Introduction
The Digital Paradigm has revolutionized the way that we receive and deal with information. The previous paradigm – what could be broadly termed the Print Paradigm (although it includes broadcast systems) - encouraged a monolithic business model based on centralized distribution systems. Newspapers and magazines emanated from a central source. Radio and TV were broadcast from a central location. The model was a one (centralized distribution) to many. And there were restraints and regulatory structures that ensured that the quality of information that was being disseminated was acceptable and reliable.
Occasionally there would be controversy but that seemed to centre more on the nature of the story that broke although there were times when irate Prime Ministers refused to be interviewed by journalists – especially on television where any discomfort was plain for all to see.
But that has changed utterly with the onset of the Digital Paradigm. Although the “one to many” model still exists, for Mainstream Media (MSM) that model has been overtaken by the proliferation of information sources that the Internet and digital systems enable.
This outburst of communication opportunities, the democratization of information that the Internet has enabled, brings with it a number of perceived problems.
The first is the threat that is posed to MSM outlets who up until recent times have been the “go-to” source for reliable information. The proliferation of information sources of all types presents a challenge which MSM has tried to adapt to its business model by incorporating different information sources into publications or stories.
MSM struggles to retain eyeballs on its content, faces a declining audience, suffers from a lack of trust and confidence and therefore pushes back against the tide of information that is flowing against it. Unlike Cnut, who according to the story tried to turn back the tide (he was in fact demonstrating to his fawning courtiers that he was NOT all powerful) MSM has slowly and surely begun to characterize competing messaging by deploying the language of scepticism (it is a “conspiracy theory” or “misinformation” or “disinformation”) or has adopted some of the responses available in in media literacy quiver.
The second threat is to established institutions who rely on consistent messaging to retain public confidence and to inform the populace – when it suits them – of what is happening in the public sphere. Of these institutions, the State is probably the most concerned about and at the same time – in a liberal democracy – the most vulnerable to competing messaging.
This might not have been a problem in the past, but the COVID-19 pandemic put State vulnerability to competing messaging into sharp focus. Most New Zealanders will be aware of the intensity of State messaging throughout the pandemic from the daily “podium of truth” and the assertion by the Prime Minister that the Government was the sole source of truth. Everything else, she said, with a grain of salt.
The State deployed a panoply of tools and sources to flood the community with its message and denigrate any opposing views. The activities of such organizations, such as the Disinformation Project, provide an example and indeed MSM would frequently consult the Disinformation Project for a perspective that supported the State position and decried contrarianism.
Behind the public face of the State was the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) which has had (and I would suggest continues to have) an ongoing interest in solidifying confidence in State messaging and challenging or questioning opposing views. DPMC has embarked upon a number of studies surrounding “disinformation” and what can be done about it.
But more recently there has been a shift in emphasis. The words “disinformation”, “misinformation” and “malinformation” still surface from time to time but perhaps with less frequency. Rather there seems to be a shift in emphasis to the issue of media literacy – an anodyne phrase that carries within it suggestions of education and nuance rather than denying or decrying contrary points of view.
But media literacy is not new. In this article I shall first examine the definition of the term. I shall then consider earlier iterations of a programme which had similar characteristics to media literacy. Then I shall look at some of the approaches that are adopted to putting media literacy in action and finally consider whether media literacy is in fact the same wolf of State controlled messaging in the sheep’s clothing of public education and discernment. The answer is, I would suggest, a nuanced one.
Definition
The idea of media literacy, although it has been around in some shape of form for some time, has developed in response to the vast amount of often conflicting information that is available on digital platforms.
Media literacy, according to one source, is defined as "the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and act using all forms of media communication." It encompasses the skills and knowledge needed to critically engage with media, including print, broadcast, digital, and interactive media.
Media literacy goes beyond simply consuming information and emphasizes the development of critical thinking skills and the ability to participate in the creation of media content.
It also recognizes that media is constructed and not a transparent window to reality, and that individuals interact with media in active and complex ways.
Media literacy education should examine how media is constructed, balance protectionism and empowerment approaches, and be designed and delivered for specific groups in local contexts.
Effective media literacy interventions are interactive and participatory, and acknowledge that instructors do not have all the 'right' answers. Sustained interventions are more effective than one-offs, but the length of the intervention does not guarantee effectiveness. I shall discuss the issue of “interventions” later in this article.
A shorter definition is that media literacy is an expanded conceptualization of literacy that includes the ability to access and analyze media messages as well as create, reflect and take action, using the power of information and communication to make a difference in the world.
Media literacy is not restricted to one medium and is understood as a set of competencies that are essential for work, life, and citizenship.
In essence media literacy involves a set of skills to assist in evaluating the reliability and worth of information from a variety of sources and to apply critical thinking skills to embark upon the validation and verification of information.
Earlier Iterations and Examples
An early challenge posed by online information was in the legal sphere. In addition to the various facilities that were available by subscription such as LexisNexis and Westlaw there were a number of websites which provided legal information for free.
Because the use of legal information had certain consequences, and false or faulty information could cause a person to act to his or her detriment it was necessary to develop evaluative tools against which legal information could be measured.
Many years ago a cartoon appeared in The New Yorker portraying a dog sitting at a computer saying to another dog “On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog”.
The cartoon addresses the issue of anonymity on the internet but it applies equally to the credibility and reliability of information that is available. One never knows at first glimpse whether the information portrayed on the screen as the result of an internet search is truly useful, credible and relevant, or simply “a dog”. This was an early statement of the concept of media literacy.
I taught Law and Information Technology at Auckland Law School for 19 years. Although when I was considering the issue of evaluation of legal information websites during that time, the criteria that I developed then are, I would suggest, relevant to what is now called the “media literacy” landscape.
The common and most important criteria for site evaluation are the following:
• content (including original content);
• accuracy;
• credibility;
• timeliness or currency;
• ease of use of associated design aspects; and
• added value in the form of links.
Of these six common denominators, the first four are essential characteristics of a good and potentially reliable website.
May I suggest, as this article progresses, that plus ca change c’est la meme chose.
Media Literacy in Action
The increased interest in media literacy seems to have developed as a response to concerns about misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. In reality, however, the issues of assessing the reliability of information has long preceded the “threats” of the “***information” triad. Two organisations have provided helpful information and analysis.
Brainbox
In 2023 The Brainbox Institute released a paper entitled “Deciphering Media Literacy”. This is a helpful piece of work which avoids much of the emotionalism which often accompanies current discussions about online information and which seem to focus upon “conspiracy” theories, “hate speech” and “feeling safe” the last proposition suggesting that it is possible to live life without the risk of anything.
The paper provides an overview of media literacy and its potential role in combating harmful online content.
It discusses the definition of media literacy, its history and current state in New Zealand, and key insights from research on effective media literacy interventions.
The document also highlights challenges for policymakers and communities in implementing media literacy initiatives and provides recommendations for strengthening media literacy efforts.
Overall, the document emphasizes the importance of tailored and sustained interventions, a balanced approach between protectionism and empowerment, and the need for collaboration and knowledge sharing in advancing media literacy.
The paper starts with the proposition that media literacy seems to be the answer to every problem, from artificial intelligence, to disinformation, to platform regulation, and beyond. But what is it exactly? The paper then proceeds to consider and provide some suggestions, rather than answers, to the nature of media literacy.
The paper contains a set of measured expectations about what media literacy education can achieve, while also noting that promoting media literacy is a core component of a commitment to protecting and promoting freedom of expression in a changing world. Importantly what the paper provides is not a panacea, nor is it about making everyone think the same thing.
What Brainbox calls for is a national strategy in support of media literacy as well as coordinated activities to build networks and communities around and in support of media literacy too. It is not clear who should develop, implement and execute the strategy although there is some hint in the recommendations and it is this regard that I have reservations about these propositions which I shall develop later in this article.
The paper emphasises that strong media literacy skills do not just help people distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy sources of information (I prefer “reliable” and “unreliable” instead of “trustworthy” and “untrustworthy”) – they also enable people to engage with and produce all forms of media more creatively, effectively, and authentically.
In this respect, a commitment to support for media literacy is a crucial component of promoting freedom of expression.
The paper identifies six key themes, and makes four recommendations. In summary the themes are:
1. Effective media literacy interventions are designed and delivered for specific groups in local contexts
2. Media literacy education must balance between two approaches: protectionism and empowerment
3. Good media literacy education acknowledges people interact with media in active and complex ways
4. Media literacy education should examine how media is constructed
5. Effective interventions are interactive and participatory, and acknowledge that instructors do not have all the ‘right’ answers
6. Sustained interventions are more effective than one-offs, but length doesn’t guarantee effectiveness
I shall discuss the issue of “interventions” shortly but I think the use of that particular word is unfortunate and carries with it an element of prescriptiveness.
The recommendations are as follows:
1. Map existing efforts – Before embarking on any major new programmes, it is important to obtain a clear picture of the scope and impact of ongoing projects. Any new efforts should use existing infrastructure effectively and ensure they’re targeted at the areas of greatest need.
2. Strengthen local and international networks – Collaboration will be key to effective media literacy efforts. Some local and international networks already exist, and tapping into and strengthening them will enable productive and successful cooperation.
3. Share knowledge and insights as much as possible – While every organisation and intervention is unique, lessons learned from one can and must be used to improve all others. Sharing knowledge will both improve efforts across the board, and promote closer and more collaborative relationships.
4. Develop a coordinated and comprehensive strategy – For the best results, a coordinated long-term strategy across government, civil society, and international partners will be necessary. This is acknowledged to be a difficult task, but it will be eased by the previous three – and the authors of the paper think that the benefits are worth it.
As I have already suggested this last recommendation is potentially difficult and carries with it extraordinary risks of government or State capture which, despite the issues discussed by Brainbox and the emphasis on freedom of expression may have precisely the opposite effect.
Other Issues Arising
Media literacy is a tool to address, deal with or avoid harmful content. The paper does not explicitly define "harmful content." However, based on the context provided, harmful content refers to any form of media or information that can have negative effects on individuals or society.
This is a very broad classification that goes far beyond the definition of harm in the Harmful Digital Communications Act and can include misinformation, disinformation, violent or extremist narratives, pornography, and other content that may cause harm to individuals' well-being, mental health, or safety.
“Well-being” is not defined. Does that include feelings? Does content that causes one discomfort have an adverse effect upon wellbeing. I have very real concerns about subjective elements such as this.
Again, I have difficulty in accepting that viewing content may have an adverse or negative effect upon mental health. The simple answer to content that causes concerns of any nature is to stop reading or turn off the device.
Finally safety – the buzzword for the 2020’s that can mean all things to all people – again a subjective concept and one which carries with it the suggestion of a complete or near-complete avoidance of risk.
Better that “harmful content” should be considered against objective criteria such as a threat to immediate physical or psychological harm which can be independently evaluated and in respect of which evidence is available.
Harmful content can also refer to content that promotes hate speech, discrimination, or illegal activities. I have already written extensively on the subject of hate speech. I would suggest that discrimination should be preceded by the word “unlawful” thus aligning it with the “illegal activities” criterion.
What are Media Literacy Interventions
Media literacy interventions are targeted efforts to promote media literacy skills and knowledge among individuals and communities.
These interventions aim to equip people with the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and act using all forms of media communication.
They involve teaching individuals how to critically engage with media, understand how media is constructed, navigate the media landscape, and make informed decisions about media consumption and production.
Media literacy interventions can take various forms, including educational programs, workshops, resources, and campaigns.
The goal of these interventions is to empower individuals to become informed, reflective, and engaged participants in a democratic society.
I have some difficulty with the use of the word “interventions” in this context. The word suggests a form of interference with a common course of activity. I wonder if a better word might be strategies.
How should media literacy interventions be adapted to local contexts?
The paper suggests that media literacy interventions (I use the term because it is used in the paper although my preference would be to substitute it with the word “strategies”) should be adapted to local contexts by considering the targeted needs of specific groups and the cultural, social, and political factors that are unique to that context. Here are some ways in which media literacy interventions can be adapted:
1. Tailor the content: Media literacy interventions should be designed to address the specific media landscape and challenges in the local context. This includes considering the types of media consumed, the prevalence of certain issues (such as misinformation or hate speech), and the cultural and social factors that influence media consumption.
2. Incorporate local examples: Using local examples and case studies can make the interventions more relatable and relevant to the target audience. This helps learners connect the concepts of media literacy to their own experiences and encourages critical thinking about media in their own context.
3. Consider language and cultural nuances: Language plays a crucial role in effective communication. Media literacy interventions should be delivered in the local language to ensure understanding and engagement. Additionally, cultural nuances and sensitivities should be taken into account to avoid misunderstandings or offense.
4. Involve local stakeholders: Collaboration with local educators, community leaders, and organizations is essential for successful media literacy interventions. These stakeholders have a deep understanding of the local context and can provide valuable insights and expertise. Involving them in the design and delivery of interventions ensures that they are culturally appropriate and effective.
5. Address specific needs and challenges: Different groups within a local context may have specific needs and challenges when it comes to media literacy. For example, youth may face different issues than older adults, or marginalized communities may have unique concerns. Interventions should be tailored to address these specific needs and challenges, taking into account factors such as age, socioeconomic status, and cultural background.
6. Promote local voices and perspectives: Media literacy interventions should aim to amplify local voices and perspectives. This can be done by incorporating local media content, featuring local experts and influencers, and encouraging participants to create their own media content that reflects their experiences and viewpoints.
7. Evaluate and adapt: It is important to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of media literacy interventions in the local context and make necessary adaptations. This can be done through feedback from participants, monitoring of outcomes, and ongoing research. By continuously learning and adapting, interventions can be improved and better tailored to the local context.
It is worth noting that these recommendations are based on general principles of adapting interventions to local contexts and may not be specific to media literacy. However, they provide a framework for ensuring that media literacy interventions are relevant, effective, and impactful in a specific local context.
What is protectionism in media literacy
The paper makes reference to protectionism. Protectionism in media literacy refers to an approach that focuses on protecting individuals from the potential harms of media, such as misinformation, disinformation, and harmful content.
It emphasizes equipping individuals with the skills and knowledge to mitigate risks and ensure their safety in media consumption.
This approach aims to build resilience and empower individuals to navigate the media landscape with caution and critical thinking.
Protectionism in media literacy is often contrasted with empowerment approaches, which emphasize the positive potential of media and promote active, creative, and emancipatory media engagement.
What is the potential negative impact of an overemphasis on protectionism in media literacy?
The potential negative impact of an overemphasis on protectionism in media literacy is that it can lead to a disempowering effect on individuals.
When media literacy education focuses solely on protecting individuals from harmful content and guiding them towards the "correct" interpretations, it can undermine their critical thinking skills and agency. This approach may stifle diverse perspectives and limit individuals' ability to form their own opinions and engage with media in a nuanced and independent manner. It can also risk alienating individuals who do not accept the prescribed interpretations, leading to a lack of trust in media literacy initiatives.
Additionally, an overemphasis on protectionism may neglect the positive potential of media literacy, such as fostering creativity, multi-perspective thinking, and civic engagement.
Therefore, it is important to strike a balance between protectionism and empowerment approaches in media literacy education.
Should government be involved in protectionism?
Based on the information provided in the paper, the answer to the question is not explicitly stated. However, we can infer from the document that the government should be involved in protectionism to some extent. Here's the reasoning:
1. Media literacy is often compared favorably to more interventionist approaches to harmful online content, which risk chilling freedom of expression or the press. This suggests that media literacy is seen as a less restrictive alternative to government intervention.
2. The document mentions that media literacy has been suggested as a possible tool to enhance journalism and democracy in the digital age. This implies that media literacy can play a role in protecting the integrity of journalism and democratic processes.
3. The document also highlights the need for a coordinated and comprehensive strategy across government, civil society, and international partners to support media literacy efforts. This suggests that government involvement is necessary to effectively address the challenges and promote media literacy.
4. The recommendations provided in the document for policymakers and communities include mapping existing efforts, strengthening local and international networks, sharing knowledge and insights, and developing a coordinated and comprehensive strategy. These recommendations imply that government involvement is crucial in implementing media literacy initiatives.
I shall return to this issue later in this article.
Netsafe
Whereas the Brainbox Paper may be viewed as a policy document, a more practical approach to media literacy has been adopted by Netsafe, an NGO dedicated to educating users about the dangers of internet use, how to avoid these dangers and an additional role as the Approved Agency under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
Netsafe focus on the mis-disinformation issue although my own view is that it should be reclassified as reliable or unreliable information. The reason that I say that is this. Most of the time we seek information to inform choices that we wish to make or are about to make. We seek information upon which we can rely so that whatever choice for which we opt, it is properly informed. If we receive unreliable information the likelihood of making a bad choice or one that is to our detriment increases.
Verification Tests
Netsafe pose seven tests that should be applied:
What type of content is it
Is it a story, an advert or a joke. Adverts and joke content should always be taken with a pinch of salt, but a lot of disinformation and malinformation is spread through anecdotes and stories. If you can't find the same story on mainstream news or other trusted sites, it's likely to be untrue.
This is an elementary verification step.
What language is it using.
Be suspicious of emotional language like "greatest", "worst", "outrageous", "shameful", "disgusting." People creating dis- and mal-information often use sensational language, whereas trustworthy sources, such as respected news sources and government agencies, do not.
The use of hyperbole is common in advertising. “Trustworthy sources” such as mainstream media tend to use specific language such as disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories, whackos to raise questions about contrary opinions. Therefore, blind trust in news sources, or government agencies may, from time to time, be misplaced. The “sole source of truth” meme has called Government agencies into question. Redacted material in OIA requests demonstrates a lack of transparency.
Opinion or fact
If the message is claiming to be fact-based, does the evidence stand up? Can you find any first-hand or witness accounts on mainstream news sites?
Verification is the issue again. Opinion should be clearly labelled as such. Tone will often indicate whether there is opinion although that said opinion will most often rely on facts which can be verified. Once again blind trust in mainstream news sites may not always be profitable. There may be selectivity of facts. Even witness accounts may be coloured by re-interpretation of events.
Who has shared it.
Do you know about them? Do they have a personal or political reason for sharing this information? Are they an influencer with products to sell or someone with strong political opinions? If you can't see who the writer is, be especially suspicious.
This is a fair comment. Attribution should always be present and a background check on the author to read other material may provide an indication of “slant” or predisposition.
Does it contain other perspectives.
Are there other opinions represented? If the content is pushing one point of view, you should be suspicious.
This emphasises the importance of balance and fairness
Does the content include video or pictures
You can check them using a reverse image search. If it is a picture of a well-known person and includes a quote, check the quote to make sure the person pictured really did say it the words.
This is another form of verification
Are there spelling or grammar mistakes or other errors.
Given the current state of education and the lack of training in proper grammar and spelling this test may be of little use to the current crop of high school students. Nouns, verbs, tense, number and the ability to parse a sentence seem to be lacking. That said this is another form of verification for those with the skills to utilise it.
Collectively, therefore, these are verification tests.
Netsafe suggests that most information you find in the news, in books and online is real information that can help you learn and understand the world.
The key to ensuring you have good information is always to find more than one trusted source saying the same thing.
Scholars and good journalists should always check what they find with another source which is why it really matters where you get your news from. Sadly this doesn’t always happen.
Newsworthiness
Netsafe also offer a number of tests that can be applied to ascertain or ensure reliable news content. I list the tests followed by a brief commentary.
Think about where you get your news:
If you get your news from your news feeds on social media, it's important to understand that the sources of that news can vary. Always check what those sources are and ask yourself where did the story I just read come from?
This emphasises the necessity for reader initiated verification.
A mainstream news organisation:
Many news organisations have official accounts on social media platforms, where they share their articles, videos, and news updates. These include established news outlets such as the New Zealand Herald, Stuff, BBC, The New York Times.
It is still necessary to distinguish between fact and opinion and to check if articles which purport to be news reports do not use “loaded” language. With the exception of the NYT my view is that the “news sources” cited have had difficulties with reliability and objectivity in the past.
Independent journalists and bloggers:
Social media platforms also provide a space for these writers to share their news content and promote websites or blogs.
Almost invariably this will be opinion rather than fact based reporting
Aggregators and Curators:
News can be gathered from various sources, summarised and shared in a short form for easy reading. Examples are Google News, Apple News and YouTube.
I am not sure that this is a useful verification tool.
User Generated Content
Social media platforms allow users to post their own content including personal updates or eyewitness accounts of events. While this user-generated content can provide first hand perspectives, it is important to check it against other known sources before accepting it as accurate.
This is good advice to take care and emphasises the verification issue.
Some misinformation can be disguised as highly professional looking news publishers , but they don't abide by normal journalistic standards. So, it's important to check the sources - a simple Google search might be enough
Media Literacy – Concerns
Media Literacy is a useful tool for verifying internet-based information. It provides a number of tools or strategies to do this. But media literacy comes with some problems. These can be summarized as follows:
a. Conformity of thought based on the same information sources
b. A reduced capacity for critical thinking or heterodox opinions
c. The risk of State or “official” capture.
I shall develop each of these issues.
Conformity of thought based on same information sources
The obverse side of the media literacy coin is media illiteracy. This suggests that if the media literacy tools are not properly deployed a reader or researcher will fall down a rabbit hole of unreliable information and thereby decision making capacity will be stifled or compromised.
The strategies and approach suggested in the Brainbox paper involving interventions and protectionism must raise some concerns for independence of thought and the diversity of opinions that characterise a free and democratic society, especially when one remembers that the guarantee of freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not only protects the outward flow of information but also the right to receive information.
The ”chanelling” nature of the interventionist/protectionist approach affects the ability to receive information from a number of sources. Whilst the risk is present that unreliable information may become part of the overall data intake, a diversity of sources of information should be encouraged.
This will ensure that independence of thought will remain – an essential aspect of individualism as opposed to the collective group-think that underpins the concepts of social cohesion.
A Reduced Capacity for Critical Thinking and Heterodox Opinions
Any system that prescribes the reception of information limits the intake of information to that which is available within a certain “capsule”. Rigid application of media literacy strategies limits and narrows the information that is available upon which decisions may be based. Furthermore, mechanistic application of media literacy strategies strategies means that individualistic or critical thinking becomes sidelined. The risk of sourcing information from an “echo chamber” is increased.
The final outcome – taking media literacy to its ultimate conclusion - is that it trains information consumers to be uncritical and blindly conformist, following a narrow set of information pathways.
The other side of that coin is that if a reader departs from the media literacy pathway that person will become a heretic – a heterodox thinker – and thereby undermine social cohesion if for any reason that reader challenges the “orthodox view” or, worse still, suggests a distrust of Government or the establishment.
The Risk of State or Official Capture
We have seen in New Zealand the State as the “sole source of truth” and the way in which the Government shaped the messaging that it wanted throughout the Covid pandemic, employing “independent” experts, public funding of the media and a continuing level of resistance to contrary points of view which were characterised as mis or disinformation.
With a change of Government the messaging seems to have shifted to a certain degree. But there must be some concern lest the State become involved in media literacy projects.
Brainbox seem to be of the view that the government should be involved in protectionism to some extent. I restate the reasoning which I have already listed:
1. Media literacy is often compared favorably to more interventionist approaches to harmful online content, which risk chilling freedom of expression or the press. This suggests that media literacy is seen as a less restrictive alternative to government intervention.
2. The document mentions that media literacy has been suggested as a possible tool to enhance journalism and democracy in the digital age. This implies that media literacy can play a role in protecting the integrity of journalism and democratic processes.
3. The document also highlights the need for a coordinated and comprehensive strategy across government, civil society, and international partners to support media literacy efforts. This suggests that government involvement is necessary to effectively address the challenges and promote media literacy.
4. The recommendations provided in the document for policymakers and communities include mapping existing efforts, strengthening local and international networks, sharing knowledge and insights, and developing a coordinated and comprehensive strategy. These recommendations imply that government involvement is crucial in implementing media literacy initiatives.
Based on these points, it can be inferred that government involvement in protectionism, to some extent, is necessary to support and promote media literacy efforts. However, the document does not provide specific details on the extent of government involvement or the specific measures that should be taken.
It is unfortunate that in New Zealand the Government is seen as the solution to problems rather than being the problem itself.
State involvement in media literacy will serve to accelerate the focus upon state approved content to the exclusion of a diversity of views about issues. Because the State is concerned with the collective rather than the individual it will most likely attempt to develop a “one size fits all” approach to media literacy. This risk of capture by ideologically oriented politicians and bureaucrats must be of concern.
For example, some scholars see media literacy as a dialogical process for social and environmental justice that incorporates Paulo Freire's notion of praxis, "reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it"
This pedagogical project questions representations of class, gender, race, sexuality and other forms of identity and challenges media messages that reproduce oppression and discrimination.
Proponents of media literacy education argue that the inclusion of media literacy into school curricula promotes civic engagement, increases awareness of the power structures inherent in popular media and aids students in gaining necessary critical and inquiry skills, but there must be some concern about how this is approached if it is from the Marxist perspective of the struggle between the empowered and disempowered. Such an approach would mean that sources would only be those that adhered to the Marxist narrative rather than exposing the reader to a number of resources.
Conclusions
Media Literacy is a fraught topic. It treads a narrow line between an individual’s ability to evaluate and accept information and the possible interference or redirection by the State towards a particular point of view.
We have seen this already with the silencing of dissent and the “sole source of truth” during Covid and the continued demonsiation of contrarianism by MSM.
The question becomes one of whether we favour individual critical thinking or the provision of signposts to the “official view” put out by the State.
Even when applying critical thinking it is necessary to apply it to all sources and not accept unreservedly a particular line.
An open mind, flavoured with continued scepticism is a healthy attribute in evaluating and validating online content.
Addendum
After I finished this article I scheduled it for publication and I write this addendum on Tuesday 9 August, less than 12 hours before its scheduled distribution. In the last 24 hours there have been some developments in the media landscape. The AUT Trust in News Survey for 2024 was released and I shall write separately about that.
But of more relevance were a couple of articles in the NZ Herald which are worthy or mention and illustrate potential dangers when Media Literacy becomes formalized.
The first piece is the editorial for the Herald for 9 April . This piece catastrophises the results of the AUT Trust in News Survey but predictably, rather than looking inward for the source of the problem, prefers to lay the blame at the feet of disinformation and fake news. The editor suggests that solutions are required urgently and offers a media literacy programme that is the subject of an article about Bryce Corbett, a Queensland-based media executive and founder of Squiz Kids, a popular news podcast aimed at children.
Corbett, a former journalist, also runs a school-based initiative that he says has taught thousands of Australian children how to think critically when they consume online media - and now he is bringing his programme into New Zealand primary schools.
This is the subject of the second article which is an in-depth look at Corbett’s proposal which is designed to teach kids how to avoid the harms of online misinformation and disinformation. The article claims that
“Kiwi kids are being bombarded by misleading and false information on social platforms, and primary schools should teach them how to avoid falling for it.”
The first point that I would make is that I am in no way opposed to teaching anyone - children or adults - the skills for locating and identifying reliable information. In many respects that is what Bryce Corbett’s initiative is all about.
What does concern me is the way in which this programme is being pitched and we see the same tactics being used in the “war” against mis/disinformation as was used against Covid - Fear. Fear of the erosion of democracy, fear that democracy is being threatened, fear of contending and opposing viewpoints. And therefore media literacy provides an answer.
Media literacy as defined by Bryce Corbett is “the ability to see through that fake news and recognise it for what it is.”
That is somewhat simplistic and in my opinion skewed. It targets a particular problem rather than emphasizing the solution which is the identification of reliable information. The issue develops, however, in that one person’s reliable information is, in these polarized times, another person’s “fake news”. The trick, according to Mr Corbett, is to locate credible news sources.
I am all for locating reliable information. Mr Corbett’s orientation is towards credible news sources which, if I get the subtext right, means reliable mainstream media. Not an unreasonable conclusion given Mr. Corbett’s experience as a journalist trained in legacy media newsrooms.
The problem as I see it is deeper than that of credible news sources. It lies in the fact that there is a lack of public trust and confidence in MSM. And what MSM should be doing, rather than blaming social media and mis/disinformation and “fake news”, is to look inward and ask the question “how can we recover the confidence of our audience?”
And the problem gets worse because MSM does not seem prepared to answer that question.
I think you are being too kind to MSM providers, and they are fully authors of their own demise. They intentionally deceived and misled the NZ public all the way through Covid and to the elections, and now they have to pay the price of their self-importance by becoming completely irrelevant and redundant. I notice that some reporters are trying harder and being objective, in an effort to remain employed. Woke thinking has taken over all of MSM, and there is no real cure for it, so this is their only fitting end, and a lot of the public will be celebrating the victory for free speech.
“Media Literacy” - isn’t that what my English teacher in the 80’s meant when she said “Don’t take everything you read and hear at face value - cultivate multiple sources of information, question the narrative and develop a mind of your own”?