Media Literacy and the 'Big Tent'

When I noted in my keynote address at the 1996 National Media Literacy Conference in Los Angeles that the media literacy movement faced seven important debates (#2) as the movement grows in prominence, I intended to encourage people to engage in the healthy exchange of ideas that is central to the process of media literacy - the active analysis of media literacy and support for the creative process of making media messages.

With a diverse collection of activists, educators, media professionals, social service and youth workers, members of the religious education community, arts educators, independent media producers, artists and heads of non-profit groups, we have chosen to stand together under the phrase "media literacy." Because of the allegiances we have formed, our movement is alive, vibrant and exciting.

One question stands at the center of all the growth: What is the central purpose of media literacy? We can and do embrace a wide variety of goals and objectives — including confronting issues of race, class and gender inequities, dealing with substance abuse and violence prevention, promoting issues of faith and social justice, inspiring media reform and regulation, and improving the quality of education.

But our tent needs a central pole — one strong principle or practice or belief that holds the tent together and can be fully embraced by all of us, despite our different goals.

What is the point of our big tent? What unites us? Media literacy, in my view, must embrace the process of inquiry — the act of asking questions about what we watch, see and read. At the heart of the media literacy movement is the open, questioning, reflective, critical stance towards messages. Even though our goals are diverse, I hope we share a deep respect for the process of engaging with media texts.

I want to put forward the inquiry process as the central principle of the media literacy movement.

"Media literacy, in my view, must embrace the process of inquiry — the act of asking questions about what we watch, see and read."

Unfortunately, I experienced a huge disequilibrium near the close of the conference that suggested to me that we do not all share a respect for this principle, nor do we practice what we preach. I'd like to share my experience of one part of the conference to illustrate both the need for the tent pole and to invite us to reflect on how to accommodate and respect our emerging diversity.

At one point during the conference, at the very end of a long day, a group of 150 or so participants attended a screening of The Ad and the Ego, produced by Harold Boihem and Chris Emmanouilides and featuring Jean Kilbourne, Sut Jhally, Bernard McGrath, Richard Pollay and Stuart Ewen.

This fascinating documentary outlines the history of advertising and the rise of material culture, demonstrates how our needs, doubts, fears and inadequacies are exploited by advertisers to keep us buying and points out the connection between endless consumerism and the destruction of the environment.

When the film concluded, the moderator invited people to consider the possibilities for social action that the film implied. The audience and the discussants engaged with this particular question in, to my interpretation, a rather half-hearted way, perhaps due to the lateness of the hour. Several participants rose to discuss their reactions to and interpretations of the film, the policy dimensions of taxing the telecommunications spectrum, and to share their perspective on their students' potential reactions to the film.

Many participants appeared to be quite engaged with the comments of one participant who wondered about the filmmaker's decision to combine fast-paced editing of fragments of advertising with the abstract, multi-syllabic sound bites of the academics.

This line of inquiry was promptly closed down by the moderator, who directed us to the task of generating the social and political action steps to reduce the influence of advertising, and many of us identified such steps more specifically, echoing Jean Kilbourne's first remark that "each of us does what we can do."

Despite the high quality of the film and the relevance of the topic to our conference, I left the auditorium with a deep sense of unease, disappointment and regret. At a media literacy conference, why didn't we use the post-viewing time to do some media literacy? Despite the lateness of the hour, I sensed that the audience wanted to speak, yet the discourse space was structured in such a way as to limit the dialogue.

I was especially struck by the use of Umberto Eco's quote at the film's beginning, when in fact, Umberto Eco has warned explicitly against the use of using media to teach about media.

In his essay, "Can Television Teach?" Eco argues that teachers and students should examine broadcast materials independently, not through specially produced broadcasts. He notes that programs about broadcasting suffer from the 'seamless' flow which discourages active analysis. Having two of the film's experts and the film's distributor on stage may have discouraged exploration of these issues:

"Why didn't we explore the ideas of the film? For example — the film's interesting link between advertising and the destruction of the environment? Why didn't we discuss who in our communities will be most threatened by this argument, how they might respond to it, and how we might manage a conversation with audiences who might be more distrustful of these ideas than those of us gathered at the conference?

"Why didn't we explore the structure of the film which creates a visually intense experience through a near-constant barrage of dynamically changing images? Are viewers' media literacy skills strengthened best by speeding up ads or slowing them down? What sorts of viewers will be least likely to process the verbal content of this film? Would the film have been more effective if a two-sided argument had been presented? Does the barrage of images that accompanies the verbal message invite viewers to uncritically accept the message being delivered? Should the film more self-consciously reflect upon the fact that it is using the very same techniques advertisers use in delivering their messages- presenting us a single unified point of view accompanied with mesmerizing images and sounds?

"Why didn't we explore the contexts in which the film will be screened and the audiences who will be exposed to this message? How will this film be received in the context of public broadcasting? In university-level courses? Among secondary school students? Who will never see this film and why? What is likely to happen when this film is screened without discussion following? When the professor is not in the room? When the tape is stopped and discussion follows each of the main segment breaks?

"Why didn't we discuss the production process, the economic support that sustained this film and the institutional dynamics which made it possible to create it? What is the producer's purpose? What was the process used to create the work? What are the legal, political and organizational issues which are involved in getting this work on public TV or the Independent Film Channel?

It would be easy to imagine how these issues could be explored through discussion. But these questions were not present, I believe, because for some participants, media literacy has been either deliberately or accidentally conflated with activism around media reform issues. These terms cannot and should not be synonymous. There are enormously diverse types of action which connect to or follow from the inquiry process of analyzing and creating media. Precisely because the media literacy movement contains people who have so many different kinds of answers to the 'what next?" question, it is inappropriate to lump media activism together with media literacy, even if for many of us, the connection between the issues seems natural and automatic.

Not all of the conference participants have identified changing or reforming the mass media as the focal point of their activism. Some participants focus their "what next?" energy on how we can shift the balance of destructive media messages and reduce the economic inequalities that lead people to destroy their lives with violence. Some focus on how we can bring good teachers, good teaching practices or technology resources into poor schools, or how we can end the growing centralization of media monopolies, or how we can end the tyranny of the marketplace commodification of culture. Some focus on how to create opportunities for people to express themselves through media production, or how to reduce the risks that young people take when using alcohol, tobacco or drugs. Some focus their activism on how to re-build our understanding of teaching and learning, community or public space, or democratic decision-making.

But when, in our effort to move to "what next," we skip over the step of the inquiry process that is central to media literacy, we are being hypocritical. Do we only critically analyze the media messages that we don't agree with?

I propose that we privilege the inquiry process - and put it center stage. For many, the tool of media literacy's inquiry process promotes a range of intellectual, social, political action- not just one sort. We need to recognize and respect the diverse motives and goals that we have while employing media literacy and not restrict the movement to only one set of goals. "Media literacy" shouldn't become a meaningless phrase that, as Lewis Carroll warned, means whatever you want it to mean. Miscommunication is at the heart of all squabbling, and at this point in our movement's evolution we need a level of precision in our language more than ever.

In the interests of ensuring that our big tent continue to grow, I recommend that the following domains be consistently applied in referring to the range of organizations and individuals who are broadly interested in the issues of media and culture as they relate to various types of individual, social and political action:

Media literacy is the process of accessing, critically analyzing media messages and creating messages using media tools. The goal of media literacy is to promote autonomy through the development of analysis, reasoning, communication and self-expression skills.

Media arts education is the process of building media literacy skills through a focused and hands-on exploration of the media creation process. The goal of media arts education is to promote media literacy skills by emphasizing the process of creative self-expression.

Media education is the process of using media messages and media technologies in the context of formal education, including the process of educating teachers, parents and citizens about media literacy. The goal of media education is to understand more about how to create effective instructional environments, techniques and educational practices in order to improve people's media literacy skills.

Media criticism is the process of evaluating media messages using a variety of analytic tools, including historical, political, economic or socio-cultural perspectives. The goal of media criticism is to generate theories and models of how media shape cultural processes, social and political institutions, and individuals' beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.

"Media literacy" shouldn't become a meaningless phrase that, as Lewis Carroll warned, means whatever you want it to mean."

Media activism is the process of developing, communicating and implementing strategies to change elements of the mass media system that are most harmful to individuals, communities, institutions and cultural values. The goal of media activism is to effect change in media messages and/or media organizations, processes or systems through individual, social and political action.

Media advocacy is the process of effectively using the creation and distribution of media products or the public relations interface with existing media organizations towards a specific political, social or policy goat. The goal of media advocacy is to accomplish social, political or policy changes by influencing the media's agenda and working to communicate effectively.

All these types of action are part of the media literacy movement. They all represent vital and significant elements of why the movement is growing exponentially in the nation. So what's the purpose of these distinctions?

As we bring more and more people into the media literacy movement, it can be confusing to encounter this wide range of practices and try to figure out how they fit together. In addition, these distinctions allow people to recognize and respect the different approaches without the tendency to identify some as "better" or "worse" than others.

Also, these distinctions allow us to more clearly identify the priorities we make in working within and across these areas. Personally, I engage in all of these practices to varying degrees, but at present, I focus on the domain of media education, the process of identifying how to optimally develop media literacy skills in the context of public education. With so many of us exploring the connections between and across these approaches, we need to acknowledge and support the various kinds of contributions that are made to the media literacy movement, whether we work in schools, universities, community organizations, in government, public health, or as artists, media professionals or activists. We can't privilege one kind of contribution over another.

I contend that our tent pole — the thing that brings us together — is respect for the process of critically analyzing and creating media messages. Let's make sure that whenever we use media texts we subject them to the inquiry process. Let's continue to cross-fertilize each other at conferences like the Los Angeles conference through the spirit of "wrestling with respect," because with this spirit we can grow into the broad-based coalition we are becoming.