Lesson Plan

Commercialism and Media Education: Where do we draw the line?

by Barry Duncan

In recent years and especially during the last year, media educators have participated in heated debates about commercialism in the schools as well as creeping commercialism in several media education enterprises. That Channel One has been partially legitimated through the sponsorship of the 1999 National Media Education conference in St. Paul and media education leader Renee Hobb's writing media literacy curriculum for this corporation is seen by many media educators as extremely problematic. The Summit 2000 conference last May also received some criticism, whether it was freebies such as Teletubby mouse pads or the generous corporate sponsorship of CHUM LTD (with headquarters in Toronto) and owner of numerous Canadian Television stations.

Welcome to one of the most important discussion/debates in the history of media education. The following are some of the questions we might want to ask about these enterprises. Use them as prompts for clarifying your own media education goals and for your own point of view on commercialism.

• What conditions ( ethical guidelines, pedagogical outcomes) do you think are needed to foster positive relationships between media educators and the media industry?
• Under what circumstances would the goals or integrity of media education be undermined or badly compromised by partnerships with the media industry? In short, unless you are an absolute purist, where would you draw the line?
• How would you judge some of the current media industry partnerships? Examples for consideration might include: Channel One media literacy curriculum; Media Matters kit from CNN - Turner; Media literacy programs promoted in Cable in the classroom; Scanning Television (four videos and study material based primarily on CHUM LTD's weekly "Media Television" program).