In the recent Alliance for Children and Television newsletter, Frank Trotz's opinion column, "Television in the Classroom?" is a provocative but misleading account of media literacy practices. It is unfortunate that the author, who has an otherwise good reputation as a teacher, author, workshop leader and television producer, chooses to rest his case on the media deconstruction exercises typical of most media literacy classrooms.
Implicit in Trotz's argument is the notion of negativity... "analyzing commercials to death" and he concludes in his last paragraph that "I'd rather it be called 'media use.' Perhaps we could get away from all the negatives of media literacy and move into a more practical integration of television in the classroom." It's ironic that he indicates elsewhere that he is doing all kinds of analysis in his own classroom but, of course, looking at "the construction qualities of commercials" in his view could never be negative. These would be the bad practices which turn kids off perpetrated by the typical media literacy teacher in that other classroom down the hall!
The strength of media literacy is that it can and should encompass an enormous amount of territory; from appreciating the aesthetics of films to learning about the special effects accomplished by computer technology; from contextualizing gender stereotyping to investigating the culture of violence; from making animation films to creating semi-professional video documentaries. For the classroom teacher, it's indeed a challenge but a marvelous opportunity to bring the electronic world into our classrooms. What is needed, however, are some organizing principles or a conceptual framework to help our students deal with this rich diversity. Otherwise, classroom practice risks degenerating into loose chitchat about whether you liked a film or a TV program or whether or not you believe Madonna or Michael Jackson are for real.
What has emerged in the last ten years is an international consensus about key concepts regarding how the media construct reality through media codes, conventions and ideology; the role of media industry and institutions; and the nature of media audiences.
Pedagogically, we believe that media literacy demands an egalitarian, student-centred, inquiry-based classroom in which analysis is skillfully combined with hands-on production. We all know that kids learn by doing. Furthermore, many aspects of media, for example, film aesthetics, can best be grasped through student productions.
It should be obvious that the key concepts of media will apply to most of the new and emerging technologies from CD-ROM to interactive laser disc. Frank Trotz implies that he is somehow special in being involved with these areas and the can hereby "part company with much of the thought and activity in the area of media literacy." He should know that the Association for Media Literacy as well as numerous media educators elsewhere are now addressing these technologies, not only through practical application but also, in the tradition of Marshall McLuhan, understanding their special grammars and their social and political impact. Our quarrel with the typical Communication Technology teacher, at least in Ontario, is that they generally only do production, regard technology as value free, and fail to show their students the bigger picture which I have been describing. We believe this is intellectually naive and educationally irresponsible. While there will always be teachers who teach the media only to bash it, conceiving it as a scapegoat for society's ills or their own personal frustrations, we believe that such negativity is a turn off for kids.
Ultimately, the extreme protectionist stance agenda simply doesn't work. And most media educators have moved beyond this 1960's paradigm. Today the media literacy classroom is a site of struggle where we are encouraged to acknowledge what Foucault described as our contradictory relationships with knowledge, pleasure and power. Sometimes we need to celebrate achievements; other times, we may need to ask some tough-minded critical questions about texts such as: whose interests are being served, and who loses? We are trying to move beyond the simplistic "either or", "good guy, bad guy" arguments. And since when has understanding been incompatible with enjoyment?
Finally, to agree with Frank Trotz's conclusion that media literacy should become simply "media use" has all the appeal of the esthetics of a warm bath. It ignores the rich potential of media education's insights, depoliticizing the field and ultimately losing our endeavour as a dynamic source of inquiry that can encourage critical autonomy and a pedagogy of empowerment. The achievement of media literacy in Ontario is considerable. As the only educational jurisdiction in North America where is it is a mandatory part of the curriculum, we have had a major leadership role. To maintain this important function in the l990s, we need criticism which avoids distortions and simplistic solutions and points us in directions where we can help our students to cope both creatively and intellectually with the complexity of their information environment.
Barry Duncan is the president of the AML and a frequent contributor to Mediacy.