call to action on many issues. Or not. It might work with some and utterly fail with others, but it cannot be denied that the films are of tremendous potential and value. You might choose to watch Earthlings or The Meatrix, or both, or neither. You might be moved to act or not. But you certainly can’t help feeling a twinge of something: concern for the earthlings or concern for yourself.

And that is a sign that these media matter.

–Radhika Ramesh

I like this one a lot because it captures my memory of the very famous shot that i’ve seen reproduced multiple times on postcards and posters. But, there is one aspect that’s missing, which i think makes this stream of historical photos revisited brilliant. Because they are Lego toys, the dangerous feat that makes the original photo so dramatic is missing. Those men dangling their legs off the steel girder suspended in the air were tempting fate, however these toys are not in harm’s way. You don’t have quite the same reaction to the successor as you do with the predecessor.

When we take a look at another photo redux of his that focuses on a much more violent moment captured on film, we can really see the effect toys as substitutes has on the overall experience of the viewer.

On February 1st, 1968, General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executed a Captain from the Viet Cong army. Eddie Adams’ photographic capture of it won the Pulitzer Prize in 1969. Balakov’s reproduction does not evoke the same vivid angst and terror of the original. While the Lego figures share the same manufactured smile, it withholds the painful grimace of the Viet Cong soldier in the original image. This is an excellent exercise in how images influence our emotions, how they tell stories, and more importantly, how they define history.

I invite you to check out the rest of the series he put up, where he also has links to the originals he is paying homage to.

You can check it out right here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ZBzMOV9Js

My first reaction was to be really angry about it.  And that reaction hasn’t changed after two days.  In this PSA we’re taken from soft porn to almost snuff.  I get the point they’re trying to make, but instead of giving me something serious to consider, it makes me want to strangle the producers.  But I’m a much older woman than those targeted by this PSA.  I guess being much older gives me the breadth and history of seeing images of women where sex and violence (from men) come together, putting women in a completely powerless position (and how much more powerless can you get than dying?).  It’s a sequence that, culturally, we’re used to seeing.  I’m sure that’s why they thought it would make an impact.    I’m trying to imagine a similar type of commercial that might be used if the point being made was that young heterosexual men was the fastest growing segment of the population being infected with HIV.

I can’t imagine the producers would merely switch the roles.  That wouldn’t work because we’re not used to seeing young beautiful women shooting young men after having consensual sex with them.  It would seem bizarre, and that’s what would stick with people, not the message about HIV.  But here, the message will likely stick–for those who aren’t critical about the gender and sex implications– because the imagery makes sense on some sort of ghastly, historically reinforced, culturally-relevant level.  I abhor the history behind these images as much as the images themselves.

Katherine Fry

For example, the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media released an overview of their findings today that males outnumber females at the rate of almost 3 to 1 in films.  It should come as no surprise they found that women were far more likely than men to be hypersexualized in kid-targeted media. However, it is also worth noting their findings regarding the portrayal of men in animated media, specifically the frequency with which men are drawn as having unusually large chests or having an impossibly muscularized body.

Their statistics happen to come out at the same time that Guy Trebay of the New York Times published an article about male models getting thinner and thinner.  (You’d think the media could at least stay on message–which is it, should men be skinny or ripped with muscles?)  Of course, none of this renders the issue of skeletal female models any less urgent, but it serves as a good reminder that both boys and girls are receiving conflicting messages telling them how they “should” look.  For a mildly humorous example of just how conflicted these messages can be, check out this piece about CosmoGirl’s latest attempt at being responsible.

Take some time to sit down with your children and students, and talk to them about what they see.  It’s unrealistic to expect them to never watch another movie, but help them understand the difference between air-brushed entertainment and healthy men and women.

(For tips from Commonsensemedia.org on how to take an active role in your child’s media habits, click here.)

An ongoing concern for many adults, mostly parents, advertising is considered by many to be one of the evils of our commercial media system because of its potential effects on children.

There are lots of things to talk about when talking about ads on TV:

• how they represent females and people of different ethnicities;
• how they encourage junk food habits;
• the subtleties of product placement in television programming that “naturalize” brand names within narratives, etc.

All of these are worth discussing at length.

Some parents try to avoid these issues by banning television altogether, or at least commercial television.  While each family has its rules and its reasons, something I encourage is watching commercials with children (of all ages, though there is some evidence that children 5 and under can’t readily distinguish commercials from other types of programming on TV).  When you watch commercials with children you have a great opportunity to critique the methods of persuasion being used, especially in commercials aimed at them.

Images, sounds and words are used in incredible combinations to attract and excite children about toys, food and lots of other goods and services.  By watching together and talking about why some commercials are appealing,  adults are given a chance to sharpen their own critical thinking skills, and children are given a terrific opportunity to learn from the adults around them.

And let’s face it, kids are surrounded by advertising everywhere, so even if they aren’t watching commercials, they’re exposed to advertising in all kinds of other places, indoors and out.  It’s best to give them sharp skills early.  With an adult’s help, TV can be a good teaching aid for kids.

Recently, Bob McChesney, a leading media scholar, interviewed Sut Jhally, founder of the Media Education Foundation, about children and commercialization.  The discussion is about the larger issue of what it means to grow up in a commercialized world.

You can hear the radio interview at: http://www.will.uiuc.edu/media/mediamatters080106.mp3

And register your child for our Make a Commercial/Break a Commercial workshop at the Park Slope YMCA for 7-10 year olds, starting Monday, March 24th.

Katherine

Education Director, The LAMP