Media Literacy - Tumblr Posts

I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."

I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.

Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.

Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.

Thank you, yes! People need to learn the difference between answering polls to reflect the way they wish things were and the way things actually are. But then again, that poll account is known for enjoying the heller wank, so the results are never too surprising.

There are only two characters who appeared in every single episode of that show.

Remind me again who they were?

Oh, yeah...

you’ll never guess what show this is about

Fandom Problem #5379:

"Sherlock was queerbaiting. Teen Wolf was queerbaiting. Supernatural was queerbaiting. Now Loki is queerbaiting."

Newsflash: you shippers are the most common denominator.

You know how they say, if you meet an asshole, you met an asshole, but if everyone you meet is an asshole, then you are the asshole? That applies here.

Those shows didn't do anything but have male characters exist as friends. You decided to make it into something more. You queerbaited yourselves, and now you're trying to project it onto the creators.

It's always the same group of people shipping two male characters together, and then acting like victims when it doesn't become canon and hurling insults at creators and other fans. Y'all just migrate from fandom to fandom using the same rhetoric, parroting the same accusations, throwing around the same insults.

Have some fucking self reflection.

This is why I have no time for the garbage take that fanfiction without smut is somehow superior to fanfiction with it. And I most often hear this from fellow authors complaining that their fics without smut don't reach the same audience or get the same feedback as those whose fics do contain smut.

The thing is, you could write 100k words as pure as the driven snow and you've no guarantee to come anywhere near the 5k of realness I just read while the blorbos fucked nasty in the backseat of their dead daddy's car still covered in grave dirt while someone else's blood is in their mouths.

Wincest is particularly good for this, as an example. Those boys are so hopeless at expressing themselves unless it's through silence or violence that sex is the perfect medium. It's also unexplored in canon, so it can be whatever we want it to be

Sure, PWP is a real and valid thing, but smut isn't only PWP. It can be a legitimate driving force of character development and an incredible vehicle for character study. Sex is such an intimate engagement; exploring a character during and around that act is ripe with potential.

Made this for u 💝

I feel like media literacy is dead these days

All I know about Gundam is that the One Year War mobile suit designs fuck hard and that Gihren Zabi, notorious villain of Mobile Suit Gundam, is directly compared to Hitler in the text of the show by his own father.

I'm a "Wow Cool Robot" kinda guy who's only in it for the Gunpla and video games and even I know better

I love seeing people who the “WOW COOL ROBOT” image was made for 

Imagine being this media illiterate, it’s amazing.

"this work is problematic because of how it handles [subject]": reasonable premise for media criticism

"this work is problematic because it depicts [subject]": do not pass go do not collect $200 this is, as a general rule, a functionally reactionary and conservative argument

I really wanted to ask you about this:

Do you have any advice of how to develop critical thinking and media literacy?

There are many, many ways you can practice critical thinking, evaluation and media literacy. At its most basic, you can access student resources for lower levels of education like earlier high school years and look at the examples and guidance given there. Rehashing this will often give you a good foundation to build off of and apply.

One of the main aspects of critical thinking involves discerning what is fact and what is opinion. A good portion of media analytics is opinion. What is 'bad' by one person's standards is 'sub-par' or even 'great' by another's. Similarly, the majority of fandom space is opinion-based. The main pitfall of fandom spaces is that everyone wants their opinion to be taken as fact, which is where critical thinking and even basic communication begin to fall away.

"I'm right and you're wrong" and "this is the way it should be, if you do it or think differently, you're wrong" are common roadblocks people run into when engaging with things like media analysis and even basic fandom activities like fanfiction.

'Mischaracterisation' is fanfiction is one popular topic, especially here on Tumblr. What people often fail to recognize is the true creative depth of fanfiction and using someone else's pre-existing characters. Characters as they are in the source material may not make the choices or behave in the ways necessary to activate or validate certain plot material or author intentions in fanfiction. Which is, inherently, one of the main points of fanfiction. Exploring the alternate.

While you might immediately recoil and say "he'd never do that!" you then have to sit back and recognise that that's exactly the point. That this iteration of that character is not meant to directly reflect the source material. Its a re-imagining, a re-interpretation. That doesn't mean its bad. Its simply different.

'Mischaracterisation' is only actually applicable in fandom spaces when someone is trying to insist as a blanket fact that a character would do something or behave in a way that blatantly contradicts their canon behavior, opinions, morals and perspective or deliberately interpreting an action in biased bad faith. It is not actually applicable to fanfiction where creative liberty dictates you can do whatever the fuck you want with a character because you're not trying to claim it as part of the source content.

Questions To Ask Yourself

Am I reacting to [media] emotionally instead of rationally? Is my emotional response to [media] blinding me to the rational or critical approach(es)?

Am I allowing my expectations to get in the way of me understanding [media] fully? Am I forming a biased negative opinion of [media] because it isn't meeting my expectations?

Even if I disagree with [media], do I actually understand it? Can I recognise the reasoning behind choices made or actions even if I don't agree with them?

Am I searching too hard to hidden meaning or purpose in absolutely everything? Can I recognise what is simply passive information/detail and what is active information/detail? (E.g; English tutors saying a character's curtains are blue because they're depressed when throughout the literature its passively reinforced that blue is the character's favorite color.)

Even though I disagree with the statement or opinion shown, is it necessary to argue against it? Is there any benefit to making my counter-opinion known or is it simply a no-end argument? Am I just using arguing as a means of release/fulfilment? Am I treating this person poorly because of their opinion/statement?

Resources

Critical Thinking Exercises & Explanations #1 The Critical Thinking Activity Workbook Early Stage Critical Thinking Games Five Media Literacy Activities Six Media Literacy Ideas

the repetitive consistent caleb hate will never make any sense to me when we as the viewers can literally see every interaction between every character and see everyones inside thoughts through confessionals. we KNOW caleb wasnt leading priya on. we KNOW he genuinely likes her. we KNOW he has no control over how priya felt about him. we KNOW he was just trying to be friendly and make an alliance. do you giys need to watch dramarama instead? because its starting to feel like thats the demographic here.

Yes, but: those skills have recently been shown to be a) particularly necessary and b) systematically undervalued in a way we don't see in STEM skills. There's a broad consensus that science, math, and engineering are Useful Today--which is absolutely true! But the accompanying pivot away from critical analysis of texts has, I think, done a great deal of harm. The was journalists create, and the public consumes, narratives of false equivalency and the way queer and fan spaces (overlapping, of course) have been subjected to this neo-puritanicalism that can't separate an author from a narrator from a character, are both examples of this.

In sum: most people don't need to know how to fix their car or understand Finnegan's Wake. Most people do need to know when statistics and verbal statements are honest or disingenuous manipulations or outright lies.

I mean, I agree at least with the minimal claim that some sort of study of literature and the surrounding disciplines (whether in school or autodidactically) would enhance the critical thinking skills of many STEM majors, but not really more than taking science and math classes would do the same for many humanities majors. I don't think English is distinctly the critical thinking discipline in the way tumblr at large seems to be increasingly coming to believe. I'd say the closest to such a class would probably be philosophy or logic, but even those are far from complete in that respect.

You can tell this guy had a really shitty English teacher

AI people: we're just as much artists as you are, you gotta be so observant and go through so many correcting phases for the picture to look good uwu also AI people:

© Photos by Out of the Box Team & Collage by Jena T.

Out of the Box’s Media Literacy Bootcamp held May 9, 2015 was a great opportunity for people like me who are new to media literacy efforts, want to be part of creating awareness, as well as those who want to take action and counter the messages in media and help others become critical viewers of media.

Out of the Box (OOTB) is an initiative by UP students to promote media literacy in the Philippines. They hold workshops, forums, and trainings, to campaign for media literacy and educate people about it. I was fortunate enough to attend one of their workshops last May, which I am happy to talk about in this post.

But first, you may be asking yourself, what is media literacy? In basic terms, media literacy is the ability to discern information from entertainment, the fact from fluff, in the media we consume. It empowers one to be critical of everything he watches, reads, and hears from media.

Together with 59 other attendees, I was able to participate in discussions regarding issues in media, create spoof ads for the spoof ads contest, and listen to talks by speakers who work for media. I learned a great deal, many of which I only realized through the workshop. Let me summarize them into a list of three:

There is a growing problem with media, its use, and its consumerism here in the Philippines – but many are not aware of it yet.

         The media issues that most know of are only those whose impact they have felt the most recently, such as the repression of freedom especially in the Philippine news media with the murders of 32 journalists in the Maguindanao Massacre back in 2009; and, of course, the filing and long-awaited passing of the FOI bill in the Congress. It should be brought more to people’s attention that not only is the right to freedom of expression suffering in society but it’s also being curtailed in the film and television industry. How so? 

          Let us note that the Philippine traditional media landscape has always been dominated by family-owned corporations, for instance, the Lopezes own ABS-CBN and GMA is owned by the Gozon-Duavit-Jimenez triumvirate. Media ownership in the Philippines is part of a monopolistic approach by business tycoons. There is manipulation in what is being featured in media because there is money to be made. When the Pope came here last January, these two leading channels, for almost twenty-four hours, chose to televise his visit and little of anything else aside from advertisements. 

           In the Philippines, ubiquitous also are the films and television shows that are only a re-make of previous successful films and television shows in order to repeat a huge hit (and the raking in of money, more likely). Our cinema is invaded by romantic-comedy films and little of any other genres. This is so because rom-com is what appeals most to the masses, as said by one of the speakers in the workshop; and at the end of the day, the cinema industry is a business after all. The business angle has obviously taken over journalism and mass media.

    2.  Media messages are constructed for a purpose.

         What do I mean by this? When I say media messages are constructed, I mean that all media messages have been assembled by someone. That “someone” could be a single person, or it could be a large organization. For instance, in photographs, the photographer's own vision of what she wants to show within the frame demonstrates her own values and beliefs. A newspaper writer’s articles may be based on his own beliefs, or on the beliefs and ideologies of his publishers, or perhaps even the beliefs of the companies who advertise in that particular newspaper.

         The messages and values embedded in these particular pieces of media are those of the people who created it. Thus, we must always be wary of their purpose behind the creation of their work.  Media messages may be organized to gain profit and/or power, which is usually the case in print and television advertisements. I’m not asking you to frown upon ads entirely - they are, after all, made for the purpose of selling a product, but we have to be nonetheless conscious of what we see. Misrepresentations are widespread in ads. They create idealized notions of beauty and identity. As a media literate individual, remind yourself not to take everything at its face value.

    3.   We can do something about it.

          You have the power to counter these media problems. How do I become media literate? For one, be critical. Before believing a piece, ask questions. Getting your news from only one source will skew your opinions and beliefs about important issues so it’s better to vary your sources. Read the newspaper, listen to the radio, watch your local news, and test out different outlets. Remember that facebook, twitter updates, and hashtags are no replacement for journalistic reporting. Understand the facts before being overridden by the desire to tweet the news. And most importantly, let yourself be heard.

We must realize that being a conscientious news consumer is vital to a successful democracy. Understanding the issues helps keep those with power in check. Recognizing problems amidst a flurry of contradictory media messages is essential to letting the government, as well as those behind media, know when we disagree and when we have a problem. Public opinion will only be powerful if our media literacy is sharp. We know that the media we have is far from perfect and thus, we must do what we can do to improve our media literacy and account for the media’s deficiencies.

For more info about Out of the Box, you can check out their facebook page. Support the initiative! Be media literate! :)

Also, let me share to you the winners of the Spoof Ads contest! Spoof ads aim to reconstruct an ad and deliver a more truthful message.

not actual newspapers spreading that haniyeh was assassinated by a mossad agent named amit nakesh 😭😭😭😭😭😭

An interesting take, to be sure! There is something to be said about the hyper awareness of diversity from audiences at large, but I think this fails to understand where that hyper focus comes from, and what right-wing people mean when they say 'woke'.

So where did the (relatively) sudden shift in perception come from? Surprisingly, a lot of the way the online right functions can be traced to Gamergate, which if folks don't remember, was the loosely organized harassment campaign against a number of women in the gaming industry, most notably Anita Sarkeesian, Zoë Quinn, and Brianna Wu. It's important to note that this shift came from a political place rather than any actual analysis of the material. They're picking up on something superficial to fit an agenda, not recognizing any actual messages. A good example of this dissonance is with Star Wars,; the sequel trilogy is 'woke' for having a woman and a black man as the leads, but the previous movies being *directly* political and being criticisms of imperialism and political corruption isn't 'woke' even as the themes and narrative come down against ideals right-leaning people hold.

It's also important to note that people aren't coming to the conclusion of something being 'woke' independently. They are being told what to look for and how to react; people like Grummz make a living off of directing disgruntled right wingers to different games and franchises to fight the 'liberal agenda'. This is the opposite of media literacy. Maybe you could make the argument that those who perpetuate this cycle are engaging in media literacy, but again I point to the notion that their idea of 'wokeness' is superficial at best, and doesn't constitute any real form of analysis or questioning of the work.

I also won't pretend like this issue doesn't exist in left-leaning spaces either. A lot of people will watch someone speak with authority on some kind of media, usually saying it's problematic in some regard, and run with that interpretation without really analyzing the text on their own. And these problematic aspects can often be rather surface level, like it's not a particularly groundbreaking take to say South Park or something is edgy.

Anyways. I hope you don't take this as an attack or anything of the sort OP, I had fun engaging with your perspective, and I think it's an interesting thought! I would say tackling the concept of media literacy from this angle is, in a way, its own form of critical thinking and is therefore media literacy of its own. A bit meta, eh?

Unpopular oppinon I don't think media literacy has gotten worse among people I think it's gotten better. My evidence is the people who always go "this insert show, movies or franchise has gotten woke". When said show, movies or franchise has always been woke(at least in the come definition of wokeness). These people didn't recognize the wokeness back then because they didn't have media literacy so everything flew over their heads. But now they got older and their media literacy has gotten better so they come to realization that their favorite pieces of media is disagreeing with the politically and morally so they have a meltdown

Having media literacy is more important than being good at math prove me wrong

I’m seeing a lot of discourse about Bridgeton Season 3 and the recasting of certain characters and people keep talking about it being unfair to the original actors, or that they shouldn’t have jumped to other projects (Francesca’s season 1 actor was cast as the lead in Lockwood and Co, which was then unfortunately cancelled…) and instead they should have stayed around to be avalible etc.. and I think we’re missing an obvious point:

People don’t want to watch the kids that grew up on their Tv have s*x.

Bridgerton by definition is a s*xual show, with explicit scenes and n*dity from its leads. When it gets around to the younger kids stories (if the show’s renewed enough) no one will be 100% comfortable watching s*x scenes when they remember that actor as a child.

Game of Thrones ran into this issue too. We all watched Maisie Williams grow up on screen, watched as her characters story grew and she had to handle tougher subject matter and scenes. No one wrote into complaint when we watched her pretend to kill a child at 14 (playing an 11 yr old Arya Stark), when she blinded and killed a p*edophile at as an actor of 18 (15 for Arya) or watched what was essentially torture p*rn of a blind 19 year old being beaten relentlessly every week for a month.

But when it came time to do an intimate scene… suddenly the audience felt awkward. Something about s*xual intimacy crossed some internal boundary for a large portion of the audience and suddenly the voyeuristic nature of being an audience in those scenes was driven home. It was okay being a viewer to explicit scenes if they were violent or gory, but explicit scenes of romance… nope that somehow feels indecent.

It was a tasteful scene, only partial n*dity, nothing full frontal, and the blocking and writing made it clear it was consensual and enjoyable. In every way possible this was a positive thing for Arya as a character and as both the character and actor were adults there was no concern about appropriate story lines.

And yet.

People wrote in. People switched off, fast forwarded, talked about it at work on Monday. Articles were written, and it became a discussion piece around the TV; even knowing all the above people still felt wrong watching an actor they first knew as a child and who they ‘watched grow up on screen’ perform a s*x scene.

So I think a big part of Bridgerton’s casting choices around the younger children is to head this off at the pass and to not invite the discussion. Why risk even a percentage of your audience not watching the intimate scenes that season (or god forbit not streaming the season at all!) when you can just recast and remove the problem? Why borrow trouble or controversy, especially when other plot points in future stories will likely do that all on their own?

This way we get to have a child character played by a child actor, who the audience can find cute and precocious, who they can feel parental and familial toward with complete peace of mind. And then when the season comes for that siblings love story, ‘oh would you look at that puberty made them look all grown up and completely different’! A new adult actor is playing the adult version and the audience can watch them enjoy their love affair with no guilt, unease, or annoyance.

So yes it’s probably sad for the actors who first played these characters or are playing them now to know that they won’t get to be the one to act out their characters ‘main character moment’ season. But they were hired on in that capacity, they knew what they signed up for, and at the end of the day no one is ‘entitled’ to anything in Showbusiness.

The whole show’s already a guilty pleasure, so let’s not tip the balance too far!

Of course you don’t. Free college might hinder the school-to-prison pipeline your  prison owning donors depend on