‘Media literacy’ advocates push to create savvier consumers of news and information – but what are they actually trying to achieve
“If someone finds their way [through the media] and doesn’t know how to interpret it because you’ve got a word choice in your headline, it’s as much for you as it is for them.”
– New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman
In the wake of a series of scandals at the New York Times, the New Yorker and CNN, we can see why the ‘Media literacy’ movement has gained momentum in the US. It seems that in addition to a thirst for change, people in the digital age want to be educated on how to understand what’s happening in the media landscape.
However, it’s an old argument that is more of a statement than an actual solution. As former journalist, now writer and director, Adam Mossler puts it:
“There’s this idea that you have to be a ‘media expert’ if you want to know what’s going on in the media. I don’t think it makes sense to believe you have to be a media expert. It’s also possible to learn about the media from not just one source you’d like to believe is authoritative in your field, but from a variety of sources. And no one is telling you how to do that.”
The media literacy movement is all about pushing the boundaries of what people can expect from their media consumption, or how much they should be able to decipher and understand, and how they actually get value from their media.
The first issue with the argument is that it fails to recognise that even the most dedicated reader of the New York Times will likely have to read the paper cover to cover in order to get the most out of it.
There are a whole range of different news sources out there, and one of them is Google News, which allows people to search for news articles, news stories and web articles from across various news services, including The New York Times itself.
Now, most people, including those at Google News, would acknowledge that they could probably provide a better or more useful response on this subject than The
