https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TU2Sr2dMgdFck3jLCuXhqWkA1-vcMbu7ITD3_2ucnPM/edit?usp=sharing



1. I absolutely agree with Postman; without "crap-detection" and being able to see through the everyday propaganda that is our world, we are truly doing ourselves and our youth a disservice. We need to be able to understand who and what are behind our media.

2. Postman was referring to exactly this state of the world. We text more than we speak, we watch more than we act, and I believe this is exactly what he was trying to prevent-- a world that hears, but does not truly listen to what is being said. We are an overly-stimulated population.

3. Video reaction:

The first time I watched the video, I cried. So, I watched it a second time. The first time, I cried because, not only am I woman whop grew up as a little girl in that 53% who hated her appearance, but now i am going to raise a little girl who I hope falls in the other 47%. I cried because the speaker, Cameron (whose name I could not, at first, remember), was right, although I fall in the 53%, I still wear the hat of the opressor: I am white, i am blonde, i may not have thin thighs or the shiniest hair, but i am mostly what she talks about. i will never truly know what it is like to be of another race or gender, no matter how much empathy i have for others. Critical literacy is so important, so that we may understand not only who we are, but who we are sharing our world with and how that impacts all of us.

Postman, I believe, would have been the first audience member to give Cameron a stranding-ovation. She is seeking to strike down all of the opacity that is the modeling industry. She is educating us on exactly what it is like to judge by appearance alone. Although she refers to herself as being the lucky lottery-winner of a legacy, she does not necessarily mean it is a valiant one. Postman may even have gone on the stage to hug her, maybe because she is a beautiful white woman, but also because she defines what his bullshit-detector was meant to embody. She deconstructs herself in front of a live audience and what is now a multinational audience. Could you imagine the courage it took to do this?

Teaching critical literacy, not just literacy, may be the most important legacy we can bestow on our youth. In their article, "Toward Critical Media Literacy:  Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy", Douglas Kellner and Jeff Share state that, "literacies evolve and shift in response to social and cultural change and the interests of elites who control hegemonic institutions" (1). It is not only imperative to be aware of these changes, but also to be aware of who is behind those changes. We must teach our youth to be critical of all the media that is coming so rapidly toward them every second. What do the people behind these changes stand to gain . . . or lose? The authors not only focus on who  is being taught, but also who is teaching. Are we, as educators, carrying in our own bias . . . sure. Everyone, no matter their age is always bringing theirown perceptions ion the door with them. that is no, however, always a bad thing. As Kellner and Share point out, "one can teach how media culture provides significant statements or insights about the social world, empowering visions of gender, race, and class or complex aesthetic structures and practices, thereby putting a positive spin on how it can provide significant contributions to education" (5). If we can use critical literacy to be constructive and not destructive, we are doing a great service to our youth. In order to deconstruct something, we do not necessarily have to be destructive about it. By that, I mean that we can unpack the meaning within a topic without having to make it mean-spirited; it is usually easier to understand a large topic when you can separate it into smaller chunks.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 26(3), 369-386.