Self Reflection & Innovative Pedagogy - Equipping students and New Media

Henry Jenkins comments on media convergence are particularly resonating for me.

One thing that I have learnt, quite simply, is that I am a “learner”. Of course learning is a lifelong process, but in the context of my education practice, for the first time ever, my teaching role is in the midst of change. As Sonia Livingstone suggests; children are, for the first time in history, seen “as a source of wisdom rather than innocence and ignorance” (2009 p. 181), particularly in the areas of New and Digital Media and the emergence of participatory culture, of which film and television is still a part. The media landscape is changing and rapidly.

Back in the mid 1990s, I was involved in a short television project, funded by The Australia Council, about “Interactive television”. It was broadcast as part of a short film series on SBS and was a very exciting experience.  I remember thinking how farfetched it seemed, but at the same time I was open to that fact that this could very well be a reality. I just probably did not expect that to be in just under a decade. Now, film and television has indeed converged with online technology, and often I find myself accessing YouTube to watch long lost videos and music clips, see innovative animations from new film makers and enjoy movies. Not only can I just watch these programs, but I can comment on online communities and give my opinions to others and meet like minded audience members. In a strange way, although I may never meet these people, film and television has become a social experience other than just one I enjoy with my family in the living room or share with a class.

Teaching media literacy is at the very core of my subject area. One reason I elected to take this subject in Youth, Popular Culture and Texts was to update my knowledge in this arena, particularly as media converges.  I acknowledge that this will be fundamental content to my teaching practice and that it will also impact on pedagogy.  I use these technologies as a layman, and in my regular everyday activities, but understanding the context for its use in education and learning with young people is vital. Although I have trained in film and television and been involved in various media productions, before embarking in a career in the education field, my knowledge will always need to be current.  I am a learner in the world of New Media and as Frances Willard, an American educator of a bygone era once said:
"No matter how one may think himself accomplished, when he sets out to learn a new language, science, or the bicycle, he has entered a new realm as truly as if he were a child newly born into the world."  ~Frances Willard, How I Learned to Ride the Bicycle

My students, born as “digital natives” (Prensky 1991) are the experts.  However, as Jenkins (2009 p. 15) says “children and youths do indeed know more about these new media environments than most parents and teachers. In fact, we do not need to protect them so much as to engage them in critical dialogues that help them articulate more fully their intuitive understanding of those experiences”. Students still need adult guidance and facilitation in their learning. Another thing that is interesting is that debates about media literacy are not new, but they are no longer restricted to the media education classroom. As Livingstone (2009 p. 198) asserts “once a rather specialist issue for media practitioners and educators...media literacy is now a central issue for everyone concerned with people’s – not only children’s – critical, participatory and creative engagement with all forms of media and communications” . It is being realised, just how important media literacy is, just not in a Film, Television and New Media classroom, but across the entire school curriculum.

Given these issues in mind, this relates to a few things I would like to bring into the media education classroom. It would be fascinating to observe how a project or unit could be spread over several different media types – a thematic unit. Rather than students doing isolated tasks on each media form (such as an animation or a singular video as part of a unit in Australia film for example), it would be exciting to see how a film/video project from production practice could be made from conception to upload on YouTube and blogged in process and review.  In production practice, where students may have usually have kept a written journal of the process, this component of a task could be moved to a blog. Students could share with their production group and exchange video links and ideas. A Critique section could also be done via blog, rather than a submitted via hard copy assignment allowing students to provide actual film and television excerpts as reference. Where permission would allow, a mash up of videos could be produced for a unit like Teenage film or music video,  where students could change the meaning of a video text by mashing it together and juxtaposing different images together to create another meaning. But unlike the editing suite, they would upload this to another source for informal comment and use existing texts and share their production more widely. Blogs could also allow students to exchange and incorporate ideas like a scrapbook and provide feedback for each other. This could be particularly interesting in topics such as ‘advertising’ or ‘propaganda’. 

Another thought was to take advantage of students knowing more than their elders in some areas, and to develop a unit that focuses on this, to assess prior knowledge, to not only realise any possible “participation gaps” (Jenkins 2009) in the class, but to develop a collaborative way to teach others using New Digital Media in a peer learning environment. Additionally, it would be good to run community forum software off a school’s website, to allow students to discuss their favourite television and films and as a result, base an assessment task around an interest shared community like this. The opportunities of teaching with New Media are boundless. Collaborative learning would move beyond the classroom and online. Students could share ideas whenever they came to them, and work on production tasks with a more flexible approach. As Jenkins (2009) and Quin (2003) assert that educators have always known that students learn best through experimentation and observation – basically learning by doing, rather than by reading a text book or attending a lecture. Simulations, like those suggested above, would help broaden their experiences in learning and their understanding of various media texts.

My part of this blog has focused largely on media and moral panics, and issues that concern youth. Moral panics still occur today, and I did encounter some, via parental concern with units that I taught. Being a parent now myself, I do understand a lot more why parents may be concerned about various issues, and this unit has allowed me to think about New Media and popular culture, not just with my educator’s hat on, but as a parent as well. It is a very exciting time for education with the advent of New Media, and it something that provides boundless opportunities. Once we lay the critical foundations in place with our students through analysis and critique, the new media technology can be used to best advantage in the classroom and provide students with the resources for fantastic learning experiences.

Elizabeth

REFERENCES:
Jenkins, H. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media education for the 21st Century. United States. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York. New York University Press.

Jenkins, H. (Speaker) Henry Jenkins [streaming video recording] Retrieved: October 1st 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJaqXVaOaI

Livingstone, S. (2009) Children and the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. (9) 5 pp. 1-6.

Quin, R. (2003) Questions of Knowledge in Australian Media Education. Television and New Media. (4), 439-460.

Reflection: transforming pedagogy for boys

In my previous blog entries, I have focused primarily on the construction of masculine identities in film and television targeted at the youth market.  Boys are too often forgotten when considering the impact of media on their identity formation, yet producers “rely more frequently on youthful and teenage images as a means to tell their stories” (Call, 2009, p. 80).  As a teacher in an all-boys secondary school, using texts that present the multiplicity of masculinity is a priority, but it is often difficult to find such examples, particularly from popular culture.  Male characters in mainstream film and television tend to be reworked stereotypes or immature men who have never ‘grown up’.  As a result, it is argued that “Western society is structured through an extended adolescence” (Pomerance & Gateward, 2005, p. 9) with men struggling to find their desired role.  By focusing the lens of study on masculinity, boys can explore how film and television texts work to affirm – and occasionally contest – perceptions and expectations of gender roles.

As a first step in interrogating masculinity in my own practice, I believe that more opportunitites can be created to use popular culture as teaching resources.  In an extensive study of boys' literacy practices, Blair and Sanford (2004) found that boys read non-traditional and non-literary text types, particularly those that have emerged on the internet.  Furthermore, their engagement increases when there is a personal relationship between them, their friend and the text, precipitating a purposeful and meaningful interaction.  The convergence of film and television products with the internet and mobile devices means that the use of a simple DVD in class is not necessarily the most appealing way of engaging the students.  More social and collaborative learning environments would be more suitable.

In my practice as an English teacher, I can apply this idea by exploiting the access to streamed video and vodcasts relating to units of work.  Content available in this way is usually recent, popular, readily available and easily shared.  As such, an investigation of gender representations would be relevant and most likely aimed at the youth market.  As a teacher librarian, I will ensure that the library is well-resourced with a range of popular culture texts (in traditional formats as well as in new media).  More importantly, I will continue to collaborate with other teachers in developing learning activities that put television and film as an essential part of their study, with the specific intention (where appropriate) to question the way in which male characters, and masculinity in general, have been represented.

In designing tasks for students, the use of film and television could be both in the process and product of their work.  In other words, a film could be used as a teaching resource, a video recording could then be made for a personal reflection (ie. a vlog), and the final assessment piece could be a mash-up of different media.  In this way, students would be exposed to the experience of constructing as well as deconstructing a text, which would enlighten them about other authors' decision-making processes.  In relation to masculine identity, it is a step towards understanding that every element in front of the camera represents a decision, whether it be in the script, the acting, or the composition of a shot.  Masculinity is further constructed in the interactions between characters.

Several units of work, particularly in the English course, seem most fitting for adaptation, based on my learnings.  Collaborating with other staff, I see an opportunity in a junior year level to use television comedies (and sitcoms) as a means of examining how gender stereotypes are constructed and manipulated.  The contemporary depiction of the infantile, immature man who lives in privileged circumstances would be one specific male identity to investigate.  What Walsh, Fursich and Jefferson (2008) note about mismatched couples affirming a patriarchal worldview is particularly relevant in this context.  Similarly, The Simpsons or Glee would be a resource rich with examples of stereotype manipulations.  In another more senior year level, a unit could focus on the construction of the male hero, from its origins in Greek tragedy to contemporary film.  Reframing common assumptions about heroes would be an interesting exercise and reveal much about the expectations we have of male characters, particularly those that reflect the more traditional aspects of the gender.

Overall, a shift in pedagogy is needed not only to address the struggle with masculine identity in popular culture, but also to address the literacy needs of boys.  By incorporating film and television into the curriculum in novel ways, particularly combined with other media such as the internet, we would be promoting the development of new literacies - ones that require different reading practices and textual interactions.  It is in these literacies that there is hope for greater diversity and complexity in how men are represented in the future, so that young people are less bound to a narrow range of identities.

Greg


REFERENCES

Blair, H., & Sanford, K. (2004). Morphing literacy: boys reshaping their school-based literacy practices. Language Arts, 81(6), 452-460, Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.5159&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Call, J. (2009). Review: Where the boys are: cinemas of masculinity and youth, edited by Murray Pomerance and Frances Gateward. Wayne State University Press, 2005. Quarterly review of film & video, 26(1), 80-85.

Pomerance, M., & Gateward, F. (Eds.) (2005). Where the boys are: cinemas of masculinity and youth. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Walsh, K., Fursich, E., & Jefferson, B. (2008). Beauty and the patriarchal beast: gender role portrayals in sitcoms featuring mismatched couples. Journal of popular film and television, 36(3), 123-132.

"If you watch too much TV you'll get square eyes! (&ADHD&obese&morally corrupt....)"

Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children – Response to article by Lumby and Fine and the divisive opinions that surround children’s television viewing.

Debates have raged for years as to the alleged effects of television viewing on impressionable young minds, almost as long as television has been in existence. They still continue to rage today, only now television is joined in this ongoing debate by other new media forms such as computer games, mobile media and the internet. Catharine Lumby and Duncan Fine’s (2006) chapter Why TV is good for Kids: raising 21st century children discusses some of the research into these issues.

Just like the debates about the effects of television have been around almost as long as television itself, it was not the only mass medium to fall under this sort of debate.  Potential detrimental effects of popular texts and mediums have been around for centuries. Anything that could be produced and supplied to the masses, such as novel, was a target. Lumby and Fine (2006) cite the 1792 publication The Evils of Adultery and Prostitution that suggested that engaging in the acts of reading novels was a wicked and deviant act. Similarly, an article by Arnett, Larson and Offer (1995) cites a situation, where in 1774, Goethe’s The Sorrow of Young Werther was banned in some parts of Germany, as it may encourage impressionable adolescents to take their lives, much like the character in the story. Death and promiscuity may result if a young person reads a book?! Music Halls in Victorian Britain were said to produce immortality, unlawfulness and violence. Even bicycles, another mass produced item of a bygone era, were said to bring about a chaos and moral decay! (Pearson 1983 in Gauntlett 2005 p. 125-126) It seems absurd.

Although, where children and adolescents are involved, Lumby and Fine (2006) suggest, it is natural to be concerned about the effect that different media may have on them. They are vulnerable. They of course need love and adult guidance, but, they state; “rational concern is one thing, blind fear and unthinking prejudice is another. And, unfortunately it’s the latter which too often dominates debates about children’s media consumption” (2006, p. 56). These are called “Moral Panics”, a term coined by Stanley Cohen (ibid. 2006 & Gauntlett 2005) in response to media reaction of gang clashes between Mods and Rockers, in the UK in the 1960s. This real life event was blown out of all proportion when it was amplified by the media coverage. Basically, as Lumby and Fine (2006) comment “moral panic” refers to “hyperbolic fears, not to real life moral dilemmas” (p.56). Furthermore, they suggest that these moral panics distract people from the real issues and real problems. (ibid. p. 57). “Moral Panics” relates to an area of research or theory called “media effects”, where, quite simply, researchers have tried to find direct links between media (like television) to audience behaviour i.e.: violent television shows make for violent aggressive children.

However, many prominent media education scholars such as David Buckingham and David Gauntlett believe that such issues, like violence in society for example, are much more complex than simply a result of watching television. They assert that viewers are actually active and not passive and compliant as previously thought.  Such problems are usually a result of far more complex societal issues and as Lumby and Fine (2006 p.57) point out, “the root causes of social ills are complex – they don’t fit into a headline or 15 second news grab. And they certainly will not be solved by simplistic blame shifting”. Professor Buckingham asserts “that there has been a massive shift away from seeing children as passive television viewers. In both the psychological and humanities based areas of media and cultural studies, more detailed and refined studies of children watching and interacting with television, have shown, without a doubt that children do not sit for hours on end in front of the box and take in everything they see without processing and thinking about it” (in Lumby and Fine, p. 73). However, media effects and the related moral panics, still maintain popularity in some circles through organisations such as Young Media Australia and the Parents Television Council in the United States. Television, Lumby and Fine (2006) suggest, has been blamed for obesity, ADHD, and for corrupting our children.  

Someone who asserts that television does in fact cause great concern, and author of the book Remotely Controlled: How television is damaging our lives and various papers including Visual Voodoo: the biological impact of watching television, is well known UK Psychologist Dr Aric Sigman. Sigman (2006) suggests that television does indeed have links to obesity, bullying, ADHD, children’s brain development and is a leading cause of half of all violence related crime (Remotely Controlled- blurb). Targeting the primary audience of “Generation X” parents (the parents of today’s children), who Michael Grose (2005, p. 222) says “will continue to be the most anxious cohort ever to have raised children outside of wartime. They will continue to make safety and their children’s education their main priorities”, Sigman has a wide audience for his books and Remotely Controlled was a best seller. Guilt and anxiety are rife within this parenting age group who, as Lumby and Fine (2006) suggest have been told that “television is an unnatural intruder into family life. It’s the electronic babysitter” (p.68). So what better than to feed parents anxieties on this issue and create a panic where children’s health and development is concerned?

Sigman has his views on children’s television, and not surprisingly, has looked into the preschool program Teletubbies. This innocent preschool show had caused quite a degree of moral panic in its day, as being “potentially more dangerous to the psyche than crack” (Howard and Roberts 1999 in Lumby and Fine, 2006, p. 64) as it allegedly promotes drugs, obesity and gay lifestyles through apparent hidden subtexts. Although subtexts are not the issue for Sigman (2006 p. 41) but children’s brain development and he states that the Teletubbies is “..entertaining yes, but there’s no reason to assume that it confers any benefits whatsoever. It may cause attentional damage, as well as displacing vital behaviour for children’s development”. However, as Lumby and Fine argue (2006) a research study by early childhood education and literacy expert Jackie Marsh found that the Teletubbies had a positive effect on learning in early childhood settings and her study produced frequent examples where children who were previously unwilling to interact with adults and other children joined in with activities because of their fascination with the Tubbies (Marsh 2000, in Lumby and Fine 2006, p. 62).  Additionally the word ‘may’ in Sigman’s point, does not clearly indicate anything but speculation. As for obesity, ADHD and television being addictive Sigman cites numerous studies that he believes is indicative of television viewing habits of children and young people. In particular, Sigman (2006) agreed with the 1999 study by the American Academy of Pediatrics, that there was in fact a correlation between children’s television viewing and ADHD. However, Lumby and Fine (2006) are quick to point out that this study ignored the many other cultural aspects, that the children involved in the survey, might encounter in their everyday lives. And the approach that was undertaken in the survey could be applied to any other activity, including soccer.

Gauntlett (1998) says that the main problem with most of these studies into the apparent direct effects of media like television, is that they tackle the problem backwards and states that "the 'media effects' approach, in this sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than the other way around”. And, Sigman’s opinion on the effects of television is not indicative of all psychologists. United States Psychologist and academic in adolescent development, Jeffrey Arnett and colleagues Larson and Offer (1995) have researched the alleged effects on behaviour in young people and media like television, and assert “...it is problematic simply to draw a direct cause and effect relationship between media stimulus and the subsequent behaviour of the media consumer” (p.512). Arnett et al.  (1995 p.513), like Buckingham agrees, that “adolescents are active media consumers”.

It is clear, that the debates about the alleged behavioural and health effects of television is quite divisive and it is no surprise that debates still continue, and with it moral and media panics. Particularly when it concerns adolescents and children and their well being. Lumby and Fine’s chapter Why TV is Good for Kids: raising 21st century children is effective in reminding parents and educators about the need for a common sense approach with children, adolescents and television viewing.

Elizabeth

REFERENCES:

Arnett, J., Larson, R., Offer, D. (1995) Beyond Effects: Adolescents as Active Media Users. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 24 (5) pp. 511-518. 

Buckingham, David. (2000) After the death of childhood: Growing up in the age of electronic media. Polity Press. UK.

Gauntlett, D. (2005) Moving Experiences: Media effects and beyond (2nd edition). UK: John Libbey Publishing.

Gauntlett, D. (1998) Ten Things Wrong with the Media Effects Model. Retrieved October 5th 2010 http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm

Grose, M. (2005) X,Y,Z: The New Rules of Generational Warfare. Random House Australia: Sydney.

Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006). TV villains: media panics. In C. Lumby & D. Fine (Eds.), Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children (pp. 55-96). Sydney: MacMillan

Sigman, A. (2005) Remotely Controlled: How television is damaging our lives. Ebury Publishing: London.

Sigman, A (2007) Visual Voodoo:  The biological impact of watching TV. Biologist. 54 (1) pp. 12-17.

Teen comedy films: patriarchal privilege and the white, middle-class male



Infantile manhood of the privileged white male: the boys from American Pie

Film, like most media, not only constructs particular youth identities, it shapes the audience's understanding of them (Mallan & Pearce, 2003).  Representations of youth, particularly young males, foster a certain "patriarchal privilege" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998) that provides a basis for exploration of masculine identity.  This is specifically observed in vulgar teen comedy films, where youth identities are defined through conflict with the world around them.  Moreover, this conflict reflects the social and economic context of youth at the time of the film's production.  This entry responds to Speed (2010), whose article, 'Loose Cannons: White Masculinity and the Vulgar Teen Comedy Film', explores how social forces influence the type of male youth on screen and his heroic qualities.  The article tracks the progression of teen comedies from the 1970s to the late 1990s, focusing on gender identity formation and, specifically in relation to the male characters, the pursuit of sexual mastery.  Ultimately, it will be shown that such representations of (young) men are limited, but educators can use such films as valuable teaching resources.

While there are some marked differences in contemporary vulgar teen comedies, some elements have remained unchanged.  Speed (2010, p. 821) identifies three specific 'cycles', each with their own characteristics.  Teen comedies of the 1970s, largely influenced by the social movements of the 1960s, foreground the "defiance of institutional authority" (ibid.), usually by young men rather than teenagers.  In the 1980s, films such as Porky's portrayed teenagers engaging in more sexual activity with less focus on resisting social institutions; there was an "absence of belief in youth's capacity to expand social and cultural boundaries" (p. 824).  By the 1990s, vulgar teen comedies, such as American Pie or Road Trip, privileged the "pursuit of sex over subversive acts" (ibid.) with an increasing "suburbanization" of teenage sexuality.  Furthermore, the chief problem to resolve in such films was the "failure of the male sexual quest" (ibid., p. 825).  Despite differences in social contexts, two assumptions about youth masculinity remain constant through the cycles.  Firstly, teen boys have a cultural space of their own in which they can revel and rebel, seemingly immune from any consequence.  Greven (2002, p. 15) explains that teen comedies "exploit this special zone of identity" for male characters.  Secondly, the type of masculinity that is privileged in all films is one that is dominant and "terrorizes those who are weak and/or different" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 125).  Given their popularity, vulgar teen comedies are worthy of critique, particularly with respect to the repeated messages consumed by generations of young male viewers.

A regular moral panic is that popular culture is responsible for the disappearance of childhood; in other words, it is corrupting our youth (Brooks, 2008).  It could be argued that teen comedies shape this perception as the world of the film is often represented in a similar way.  At the core of teen comedies is the crisis of youth masculinity for the comfortable, middle-class white male.  Being so intent on "proving maleness" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 112), there is a decline in social advancement and an "absence of social perspective" (Speed, 2010, p. 828).  Unlike earlier cycles, teen comedies from the 1990s onwards project characters whose purpose is detached from any social or political agenda.  Characters are launched on a quest for sex, often as a road trip, as a means of transitioning into adulthood.  Such representations can easily be blamed for contributing to the "toxic effect" (Brooks, 2008, p. 3) of popular culture on youth.

Speed (2010) asserts that for male characters in vulgar teen comedies social freedom is derived from the hedonistic adventures of the road trip.  These white, middle-class young men can be understood as the archetypal "maverick heroes" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998) who do things their own way and exist outside regular social boundaries.  While they elicit sympathy at first, viewers often end up repulsed by the attitude that, as privileged males, they are "entitled to misbehave" and have the capacity to "recreate chaos and destruction" (ibid., p. 109) without any ramifications.  Such depictions work to "imprint a hatred and fear of youth" (ibid., p. 111) beyond the film, which is counterproductive and fuels unease about the place of media in the lives of young people. 

As well as being a privileged, white, middle-class male, it is the favourable representation of a patriarchal order that is also of concern in vulgar teen comedies.  Conflict is often linked to encounters with differences in class or gender, in that those who live and behave outside the familiar territory of the protagonist suffer (Speed, 2010, p. 831).  For example, in pursuit of their manliness, women are violated and exploited without any consequence for the male character: "women ultimately exist as sexual objects to 'service' male needs" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 114).  Indeed, some female characters, such as in American Pie, educate their male friends to help them on their sexual quest.  Likened to sitcoms featuring mismatched couples, such representations of gender "encourage viewers to accept patriarchy as a 'natural' male trait and trivialize sexism as a laughing matter" (Walsh, Fursich & Jefferson, 2008, p. 123).  As one of the recurring depictions of male characters, it is also one of the most confronting.

Vulgar teen comedies repeat messages of masculinity that serve to perpetuate attitudes and beliefs about being a 'real man'.  In an exploration of cultivation theory, Shanahan and Morgan (1999, p. 15) expose "media's role in social control" as it defines our assumptions and nurtures particular worldviews.  For youth, who are the receivers of countless messages about gender at a time when they are searching for their own expression of identity, the adult world seems strange and dull (Greven, 2002, p. 15).  The final destination of the road trip is the metaphoric adult world; however, the behaviour of men in the adult sphere is hardly different from the immaturity of younger generations.  Indeed, the rise in vulgarity and juvenile humour has been ascribed to teen comedies as they continually represent an "infantile stage in...manhood" (ibid., p. 21), particularly in recent decades.  With the repetition of such identities, young viewers' understanding of gender identity becomes devoid of any "insight into its social positioning" (Speed, 2010, p. 837) and consumed with individual rather than group priorities.

The main point to take from Speed (2010) is that youth masculinity is still in crisis.  Each cycle of films embeds specific social and political concerns of the day into the characters' actions and attitudes.  The notion of privilege within white middle-class is something of which we should be critical, as it carries assumed entitlements that are unjust, insensitive and often immoral.  Being aware of these issues would help educators see such films as opportunities to connect with students and engage in meaningful discussion about cultural assumptions and gender constructs.  Some claim that most men are "more insecure with their masculinity than they let their peers, parents and teachers know" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 124).  As such, a deliberate exploration of masculine identity beyond the narrow representations in comedy films is needed.  Alternatively, a study of how humour is used to construct characters and social scenarios would be worthwhile.  Moreover, the texts need to be viewed with a goal for greater understanding of difference, diversity and justice.

Greg

REFERENCES

Brooks, K. (2008). Consuming innocence: popular culture and our children. St Lucia, QLD: UQP.

Greven, D. (2002). Dude, where's my gender? Contemporary teen comedies and new forms of American masculinity. Cineaste, 27(3), 14-21.

Mallan, K., & Pearce, S. (2003). Introduction: tales of youth in a postmodern culture. In K. Mallan & S. Pearce (Eds.), Youth cultures: texts, images, and identities (pp. ix-xix). Westport: Praeger.

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and the viewers: cultivation theory and research. Cambridge: Oxford University Press Cambridge.

Speed, L. (2010). Loose cannons: white masculinity and the vulgar teen comedy film. The journal of popular culture, 43(4), 820-841.

Steinberg, S., & Kincheloe, J. (1998). Privileged and getting away with it: the cultural studies of white, middle-class youth.  Studies in the literary imagination, 31(1), 103-126.

Walsh, K., Fursich, E., & Jefferson, B. (2008). Beauty and the patriarchal beast: gender role portrayals in sitcoms featuring mismatched couples. Journal of popular film and television, 36(3), 123-132.

Glee: Harm in its humour?




The cast of Glee: just more stereotypes?

In any comedy, stereotypes are a staple element, and their use can encourage viewers to reconsider how they perceive others.  When used carefully, they are a powerful critique of society.  With the success of teen-musical comedy Glee, lauded for its celebration of difference, it is surprising to read Andy Denhart's news feature from earlier this year on the 'harmful simplicity' of Glee's characters, particularly in their constructed gender roles.

His point is salient.  Many of the characters, both male and female, are recognisable versions of their gender: the clueless jock, the feminine gay male, the conniving female, or the unintelligent cheerleader. Denhart argues that Glee "accepts society's definitions and reinforces them".  How this may affect young viewers' understanding of the gendered world is unknown.  At a time of life when identity formation is so crucial, television can "reinforce or cause the development of gender-typed perceptions and... stereotyped achievement aspirations and self-image" (Perloff, Brown, & Miller, as cited in Aubrey & Harrison, 2004, p. 115).  While Witt (2000, p. 322) asserts that young viewers "will imitate and repeat behaviours they see on television", more recent research suggests that what is internalised by viewers is only what matters to them (Aubrey & Harrison, 2004, p. 114).  In the case of Glee, its humour is reliant on stereotypes, but it takes a more mature viewer to appreciate the subtleties of the satire and see beyond the "ugly" stereotyping, as Denhart describes it.

Denhart's elaboration of each stereotype rings true, but there is no mention of either the characters' interactions or the issues with which they deal - not even the power of humour as social commentary.  Without these details, he glosses over important aspects relevant for a young audience, such as the acceptance of difference, minority groups, or emerging sexualities.  Indeed, similar arguments could be made about the use of stereotypes in other comedies, such as Summer Heights High, if there is an avoidance of the program's purpose.  Young people crave examples of other identities, so they can work out where they fit in.  (A recent news article in The Sydney Morning Herald even attempted to categorise the youth subcultures in Sydney for better understanding.)  Even if television shows that embrace diverse youth identities, like Glee, continue to be criticised for perpetuating stereotypes, at least there will be an awareness (and hopefully acceptance) of difference.  And surely that is important for our youth to understand.

Greg

REFERENCES

Aubrey, J., & Harrison, K. (2004). The gender-role content of children's favorite television programs and its links to their gender-related perceptions. Media Psychology, 6(2), 111-146.

Witt, S. (2000). The influence of television on children's gender role socialization. Childhood Education, 76(5), 322-324.

"Racy" Teen Drama - A very short retrospective.

IS GLEE TOO RACY? Seattle Times Article.
One of the popular teenage drama programs at the moment is Glee. A television show about a glee singing club in an American high school.


It deals with issues such as teen pregnancy, bullying and homosexuality. It is broadcast at 7.30pm on Channel 10 and is classified "PG" (Parental Guidance). But some critics have said that the show is too racy. The Parents Television Council in the United States have slammed Glee as being unsuitable and "explicit". However, compared to some 1980s and 90s teen television drama, it barely scratches the surface.

When I was in my early teens, one of the popular teenage dramas at the time was a Canadian program called Degrassi Junior High . The young teens (and pre teens) came across as relatively authentic and they seemed to deal with "real issues". The program, and the sequel series Degrassi High, was made between 1987 and 1991 and was broadcast as part of the afternoon children's television line up on the ABC. It dealt with issues including teenage pregnancy, drugs, suicide, homosexuality, abortion and AIDS. Although, incidently Degrassi did encounter some moral panic in the UK, when the BBC refused to broadcast any more of the series, due to the program addressing the topic of homosexuality . However, only a couple of years later, the UK had the popular teenage drama Press Gang that dealt with similar controversial issues relevant to teenagers, such as solvent abuse, child abuse and teenage suicide. This too became part of the ABC's afternoon children's line up in the early 1990s. Additionally, Australia produced its own gritty teen drama, that also dealt with such topics, called Heartbreak High. It was critically acclaimed for its openness to deal with these issues.

As with anything like this, Lumby and Fine (2006 p. 71) point out "like all activities, television watching needs to be supervised by adults. It needs to be limited in a way that is age appropriate... and adults need to be available to talk to kids about what they have just seen". So, yes, these shows may be controversial, but that is the point. They aim to generate critical discussion about sensitive issues that are relevant to teenagers and bring these out into the open for dialogue between parents and trusted adults.

Elizabeth

REFERENCES:
Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006). TV villains: media panics. In C. Lumby & D. Fine (Eds.), Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children (pp. 55-96). Sydney: MacMillan

Noveck, J. (2010) Is Glee to racy for tweens? The Seattle Times Sunday May 23rd 2010. Retrieved October 1st 2010 from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/television/2011922968_glee24.html?syndication=rss 

Wikipedia (2010) Degrassi Junior High retrieved October 1st 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrassi_Junior_High 

Katy Perry Does Sesame Street (apparently)...

Katy Perry has caused quite a stir of controversy recently, after her appearance on the iconic preschool program Sesame Street. Initially released via YouTube, the video features Katy dressed in her “dress up” clothes, and playing with Elmo whilst singing a variation of one of her latest hits.  The outfit was deemed too revealing for some parents taste. As a result of the comments received, the song segment was pulled from the TV show, demonstrating the influence of informal online comment and the convergence of television with online media. The story of the initial reaction and the video itself went into viral overdrive, as discussions about whether it was in fact questionable raged.

Catherine Lumby and Duncan Fine (2006, p. 57) define moral panic as “a hyperbolic fear that distracts people from the real issues and real solutions, by suggesting that things like drug abuse, violence and child abuse are the result of a single monolithic external cause such as television”.   Similarly Karen Brooks (2008, p. 3) suggests that “listening to the media and other reports circulating, you’d be hard pressed not believing that our kids are just one doll, song, website, TV show, film, Muppet  or outfit away from being sexually corrupted or, at worse, abused.”  This moral panic also relates to the notion of the disappearance of childhood, due to Perry and her alleged controversial attire being promoted to children at such a young age. As Media Scholar David Buckingham (2000. P.27) asserts: “...children are escaping into the wider adult world - a world of dangers and opportunities, in which the electronic media are playing an ever more important role… We must have the courage to prepare them to deal with it, to understand it, and to become active participants in their own right”. When I showed the excerpt to my own children, who are the target audience for Sesame Street, they commented that they thought it was “silly” and it was “so funny that she was singing the song from Masterchef”. They had no other association with Katy Perry, other than a family cooking show. They did not comment on her attire, whereas my husband did. It is evident from this example that such media texts can be read on different levels.

It is important that we encourage our students to take a critical perspective to their television viewing by engaging in such discussion in the classroom on these issues, particularly in the areas of technologies, in regard to media convergence of television and online media, audiences and gender representation.

Elizabeth Heck.

REFERENCES:

Brooks, K. (2008). Introduction : The Toxic 'Truth' About Our Tots, Tweens and Teens in Brooks, Karen, Consuming innocence : popular culture and our children, St Lucia, Qld Aust: UQP, pp.1-10.

Buckingham, D. (2000) After the death of childhood: Growing up in the Age of Electronic Media. United Kingdom : Polity Press.

Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006). TV villains: media panics. In C. Lumby & D. Fine (Eds.), Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children (pp. 55-96). Sydney: MacMillan.

Violence and masculinity as global commodities

In 1997, the Media Education Foundation produced a documentary, The Killing Screens, questioning the impact of violence on our screens, particularly as it relates to male characters.  Below is a short clip:



Despite its age, many of the arguments about young people's exposure to violence are similar to those expressed in critical public discourse today.  Indeed, the general issue of violence in the media is not new; it has fuelled moral panics as early as the 1930s when comic books were targeted for their questionable moral standards (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p. 58).  However, the more specific point about the representation of men is worthy of further exploration, as it can be argued that the youth of today have more control of what type of man they see on the screen.

In the clip, Gerbner argues that popular television "reproduc[es] an over-representation of white males in the prime of life" in stories of power, conflict and violence.  The reason, he contends, is that it makes for a "global commodity" that will translate seamlessly into other cultures.  The construction of male characters in such texts privileges power, decisiveness and action as qualities of a successful man.  Given that such representations "travel well", it is more of a concern, in an increasingly globalised context, if the viewing youth around the world associate this with norms and expectations of masculine behaviour.  However, as Mallan and Pearce (2003, p. xviii) argue, youth are not "passive dupes"; rather, they are "savvy consumers, manipulators, and producers capable of subverting, resisting, and transforming the popular images that attempt to fix and define their identities".  It is perhaps with the aid of new media that young people will redefine how they understand masculinity.

One of Gerbner's final concerns is that the control of such representations of masculinity and violence is "out of the reach of democratic decision-making".  Interestingly, since the time the documentary was made, the nature of television has changed to embrace the contributions of viewers, which is indicative of our participatory culture.  While the genre of program is different, viewers of reality television, many of whom are young, can often decide who they wish to keep watching, which effectively shifts control away from the producers.  Unlike Gerbner's context, when youth were "growing up in a world that is designed to the specifications of a marketing strategy" with representations of men as virile and violent, youth of today are the marketing strategy, being able to contribute and produce their own versions of masculine identities.

Greg

REFERENCES

Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006). TV villains: media panics. In C. Lumby & D. Fine (Eds.), Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children (pp. 55-96). Sydney: MacMillan.

Mallan, K. & Pearce, S. (2003). Introduction: tales of youth in postmodern culture. In K. Mallan & S. Pearce (Eds.), Youth cultures: texts, images, and identities (pp. ix-xix). Westport: Praeger.