home | Psychology of Video Games | contact | about | RSS 
« Sam's Story: Week 6 |Main| Summer 2010 Photo Dump »
Now this is a good idea! March 9, 2004
You learned reading comprehension in school, right? If you went to college, you were most likely tested on it before they let you in. You have to be able to read a passage of text and tell what it means. Analyze it. And if you were taught well, you'll understand why the author used one phrase instead of another, or chose to omit some pieces of information and include others.
Why don't we do this with video, like television and movies? What about still images like advertisements or photographs? It's 2004, for crying out loud, so why don't we formally teach our kids how to be savvy and intelligent consumers of all kinds of media?
Some policy makers in Georgia have the right idea and want to add this kind of thing to the required curriculum. To make with the quoting:
Vanessa Melius of C-SPAN had just explained to Bridget and her peers at Crews Middle School in Lawrenceville how different shots of political candidates can manipulate viewers' feelings.Now that someone mentions it, I CAN'T BELIEVE WE'RE NOT DOING THIS. I'm not talking about teaching cynicism (though we could all do with some of that, in conjunction with a curious and open mind). And I'm not talking about an elective course in college. This should be done in grade school and high school. People --especially kids-- should learn to recognize propaganda when they see it. They should understand the tricks advertisers use to influence them. They should learn to realize when they're being misled and when they're being given honest answers. And the fist book this class should assign is Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.
Shooting a candidate from below can make him look tall, powerful, like a leader, Melius said. Shooting from above can make the politician look short, unimportant, inconsequential.
"I never thought about that before," Bridget said... "They have a lot more power than I thought."
...
As early as next year, sixth-graders throughout the state could be expected to identify propaganda in television commercials or explain the appeal of a popular television show like "American Idol." Eighth-graders may be asked to interpret how news photographers influence people's opinions, and high school sophomores might be expected to analyze NBC's coverage of the Iraq war vs. that of Fox News.
Forget being able to recite the names of all the past U.S. presidents. I want my kid to know when the current one is feeding her a line during the State of the Union address.
 |
Comments (6) |
Permalink | 
File under:
General
Comments
Posted by Shawn on March 9, 2004 10:47 AM:
We actually did this at good old Jenks Middle School in social studies I think. We had to analyze different types of advertisements to determine how they were trying to influence us. I too think it is a good idea to teach this. Too often people take what they see on TV/internet as the literal truth and fail to see any bias or manipulation.
Posted by Christine on March 10, 2004 2:17 PM:
I agree wholeheartedly!
Posted by Frank on March 10, 2004 9:30 PM:
I actually recall *several* elementary and middle school lessons on recognizing the hallmarks of shifty advertising. I even remember seeing films that taught these lessons. All kinds of things, from how to spot "bandwagon" messages, to recognizing when toy commercials added sound effects that the toys didn't actually make, to how you can hold a candy bar up to a camera to make it appear bigger and more tasty-looking.
Yet again I realize I had the greatest education in the world, but squandered it all in a sea of Dungeons and Dragons and Ferris Bueller-style hijinks.
Posted by Tungsten on March 11, 2004 10:16 PM:
It's funny that you mention not caring about being able to name all of the presidents.
I was listening to an interview with the guy that wrote "The Rise of the Vulcans" (new book about rise to power of the Bush cabinet) where Bush was constantly referred to as "Bush 43". I started wondering if I could name all 43 so far.
Sadly, I got stuck at 31 that night. I'm giving myself a few more days before I give up and look at the full list. (Hey, I got another one while writing this just now. Woo!)
How many can you name?
Posted by Jamie on March 12, 2004 7:49 AM:
Four.
Posted by Christine on March 22, 2004 8:30 AM:
I used to know them all in order, but not so much anymore. I think there were only 39 then, too.