The Medium of Television

One of the readings gave the definition of media literacy as able to access, analyze, evaluate and produce print and electronic media. Students are not being taught to or asked to practice all of these aspects of media literacy in most classrooms. All teachers would not be described as media literate under this definition as well. But the definition has key aspects that people who live in a democratic and capitalist country need to be able to do well in order to be critical citizens.

Many of the lesson ideas for incorporating media in the classroom were inquiry based and included critical and evaluative thinking. The lessons that included hip hop also emphasized critical thinking as a tool for empowerment. I would love to include hip hop in my lesson plans. Many of my students would be more motivated and interested in the lesson.

I do not spend a lot of time watching TV. However, I know that many Americans, especially my students, do spend a lot of time in front of the TV. I am glad to see that if students are taught to be critical thinkers they may not be turned into mindless enculturated robots by corporate television giants. The producers may get to decide what messages they want to send but they are not in control of who their audience is and how their messages are decoded by that audience. I hope that through education we can get students to use negotiated code at least. I want my students to question what they watch on TV. I want them to think about it and have a knowledge and understanding of the world to decide for themselves.

Oppositional code is not always wrong it may even be correct the majority of the time. If the message that the media is trying to get across is wrong then my students need to be able to operate out of an oppositional code. The reading states that decoding is not just social class but ones discourse position. This means that if someone does not have the language and understanding to negotiate or be oppositional they will not, even if the message is against their interests. Teachers need to give students the language and knowledge so that they can think for themselves and use negotiable and oppositional code when it is called for.

Last week we read about how big corporations are going to control the "development" of culture in the US if current trends continue. These corporations operate within the financial economy. This week we are given hope through the idea of the cultural economy. The cultural economy is concerned with meanings, pleasure and social identities. This is where the power of the audience can help to control the development of culture. The audience can take the control out of corporate hands. If they do not watch a new TV show it will not be successful, it will not sell commercials, and the corporation will need to find a different show. The audience can affect the financial economy the corporations care so much about.

TV is not making us more stupid. TV is getting smarter. It is exercising thinking skills more today than it ever has in the past. Audiences want more cognitively demanding shows. TV shows today require the audience to make inferences, follow multiple interweaving story threads at one time, fill in or question present information gaps, evaluate difficult social issues, and understand and predict complex social networks. While reading this article I thought of an example of a show that leaves information out that its audience may or may not know. The show "Gilmore Girls" includes a complex narrative structure as well as complex social issues. It has a very quick dialogue that includes frequent quotes and phrases that many people in the audience may not get. The dialogue references current events, pop culture, classical literature, etc. These references occur so often that the DVDs of the show actually come with a study guide in which people can look up references they do not understand.

I read the script of a movie and then watched the movie. It was difficult to find a script of a movie I owned but I finally got lucky with the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" by Joss Whedon. I was very surprised at how different the script and the movie were. The entire original opening scene was cut from the movie. Much of the dialogue was changed as well. For instance, the script in one place has the line, "It's so '91," instead the actress said "It's so 5 minutes ago." Additional dialogue was also included. Once the literature is turned into dialogue changes must be made in order to maintain a sense of realism. The interpretation of the writing by the actors was also visible. There are a lot of people involved in the making of a movie. All of these people interpret the script (a piece of writing) differently.

An interesting note is the after this movie was produced the writer of the script went on to produce and direct his own show with the same main character and a different set of actors. The Buffy in the TV series more closely resembles to Buffy written into the script of the movie. Many of the snappy smart lines in the script were missing from the movie. These type of lines were included in the TV show.

There is a lot of information missing about the emotions and blocking of the actors during each scene in the script. This information must be interpreted into the performance by the actors and the director. There is a lot going on in a scene that can't be described by a script. Each person must decide how they are going to stand, how they are going to speak the line, and what facial expressions they will have throughout the scene. Much of communication is nonverbal and this is left out of most of the script. The nonverbal communication by the actors will greatly affect how the audience decodes the message. Humans tend to pay attention to body language more than verbal language. If the two are in opposition to each other the message the body language is communicating is the one most likely to be decoded.

Wow

Today I heard my husband reply to someone..."Well, the guy who owns the rights to Shakespeare would sue." This made me see how ingrained the idea of ownership of creative works is. We believe that all works are owned and we do not have the right to creatively derive anything legally. I wonder how far this belief, and in some cases misunderstanding of the law, has gone to stifle creativity. Do we even believe in the public domain any more? Corporations have done a good job enculturating us to believe that every creative idea is owned by someone. The fact that they are also getting the law to back them up makes me even more fearful for the future of free speech and creativity.

Corporate Control of Creativity

The readings discussed the sense of ownership people have for their creative works. The readings discussed the history of this very American idea and belief as well as whether ownership of creative works is good. What effect does ownership versus a socially or community created view point have on the future of our culture and new creative ideas and works?

Ownership should be protected and people should have the right to earn a living from their creative works. Society needs to be careful that our regulations do not stifle creativity and free speech. If only a few people have control over the messages that can become public than our culture will become stagnant and our free speech right has been taken from us. Our culture should be able to develop freely. A few companies should not control the development of our societies culture. Homogeneity is not good. Americans have always taken pride in our perceived individuality. This is being threatened by the changes in technology, regulation and the market. We need to make sure that "fair use" is protected.

This has implications for my students. If this does not change and continues along the same trends they will enter a culture that is not interested in their new ideas and creative works. They may not even be able to find a venue in which to share their work if it does not fit into the controlling companies idea of what should be media. The fact that these companies will not allow controversial adds is concerning to me. Controversial issues has been the life blood of this country. This trend will lead to a less and less democratic nation. Democracy can not flourish in a culture that is controlled in this way.

There should definitely be restrictions on copying of creative works. But not to the extent at which it stifles creativity and puts the control of the "development" of culture in the hands of the few.

The statement by Diane Ravitch that "teachers don't need creativity. Teachers need to use methods that have proved successful." is ludicrous. Methods that have been "proved" successful are often not successful for all groups. The success of the methods are dependent on the teacher and the students they were used with. It is difficult and often impossible to generalize research in education on teaching methods. When you remove the teachers input and creativity you remove and important aspect of the classroom. You may hinder the connection between the teacher and the students. The teacher can not meet individual student needs and learning styles that will help them to be more successful. The model of using basal readers and scripts for teachers goes against the beliefs of most good teachers that know that students will not learn best in this way. If you remove the creativity from the teacher you may also remove the creative opportunities for the students. Social efficiency is not the greatest good. When schooling is view in an economic way you ignore many important facets, purposes and potential valuable uses of schooling.

Should impersonal capitalist corporations have control of our education system? An education system that also imparts social norms and culture to its students?

The idea of praxis is also important. It is one thing to have ideas, to see the problems in society. But it does not good to understand without acting. Praxis is the important joining of understanding or ideas and action. All critical theory should include praxis. Unfortunately, I have seen little praxis in much of the theory I have read.

I have students work in cooperative groups quite a bit. I never thought about the issues they might have based on their sense of ownership of their work. The idea / expression dichotomy is an interesting concept. I have had students make a point of telling me what was their idea in the project. This may come from a sense that their ideas are not as protected or owned as their words (expression) are. They are uncomfortable with the publicness of their ideas and are afraid they will be "stolen." It would be beneficial for my students to think about these issues critically. They should examine their beliefs about ownership of expression and ideas.

I remember struggling with this concept myself as a student when my mother would edit my papers and I would feel as though they were no longer "my words." I would loose my sense of ownership. I could not feel comfortable with a more communal sense of creative production. I am sure my students struggle with this issue as well.