![Picture](/uploads/7/9/7/2/7972534/3784264.jpg?154)
So often we hear each of these news networks criticize the other for telling only one side of the story. I believe they are all correct in this assertion. Producers and editors are in ‘back rooms’ deciding on content for each show. They are making choices, cutting out pieces, splicing together footage, writing for teleprompters. This is powerful. Who decides who gets to make these edits? If I look at this critically, as a consumer of television journalism, I may ask some pointed questions. Who decided who was going to have the final say in what gets aired? How do I know that that individual will make the right decision? How can I trust that this is the best information for me? How much of this decision is made with the pressure of advertisers and lobbyists? How much of this decision is made purely on the whim and personal narrative of the editor him/herself?
I was shocked - though in hindsight I shouldn’t have been - at the way NBC commentators talked ad nauseum about absolutely nothing of importance during the events of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. I have two daughters, ages 8 and 11, who were very excited to learn that for the first time (yes, in 2014, folks!) women would have an event in the slopestyle snowboarding competition. They were super excited; we live in Durham and Powder Ridge Mountain Park in Middlefield had just reopened after ten years. My girls had both taken a couple of snowboarding lessons and were cheering the Olympians on.
How horrifying to listen to Todd Harris and Todd Richards give a play-by-play on each run down the mountain. My impressionable children, who were watching what they, too, might one day aspire to do, had to listen to the offensive drivel coming out of the Todds’ mouths. At one point, regarding a Pancochova run, “Just five or 10 years ago, that would have been a great men’s run.” What’s that supposed to mean? That it still isn't good enough, ten years later? That women will always be behind? In Jen Chaney’s article on salon.com, she writes, “...Did you see the Czech Republic’s Sarka Pancochova crash-land after an off jump, then start oozing down the mountain like a Raggedy Ann doll with all her stuffing removed? She hit her head so hard that it cracked her thick helmet almost in half….If Pancochova had been a player in the NFL, that moment probably would have led to her being carried off the field on a stretcher, and possibly deemed ineligible for at least an additional game. But this is the Olympics. So what did Pancochova do? She took a few moments to recover, then she got up, ski-surfed the rest of the way down the mountain and waved to the crowd. Come on: Get off your feet. Slow clap a standing O for that. She totally deserves it.”
Later in the broadcast, one of the announcers commented, during Torah Bright’s amazing run, “Torah [Bright] knows how to ride a snowboard better than a lot of guys I know, and these are guys that get paid to do it.” And that, my friends, is where I lost it. She made it to the Olympics. Of course she rides better than most of the living population on the planet. She deserves more respect than that. My children agreed - and that maybe we should mute the tv and continue to watch? I’m glad that their perception was not influenced as severely as it could have been, and maybe they internalized the commentary in ways I have yet to discover.
(True to form, a Buzzfeed user put together a “7 Worsts” list of NBCs antics. Warning: profanity.)
We know that media, in its various forms, influences perception. We know that the media coverage of the events occurring in Ferguson created a whirlwind of hashtags on Twitter. #Ferguson was but one; #iftheygunnedmedown was another (Krawitz, 2014). Krawitz sees this coverage as positive in that it exposed racial divides and tensions, and also informed many as to the police militarization capabilities that many were unaware of. He also states, however, that this coverage blurred the line between news and opinion. The media coverage was constant and pervasive. Twitter feeds, 24-hour streaming coverage, editorials.
Curation is important - we have discussed and read and watched numerous pieces on the benefits of curation; we as digital citizens filter what we choose to view and share in numerous ways. We establish Personal Learning Networks, follow Twitter lists, ‘Like’ posts on Facebook, and make our inbound information a platform for what we send outbound, such as our blog posts, our own tweets, or our own posts.
Curation, as evidenced by our readings and TED talk this week, whether intentional or not, can limit our perceptions of others and their own experiences. We can intentionally curate by the choices we make; we can unintentionally curate when the choices have already been made for us. In the case of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, her narrative was affected early on by the curation of the books she was given to read. Her perception of story elements and content was guided by the limited perspectives the books contained. We can generalize her experience and apply it to our own. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development states that humans build their knowledge through experience, and that these experiences lead to the creation of schemas (mind maps or models). We experience, when we are children, what we have no choice but to experience and be exposed to. As we get older and we have more control over our actions and interactions, we begin to curate with intention.
I believe that teachers can make students aware of bias so they can effectively make their own judgements in two ways: awareness and action. The history textbook assigned to the class tells one story. If students are going to be aware that there are other stories, the teacher must facilitate those experiences. Primary source documents, integration of video, interviews with experts should be considered. A book like City of Orphans, by Avi, which takes place in New York City, could be used as supplemental reading in an American History class learning about the Panic of 1893, or in the language arts classroom. My students enjoy discussing current events - what better platform for discussions of bias and multiple perspectives!
I used Tagxedo to summarize my response this week. Tagxedo takes a URL (or tweet, RSS feed, or news search term) and will create a word cloud that sizes different words according the frequency with which they occur. In the ‘News’ Box I typed the word “Ferguson”. I was interested to see what words this type of content curation filtered, as well as what was ‘out there’ online regarding Ferguson. I chose the font, the colors and the shape. This is what came up:
Chaney, Jen. "Sochi Olympics: Female Snowboarders Survive Crash Landings (and Sexist Comments)." Saloncom RSS. N.p., 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
Krawitz, Alan. "Grading the Media on Ferguson Coverage." - 10,000 Words. N.p., 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
"The Danger of a Single Story." Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie:. N.p., July 2009. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
"Cognitive Constructivist Theory." Cognitive Constructivist Theory. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.
"Community Post: The 7 Worst Moments In NBC's 2014 Olympic Coverage... So Far." BuzzFeed Community. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.