James OHare

December 17, 2015

Great Debates of Media Literacy
The advancement of media technology and increased concentration of ownership makes
the need for critical media literacy obvious. Still, there is no consensus among media
professionals and media educators as to what the specific goals of media literacy education
should be or how to effectively achieve them. Rene Hobbs delineates seven great debates of
media literacy that highlight protectionism, production, popular culture, politics, placement,
pedagogy and payment (1998; Yousman 2015). This paper will clearly stake a position on each
of these debates supported by scholarly writings, documentaries and theoretical reasoning. After
addressing each contest separately, this paper will conclude by aggregating each verdict into a
media literacy curriculum that is both idealistic and pragmatic in addressing what, where and
how to teach critical media literacy.
Should media literacy education aim to protect children and young people from negative media
influences?
Media literacy education should seek to protect children from negative media influences.
Opponents of a protectionist approach may cite the failure of abstinence-only sex education as a
comparison and claim that its wrong to eliminate negative images entirely. The analogy is that
when children who have been shielded from negative media images are finally exposed to them,
theyll have no means of coping and will be impregnated with false perceptions of reality.
There is some legitimacy to this perspective but the comparison is not completely
accurate. When it comes to media images, sex is not a momentous life experience; it is an
advertising campaign. Thus, shielding children from harmful marketing techniques that
specifically target them is not a biological denial but a necessity. As the documentary Sext Up
1

Kids (2012) demonstrates, children are overwhelmed with hypersexualized consumerism. From
thong-clad dolls to skimpy clothing lines designed for middle-schoolers, young girls are
subconsciously taught that female sexuality is subservient to male sexuality. More disheartening
is how saturated media images are with messages of how to dress and communicate through
texting sexting.
It is definitely useful to teach children to discern media images for themselves and utilize
negative images in an educational capacity. The documentary itself is one example. Nevertheless,
I defy anyone to explain the explicitness of Pink Flamingos (1972) to a child. This film is an
extreme example, but it is telling that there are media kids flat-out should not see lest their
innocence be obliterated (a theme on which J.D. Salinger made a career). The damage from
exposure to such images and ideas far out-weighs any instructional value.
Furthermore, we already have protectionist mechanisms in place. Movies, for instance,
have ratings that divulge any controversial subject matter to consumers and warn parents about
what their children will see (and theatre employees will not sell tickets to children unless they are
the proper age or have a parent/guardian). Music CDs and downloadable files have similar
content warnings and certain cable television programs cannot be aired before a certain time at
night or the entire channel can be blocked through parental controls.
From a production standpoint, censorship is irreconcilable with democracy. Reception, on
the other hand, is subjective. The debate then is not if there should be protectionism but what is
the proper amount? Banning books in schools is obviously wrong as is blaming video games for
causing violence (Ferguson 2014, 1). But children have different levels of maturity and can be
gradually introduced to more mature content as they get older. It is better that they wade towards
the deep end as they learn to swim than be thrown in at the risk of drowning. Meanwhile parents

and media educators should act as life guards with the ultimate authority in determining what is
ok and what is not.
Mark Twain is credited with defining censorship as, telling a man he cant have a steak
just because a baby cant chew it. Twain is as right as he is witty, but that doesnt mean the kid
should see the cow slaughtered and butchered.

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

Media production should be an essential feature of media literacy education. As Karl
Marx stated, the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point,
however, is to change it. Interpretation is not enough for critical media literacy education. True,
studying commercial imperatives, implicit ideologies, audience reception and inequities in
production and representation is essential but omitting a production aspect would limit media
literacy curriculum to interpretation when the goal should be, as Marx says, to change the
destructive aspects of the media landscape.
Rap music is a prime example. Through critical media literacy, students can learn the
genres origins as a socially conscious art form that has since become overly commercialized to
appeal to a mass audience. Furthermore, they can learn about its tremendous influence on other
forms of music and on our culture in general. At the same time, they will be able to identify the
misogyny and homophobia that plagues rap and hip hop lyrics and music videos. All of this is
wonderful, but without providing students with production skills in addition to an interpretive
knowledge base, the same negative influences will continue to permeate throughout the medium.
By adding a production aspect students can go and make their own music videos that counteract
the harmful images that currently exist.

According to the Report on Children and Media Production, Instead, that media
education stands a good chance of succeeding that sandwiches critical analysis and students own
production, a production and this is important that at the same time emanates from the young
peoples own pleasure and motivation (204). This is another key aspect teaching production is
a means of combating the neo-liberal educational philosophy of standardized testing. After
critically analyzing media images, allowing students artistic leeway fosters self-expression and
creativity over an emphasis of right and wrong answers.
Hobbs presents a counterargument to this stance; that students in production courses
often replicate preexisting media and reiterate its detrimental aspects (1998, 20). Even if students
do initially mimic what they see this isnt necessarily bad. For example, a coach should want a
kid learning to play basketball to imitate Michael Jordans jump shot. That is to say, imitation is
ok if the model is an elite and positive one. The critical component of media literacy curriculum
will ensure that it is. Moreover, imitation is not permanent: The first times students make, for
instance, video films, they often imitate popular products. However, if students are allowed to
make more films in the long run, the production process in itself will instead lead to choice of
other topics and formats, and to reflection and critique (Report on Children, 204). Thus,
learning media production will ultimately allow students to discover and voice their unique
perspectives and provide potential for innovation. In essence, teaching critical analysis allows
consumers to consciously negotiate media images. Teaching production generates new producers
who can improve media images.
The Aspen Institute defines media literacy as, the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and
create media in a variety of forms. Create is in the definition.

Should media literacy focus on popular culture texts?

Media literacy should focus on popular culture texts. As Herbert J. Gans discusses in his
book Popular Culture and High Culture, labeling certain media as popular culture is a
misnomer: there are a number of popular cultures, and they as well as high culture are all taste
cultures which function to entertain, inform, and beautify life, among other things, and which
express values and standards of taste and aesthetics (1975, 10). Basically, all media are culture
and consumers choose which media to engage with based on personal preference age and
higher production value do not automatically mean greater cultural significance. Thus, the labels
of popular culture and high culture might exist in the subjective mind of an individual (and
that individual might hold Beyonc in a higher regard than Mozart) but should not factor into an
objective study of media. An instructor who bars popular culture from the classroom is
allowing his/her own taste culture to hijack the syllabus. All media are cultural texts and are
equal as samples for critical analysis.
Furthermore, studying popular culture puts media literacy in a perspective that is easier
for students to grasp. Their perceptions of issues such as race, gender, sexuality and violence are
molded by the mass media they consume movies, music, television etc. Therefore, examining
this media offers a greater opportunity for comprehension. For instance, a student will be more
excited for a discussion about their favorite TV show but might be shocked at the realization of
its subliminal sexism or racism that the student did not previously consider. Thus, utilizing
popular media examples will improve student engagement and critiquing popular media will
challenge their ways of thinking even more.
To be clear, this does not mean schools should abandon older works and focus entirely on
media from the digital age. It is tremendously important to study influences from the past in

understanding contemporary works. The key is to not focus entirely on one era at the expense of
the other. Whether themes are similar or opposing, studying classic works in tandem with
contemporary ones can provide a practical study of media from different centuries and will
unquestionably augment students understanding of media literacy principles.

Should media literacy have a more explicit political and ideological agenda?
Ideological agendas are inherent even when individuals and organizations attempt to
avoid having them. For instance, an NGO consciously deciding to act apolitically is a political
act in itself. In other words, accepting the status quo is just as much an agenda as challenging it
or reinforcing it. Thus, whether its explicit or implicit, media literacy already has an ideological
agenda. This is a good thing.
Media literacy not only possesses an ideological agenda, its fundamental to its goals.
Media literacy seeks to unearth the ideological agendas of media images and to reveal the often
unequal power structures of mass media corporations. Sharing facts about media ownership (5
companies own roughly 90% of the mass media society consumes) and the dangerous results of
conglomeration is necessary knowledge in media studies as is studying portrayals of race,
gender, sexuality and violence and its impact on viewers. Media literacy consequently poses a
necessary threat to modern media by critiquing its production and questioning its messages. If
production is included in the curriculum it will further challenge the existing media by creating
direct competition. Therefore, media literacy not only has an ideological agenda but an
outwardly explicit one.
A problem does rise, however, in terms of partisanship in classroom settings. No matter
how extreme, everyone has a right to their opinion. The equalizing factor is that everyone also

has a right to believe another persons opinion is idiotic. However, if there is only one dissenting
voice in a classroom discussion, that individual will be less likely to challenge the overwhelming
majority lest they be singled out and ridiculed. Thus, their voice is trivialized and their first
amendment right to freedom of thought as well as their ability to contribute to the classroom
debate is essentially eliminated.
It is possible for media literacy to possess an ideological agenda as an informative course
without becoming propaganda (the statistic on media ownership, for instance, is loaded with
political implications but is nevertheless an objective fact). Media education must present facts to
facilitate free-thinking, not a regurgitation of an authoritative opinion. It should challenge
students to question their own beliefs so they may become aware of the influences on their lives
and potentially break free of them. An instructor can include their own perspective but must
ensure that students clearly comprehend it as a subjective conclusion and not an absolute
statement or part of a fact-driven lesson. Failure to do so would be a form of brainwashing as
students will be hesitant to challenge an instructors conclusions. After all, power structures exist
in the classroom as well and students need to pass the course.

Should media literacy be focused on school-based K-12 educational environments?

Media literacy should be focused on school-based K-12 educational environments but
this debate is somewhat of a catch-22. Media literacy seeks to reform educational structures and
techniques that prevent media education from taking hold in schools. Unfortunately it requires
those reforms to happen in order to establish critical media literacy curricula. More simply put,
the problem is stopping media literacy from solving the problem. In the face of this adversity,
Hobbs identifies that potentially, the best sites to implement media education may be in after-

school programs, summer camps, religious education programs, library and prevention programs,
community-based organizations, and at home with parental guidance (24).
All of these outside efforts, including teachers taking the time to further their own media
education and practicality, should be viewed as steps towards the ultimate goal of instilling K-12
critical media literacy. The success of these external endeavors only proves the viability of
critical media literacy in educational environments and bolsters the call for transforming critical
media literacy from a micro level based on individuals to a macro level powered by a
pedagogical movement.
Media literacy cannot be regarded as a hobby or be limited to an after-school-activity like
Hobbs outlines this isnt chess club or karate. Considering how much media influence has
escalated during the past decade with advancing technology, critical media literacy is an absolute
necessity and our education system must respond accordingly. The urgency for critical media
literacy is apparent as is the capability for successful media literacy education programs. The
only problem is actually introducing it in schools.

Should media literacy be taught as a specialist subject or integrated within the context of
existing subjects?
An integrated approach should be the eventual goal so engaged citizens can more
effectively transition media literacy skills to the real world. Whether the consumer is dealing
with music or politics media manipulation is the same. Therefore, the same skillset is applicable
no matter the topic. Realistically, however, most teachers do not know what media literacy is or
how to integrate its core philosophies into their courses. Furthermore, Common Core and
standardized testing are tremendous burdens for teachers. Requiring a media literacy component

to their classes when they are not fluent in its discourse could result in ineffective amateur
efforts. This pragmatic detail favors teaching media literacy as its own course (Hobbs 1998, 25).
Still, an integrated approach is not hopeless. For the time being, media literacy should
begin as a specialist subject by adding a critical aspect to production electives. Meanwhile,
schools must take advantage of staff development opportunities and bring in professionals who
have expertise in media literacy to familiarize teachers with its importance and implementation.
Addressing different grades is another strategy to consider. You have to teach reading before you
can teach literature. The same principle can be applied to media literacy. Teaching basic skills in
how to read media messages in an independent course from elementary school through junior
high school, even if only for part of the school year, could lay the ground work for a more
integrated approach in high school and higher education.
Media literacy cannot become a course students take, remember for a few years and
finally forget. The ability to read has become a basic skill, but in our digitally dominated society
reading is no longer limited to print media. Discreet skills may be taught independently but in the
end, critical media literacy must be integrated into schools and everyday reception of media
messages.
Should media literacy be supported financially by media organizations?
Media literacy should not be supported financially by media organizations. A Huffington
Post article by Hunter Stewart titled Activism or Greenwashing? explains why. Stewart details
how the environmental activism website Collectively.org, published a story praising companies
for committing to end climate change and deforestation. Some of the companies mentioned in
the article McDonald's, Unilever and Johnson & Johnson were Collectively sponsors. The

article made no mention of the fact that those corporations were helping to bankroll the website
(2014, 1). Even if its for a righteous cause, the conflict of interest is blatant.
Yes, corporate money makes efforts like Collectively possible and can aid them in
achieving their organizational goals. But only to a certain point. It also handcuffs them by
preventing criticism or activism against corporate sponsors (a problem that is rampant in forprofit news networks). For an organization that relies on sponsorship to remain viable its not
even an issue of morals but one of existence: take the money and a corporate shadow or risk
becoming obsolete.
In addition to censorship, sponsorship encourages corporate influence. The documentary
Captive Audience (2003) reveals how corporate sponsored education materials focus more on
advertising to teenagers and advancing profits than they do on actually teaching. The same goes
for media literacy education. Initially, it may seem as though a fatter budget will liberate an
organization and make it a bigger player but in the long run the organization will be co-opted to
serve corporate ends, as happened with Collectively.org.
Corporate money must be kept out of media literacy education or it will ironically
become another case study as to the necessity of critical media literacy.

Conclusion
Hobbs lays out seven separate debates of media literacy but they are all interconnected.
In summary, media literacy should be introduced in K-12 environments. It should be integrated
into already existing courses and taught on its own. Adding a critical component to media
production electives is somewhat of an inverse approach, but a realistic strategy in introducing
interpretive skills in sync with production skills and eliminating the last-resort stigma of current

10

production classes. It would also foster creative thinking against a neo-liberal approach. Inherent
ideological undertones such as this are good for a media literacy course so long as they do not
play into partisan politics and risk marginalizing individual students. Within such a course,
instructors should utilize popular culture texts to augment comprehension but must carefully
consider the age group when selecting examples (e.g. no graphic sex scenes in a middle school
setting). Above all, corporate money must be kept out lest all of these efforts become tainted with
the same influence critical media literacy seeks to identify and eradicate.

Works Cited
Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom. Prod. Sut Jhally. Media Education
Foundation, 2003. DVD.
"Children's and Young Person's Own Media Production." Report on Children and Media
Production (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
Ferguson, Christopher J. "How Journalists Contribute to Moral Panics." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.
Gans, Herbert J. "Mass Culture, Popular Culture, and Taste Culture." Introduction. Popular
Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic, 1974.
N. pag. Print.
Hobbs, R. "The Seven Great Debates in the Media Literacy Movement." Journal of
Communication 48.1 (1998): 16-32. Web.
Sext Up Kids. Dir. Maureen Palmer. Dream Street Pictures in Association with CBC, 2012. DVD.

11

Stuart, Hunter. "Activism Or Greenwashing? Giant Companies Bankroll New Social Good
Platform." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Oct. 2014. Web. 17 Dec.
2015.

12