7 Great Debates

I really enjoyed our in class discussion about the "7 Great Debates." It was great getting insight from everybody in the class rather than just Hobbs. The first question that is posed is the following:

"Should media literacy education aim to protect children and young people from
negative media influences?" 

Hobbs made a fantastic point that the "protectionist stance leads to an instructor-focused classroom" which leaves the student to parrot what the teacher has sanctioned as right and wrong. This approach can also cause the students to approach all media as if it were harmful. It turns them cynical and instead of enjoying and participating in media they take a stance of superiority. That is not what we want as a society. In my opinion it is good to be wary of what the media provides. There is more crap out there than ever before, and if we are not careful we can loose ourselves in it. But on the same side, there is more good out there than ever before and those are the things we need to engage in. If we approach all media from a protectionist standpoint we will have a hard time engaging. Another problem we find with the protectionist approach in the classroom is that each teacher has their own set of standards of what is appropriate and what is not. A single standard cannot exist because everyone has conflicting opinions. In one classroom all Rated R films might be considered bad, and in another Rated R films that graphically depict historical events might be acceptable. It's hard to tell what is right and what is wrong. Students should be taught how to correctly use media and to be cautious. It's hard to know exactly what to do which is what makes it such a great debate.

Another question that is posed that I feel rather strongly about is the following:

"Should media production be an essential feature of media literacy education?"

Absolutely. There is no debate here for me. Students need to learn how to create their own material for multiple reasons. First because it teaches them to respect the work of others. All you have to do is get on Youtube. Look up any video and you will find several people that hate on the work that was done. It doesn't matter how poor or how professional it looks, there is always someone to point a hating finger. There is no way that this will ever be eliminated, but once you create something yourself and realize just how difficult it can be your level of respect for those who try increases substantially.

Media is controlled by big corporations and people who run those corporations. It's film business which means that the underlying reason it is made is to make money. As hard as that is to admit for some of us, the majority of what is made and what we see is to get our money. Having students create their own work will teach them the "what," "why," and "how" of production. I use these three questions in just about everything I do, but in applying it to media production we are forced to ask ourselves: "What are we creating?" "Why are we creating it, or why do we want to share it?" And, "How is it going to affect the viewer? Or how is it affecting me?" Once we create our own media we begin to ask these questions when we participate in other types of media. For example, when I watch a movie like "Avatar" I ask myself: What is this movie about? Why did the director choose to tell this story? And how is it affecting me? It's a simple formula, but it's very self reflective and forces us to look inward at the effects media is having on us.

I really enjoyed this read, and I felt like our in class discussion was awesome. It was interesting to get all the different points of view on how things should be done regarding media literacy. I felt like most of the class was in concurrence with one another, but I'm not sure if that was just to avoid contention or if everybody mostly felt the same. Another thing we did in class that I really thought was great, was going out and asking strangers questions regarding media in their lives. Most of the answers were what I expected, but there was one question that Mack and I asked that people seemed to struggle with, and that was "List a few films you've seen that address social issues." We asked most of the people we talked to this question, and there was only one person that named something right away. The rest of the interviewees sat and thought about if for a while and some never came up with anything. Even after I gave them a few examples like "Remember the Titans" or even "Batman Begins" they couldn't think of anything. After that experience, and thinking back to it at random times during the week, I think that teaching people to be aware of what media is telling them rather than simply allowing it to wash over them is super important. People need to be aware of what they are being told, and what the agenda of certain filmmakers might be.

I think these debates should be discussed more in public schools, and that media literacy should be instituted everywhere it can be. The more people know and are aware, the better their decisions.

Trying to outrun a Tyrannosaurus Rex is a bad choice.

Media literacy education is a good choice.

Corporate Corruption

Recently I have had several experiences that have dealt with dishonesty, lack of integrity, and basic corruption in the work place. This last summer I had the opportunity to work with The Color Run. Inside of that company there is a lot of room for "taking care of you and your own." We had an employee who was cheating others out of money and work, and instead took care of his guys. Fortunately he was found out, and demoted to another position. He wasn't doing horrible things, but what it did do was open my eyes. I started paying closer attention to corruption in the workplace, and I started asking questions. I found some things out that were extremely insightful, disappointing, and even terrifying. I have had some close encounters with corrupt corporate big wigs as a result, and had to fly under the radar in some of the situations pretending to know less than I do to protect those it could affect. After noticing so much corruption around me, even in places I would least expect it, I had to ask the question, "has it always been like this?" I found an article from the New York Times that addresses this question.

"Have corporations lost whatever ethical compass they once had? Or does it just look that way because we are paying more attention than we used to?"

"Last year, the economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson from the University of Pennsylvania published a study suggesting that trust in government and business falls when unemployment rises. “Much of the recent decline in confidence — particularly in the financial sector — may simply be a standard response to a cyclical downturn,” they wrote."

Corruption has always, and always will exist. It comes with the imperfection of human beings. However I believe that it's our job and responsibility to address it and restore integrity in the work place. Integrity is something that was once greatly valued, and a man's word was his bond. I feel like we have lost that, and that is a terrible loss. In the place of honesty and trust we have fraud and skepticism. Fortunately there are still companies out there that don't tolerate such behavior and rid themselves of people who would take advantage of the system. We need to use these companies and people as examples of how the rest should be, and expose the corrupt for who and what they are. 

The most difficult part of all this is finding the guilty. "As Warren Buffett famously said, 'You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.'

Company executives are paid to maximize profits, not to behave ethically." In a world of capitalism where the corrupt go to great lengths to cover their tracks how do we find them. It's like a game of cat and mouse. Do we turn to a night time vigilante who takes fighting crime into his own hands? I believe that there is always someone who knows, and it just takes someone willing to speak up. It's only about a million times easier said than done, but if integrity makes a comeback and is prized as greatly as it once was this country will also make a comeback. 

Maybe I'm just an idealist and getting back to where we once were is impossible. But at least it's a good idea. 

Bibliography

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/business/economy/the-spreading-scourge-of-corporate-corruption.html?_r=0

http://www.wanttoknow.info/corporatecorruptionnewsstories-0-10000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtHuoF5qoC8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxAwU_kNhJA

So it's been a while since I've written anything academic so I sure hope I sound somewhat smart and that this post makes sense. Yesterday's conversation on politics has stuck with me throughout today. The comment that was made about our personal politics serving as a base for everything we do and is built into our words and actions got me to take a look at myself and ask a few questions: What do I believe? What fuels my thoughts, words, and actions? What do I care most deeply about? Once I answered these questions I was able to answer the following questions: What am I willing to fight for? What political stands am I willing to make? What am I willing and not willing to accept?

It was interesting to see what other people in the class feel strongly about and how they express those emotions. In a world filled with so many people with different backgrounds I don't believe that there can be any two people that have the exact same philosophies on every subject. One of the things I hope to do while I am in this class is to express the what and why of my beliefs without imposing them on anyone. Though I hope to present them in such a way that is not offensive and cultivates understanding it's a little hard to always be politically correct. And maybe being politically incorrect can help us better express what our views are in a positive way. "Hairspray" is an example of this. The film shows some extremes on the subject of segregation and how people may have felt about it in 1963. You had the side that was all for integration and they were presented as open minded, nonjudgemental, and wise. The characters in the film that were pro segregation were presented as conceded, close minded, and stubborn unwilling to change their views. Something I always appreciate in films is when the audience is given the opportunity to sympathize with the antagonist. We were never given the opportunity to do this in "Hairspray." We were thrown into this political debate influencing us to consider only one side of the argument. The viewer comes away with the view that everyone that supports segregation is a stubborn close minded monster. If we don't take the time to understand why someone might believe what they do we will be subject to thinking that anyone who disagrees with you is a horrible person.

I hope that last paragraph made sense. It does to me, but sometimes I feel like whoever reads my posts might finish it thinking to themselves, "What just happened?" What it boils down to is fairness. Am I being fair to those who may not agree with me? Am I being fair to those that do agree with me? Am I presenting my view and ideal in such a way that would not embarrass those who share my beliefs? I have noticed that when someone acknowledges in fairness the other side of belief I much more prone to listening to what they have to say even if I share their belief. I feel like I'm starting to get repetitive.

One more quick note about the movie. I felt like the character development in the film was extremely weak. All of a sudden Tracy, Penny, and Link were these huge advocates of integration. It sort of came out of nowhere for me which was frustrating. Her parents were also this same way. When did everyone become so vocal about integration. I felt like it lacked the roots that were needed for us to believe that Tracy could become this prominent leader in this political stand. A little more character development and a little less making out goes a long way. You can quote me on that if you want. What's funny is that here I am tearing into this movie because they failed to present the opposing side in a fair way and I have also failed to do so in this blog. It just goes to show how easy it is to present your belief without regard for the other, but once we learn to do that our argument becomes that much more powerful. So let me say that the film did have strong points. It presented a story about integration and acceptance of people for who they are rather than their appearance. Of course when the film was made, and even now it is a nonissue because segregation has been done away with. However it touches more on accepting people for who they are. It uses our past mistakes and successes as ways to demonstrate how and why we should be better.

Oh politics, what fun they are!