What Is Media Literacy, Really?
Knowing how to read the news and discern the intent behind framing choices is an essential skill in today’s media landscape.
Welcome back to Productivity, Without Privilege, friends. I’m still Alan Henry, your host for this newsletter, and author of Seen, Heard, and Paid: The New Work Rules for the Marginalized, which continues to reveal to me exactly how relevant it is right now, even after it was published. If you haven’t read it, now’s a great time to pick up a copy. Also, if you’d like to support me and the work that I do, consider sending me a tip or subscribing to my Patreon. After all, the reason I can write this at all is because of readers like you, so thank you. (See what I did there?)
Today I want to spend a little time on something that you’ve probably heard tossed around a lot on social media, but without a concrete definition of what it means: media literacy.
Writers all over the web are happy to talk about how important media literacy is, and to place the blame on readers who don’t come to the same conclusions they do over a story by claiming they have no media literacy. In some cases, that could be true—after all, not too many people read beyond headlines these days, and even fewer people read entire articles before forming an opinion about them. That said, doing so isn’t always necessary, especially when media outlets continue to hire and promote people will well-known biases, denying objective reality and evidence-based reporting to curry favor with desired audiences instead. But for now, let’s back up and define exactly what we’re talking about.
Media literacy is the ability to apply critical thinking to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and act using all forms of communication, whether it’s printed material, online content, videos, music, or anything else that counts as “media.”
That critical thinking part is important. It’s easy to access, or even in some cases to create media, but it’s not, especially in an age where misinformation and disinformation are often packaged and sold as legitimate (and in some cases, actively promoted in the name of “objectivity,”) easy to critically analyze it. In fact, a lot of media today is purposefully generated to convince you not to think critically about it and to absorb or share it without thinking at all.
And I don’t necessarily mean media that’s intended to sway your opinion one way or another, or designed to cater to one opinion or another. In the case of major publications, sometimes articles that are very well written and truthful, with evidence behind them, are purposefully framed and packaged to be mealy-mouthed. Why? The goal is to pay dues to the idea that journalism that helps you understand the facts of the world around you is bad, and the only good journalism is the kind that somehow says a lot of things without saying anything at all.
So when it comes time to read those stories, how do you decipher them and what—if any—actual truth is hidden behind them? Luckily, you don’t deal with me explaining it; others have done way better. First, the Library and Information Science Network’s blog has an excellent primer on media literacy, and it highlights the importance of critical thinking, emphasis mine.
***
Critical thinking lies at the heart of media literacy. It involves analyzing and evaluating media content to understand its purpose, identify its message, and discern its truthfulness. Critical thinkers question the credibility of sources, recognize biases, and understand the methods by which media seeks to influence audiences. They are adept at distinguishing facts from opinions, identifying logical fallacies, and understanding the strategies used to manipulate emotions. Teaching critical thinking starts with encouraging questions about the media they consume: Why was this made? Who benefits from this message? What is left unsaid?
Analyzing Messages: This involves a detailed examination of the content, structure, and delivery of media messages. Media literate individuals can identify the techniques used by creators to persuade or inform audiences, such as emotional appeals, biased framing, or selective presentation of facts. Developing this skill requires exposure to various media forms and active engagement in questioning the content’s purpose and truthfulness.
Questioning Perspectives: Encourages a deeper understanding of the cultural, political, and economic contexts that influence media production. It involves recognizing the diversity of viewpoints and the potential for media to reflect or challenge societal norms. Teaching this skill involves discussions, critical analyses of case studies, and reflective exercises that help individuals consider multiple sides of an issue presented in media.
***
Truly, the entire guide is worth reading, and if I ever get the opportunity to teach a class or give a talk on media literacy, it’ll be part of the syllabus. The whole thing discusses the ethical and social responsibilities of media and how a literate reader can interpret the work they’re engaging with in the context of what that piece of media means on a social level.
While this guide to media literacy from Common Sense Media talks about the importance of media literacy for children, I think it’s useful for everyone. The list of questions at the bottom is especially good, which asks you to think about things like “Who created this?” and “Why did they make it?” These are essential questions for anyone to ask when reading any article or watching any video anywhere on the internet, whether it’s a well-known news source or an indie YouTuber or TikToker. I personally think that more people should ask themselves the next question in their list, “What techniques are being used to make this message credible or believable?” anytime they consume any form of media.
One reason I like these guides so much is that they focus squarely on teaching and developing media literacy. They don’t fall into the usual trap of saying, “Oh, it’s okay to mindlessly consume media from trusted sources,” which is always problematic.
Obviously, we don’t want to live in a world where misinformation and disinformation flow freely while fact-checked, credible journalism lives behind paywalls and is paid for by affiliate sales (spoiler alert: we already do), but it’s important to remember that any media organization of any type, from a cable news network to a globally-distributed newspaper, is made up of humans. And all of those humans have their own biases, their own interpretations of the world around them, and their own backgrounds that inform their work. On top of that, even an individual story could be touched by several people, each one leaving their own ideological fingerprints on it, whether they’re doing so for an ideological purpose or to obscure potential ideological interpretation.
Remember, media literacy isn’t just “ah hah, I see that this publication/story wants me to think X,” it’s also “this publication is using passive voice to describe the victims of violence…why?” We all know to treat claims without evidence as problematic, as well as publications that publish claims without evidence (right?) but we also need to pay close attention to, for example, publications that always seem to talk to the same sources over and over, discuss topics or whole communities without giving them representation or space in those discussions, or reporters who only call the same “experts” to talk about problems well outside of their areas of expertise.
Like I said a while ago, we’re living in a time when attention and eyeballs are everything. Be careful, judicious, and, most importantly, frugal with where yours go.
I'll say this much because I've been thinking the same thing: Y'all need to be VERY careful with your money, time, and attention now. A lot of people wishing for what we're in now stand to profit from your subscriptions, clicks, and grifts. Save it all for you, yours, and the causes you love. [contains quote post or other embedded content]
— Alan Henry (@halophoenix.bsky.social) 2024-11-06T22:54:26.683Z
Some French Publishers Are Giving AI Revenue Directly to Journalists. Could That Ever Happen in the U.S.?, by Andrew Deck: My direct answer is “god, I wish,” but I’m not holding my breath, really. In the US, when a media company decides to strike a deal with an AI company, it helps the bottom lines of both companies, but the actual human beings doing the work for those publications get nothing for their efforts, except maybe a vaguely-worded mandate to use a specific AI platform for their work, but not to use it too much, or for some things, but not other things. You’ve probably heard about it. In France, however, the approach is a little different, and the trend seems to be moving toward making sure individual workers are compensated for their work being absorbed and used by the plagiarism machines to enrich the owners of said machines.
The full story at Neman Lab goes into detail of how at some French papers, like Le Monde, journalists get not just a cut from those tech companies, but they get what’s called “neighboring rights,” which means they see extra money in their paychecks over time as well, and as long as the company continues to use or have their work in their databases. Of course, this didn’t come through negotiation with tech companies; it was forced on them legislatively by the French government. Tech companies fought the law, but unlike in the US, in many other places around the world, you can’t just sink progressive legislation by getting your billionaire to shake hands with their billionaire. Which is why my general thought is that as much as it would be beneficial for journalism in the US, the way this industry is owned and operated here makes it almost impossible. But it is nice to read about, and dream of, a better world.
Publisher Gannett Wins Dismissal of Nearly All of Journalists’ Job Bias Lawsuit, by Jonathan Stempel: Normally, I would never cheer for a: a publisher the size of Gannett, which has plenty of its own issues, and b: cheer that a discrimination suit was thrown out of court, but this is a special case. First of all, Gannett successfully defended in court that its diversity and inclusion practices do not unfairly discriminate against white people, which was the point of the lawsuit. The court ruled that the plaintiffs in the case offered no proof of the company’s "reverse race discrimination policy" (spoiler, because it doesn’t exist) or that said policy caused similar harm across all of the company’s outlets.
Ironically, the judge in the case is a Trump appointee. But the law is the law, and while the case was dismissed, and the claims that it should be a class action were also dismissed, there is one lingering plaintiff in the case, who sued because they claimed they were passed over for promotion in favor of a woman of color that the plaintiff says was less qualified. Ah, racism is as racism does.
AI-Generated “Workslop” Is Destroying Productivity, by Kate Niederhoffer, Gabriella Rosen Kellerman, Angela Lee, Alex Liebscher, Kristina Rapuano and Jeffrey T. Hancock: This is a story I’ve been meaning to chat about for a while now, because the data reveals something that’s becoming increasingly clear in corporate spaces: that all of the rush to embrace AI for “productivity” is actually resulting in workers being less productive, rather than more. AI is making easily avoidable mistakes that human workers wouldn’t make if they were doing the work on their own, and even worse, the people who embrace AI are turning in poor-quality work that then has to be redone, either by the original worker or by someone else, to improve its quality, leading to expensive rework.
This isn’t new; studies upon studies, even those commissioned by companies with tangible investment in AI, have shown that relying on AI in its current state makes people lazier and leads to cognitive decline. But even worse, this new data from the Harvard Business Review shows that not only is the corporate rush to AI actually making workers less productive, it’s also not turning up the kinds of monetary and resource gains that were promised by the companies developing it. So these businesses laid off their workers, or entire departments, to get money to shovel into AI, with the promises that they’d make it all back in faster workers and automated processes, and even in the best cases, they’re not seeing the returns to justify their investments. Who could have possibly predicted this?
I’ve given you lots and lots to read in this edition of the newsletter, but bear with me for one more. I spoke to Monica Torres at The Huffington Post about my love, productivity, and she came to me with an incredible question that I hadn’t given much thought to before she asked: What do you NOT do before work, to make sure your workday will be productive?
What works for me may not work for you, but my tip was simple: monitor your energy before you start working. Don’t empty the tank before the trip starts, if that makes sense. I know a lot of people love to do things like get a workout in before they start their day, or go for a run, or try and tackle household chores, or spend hours lazily waking up, preparing breakfast and coffee, and easing into their workday. I…can’t do any of that. If I eat breakfast before working, I’ll be sleepy before lunch. If I exercise before work, I’ll be sweaty and tired before lunch, even working from home, where I could shower before starting work.
Instead, I like to start my days with a little adrenaline and jump right into it. Just me, a cup of coffee (or some other caffeinated beverage), and the urgency of the morning hours generally propel me to get right down to it. And while I’m not saying you should jump out of bed with just enough time to get to the office, I am saying that if you’re like me, you need that energy in the tank for when things get tough during the day, or someone gets on your last nerve and you need to resist cursing at them and instead send them a smiley face emoji. I’m also a believer that sometimes showing up to work is the biggest part of the day. You can handle the rest as it comes, as long as you can get yourself put together and ready to tackle the day ahead.
To be fair, I’m not the only person she asked. There’s input from a bunch of great productivity experts and professionals in the piece. But this week, I want you to take a look at what everyone said and consider adapting your own routine in a way that makes sure that you’ll be productive when you start work in the morning. It may not look like what I do, but try to find the wiggle room in your daily routine to look after yourself, your best work hours, and your work style.
And I’ll say it again because we’ve talked about productivity a few times in this newsletter: Remember that productivity is all about getting more things done so you can spend your time doing the things you actually want to do, not just getting work done so you can do more work. Live your best life.
***
That’s all from me this time around. If you love what I’m doing here, send this newsletter to a friend and tell them to subscribe! If you really love what I’m doing, feel free to support me by dropping me a tip here or by subscribing to my Patreon here for early access to this newsletter, as well as some other treats.
Hang in there, stay warm, and I’ll see you back here soon.