The encroaching influence of social media has stoked fears in experts of a “post-literacy world,” in which popularity and controversy impede on truth.
In the premiere of a series of panels on civil discourse, university faculty from various fields took on the topic of media literacy and how to teach students critical thinking.
Philosophy professor Craig Delancey, communications professor Ulises Mejias, librarian Emily Mitchell and cinema professor Amy Shore comprised the panel; broadcasting professor Michael Riecke moderated. The panel found the topic relevant to discourse leading up to the upcoming election.
“We don’t wake up and think, ‘I’m going to engage in some information literacy,’” Mitchell said. “We wake up, we see political ads, we hear people talking about the election, we watch some funny cat videos and immediately get an ad.”
Mitchell joked about her constant catchphrase throughout the panel: “We have a framework for that!” The panel agreed on one framework Mitchell invoked: the idea of media literacy as not only comprehending media but knowing how to ethically use and create it.
Shore summarized the approach with a three-question motto: “Does it need to be said? Does it need to be said now? Does it need to be said by me?”
The motto does not only pertain to refraining from speech. Shore brought up an anecdote about a moment in a class, when she asked her students to list the themes of “Moonlight.” The class’ hesitance to mention race surprised her, she said.
said they never talked about race because it was a touchy subject vulnerable to accusations of racism.
“Talking about race is not the same as being racist,” Shore said. “Not talking about race is the same as being racist.”
Delancey explored the philosophical side.
“Epistemology…is probably the central issue for what is called media literacy,” Delancey said. Epistemology, the study of truth and determining truth, shaped the direction of the panel, particularly the question of how to identify a reputable source — and whether one should even focus on that.
Delancey scrutinized the idea of media literacy as “how we can identify an authoritative source,” instead arguing that truth derives from “conjecture of debate,” a sharing of diverse perspectives that he says depends on free speech.
But while Mejias agreed that truth is “negotiated and debated,” he cautioned about the risks of leaving truth to public discourse.
“The most media-literate are the sh*tposters and trolls who are manipulators of truth,” Mejias said.
Mejias brought up the “gamification of truth,” a media environment in which searching for and providing knowledge becomes competitive and strategic as a game. When social media platforms incentivize users to post more and gratify their sense of popularity, Mejias argued, they enable the spread of misinformation and uncivil discourse.
College-age students are susceptible to this. A Pew Research survey from March found that 52% of TikTok users ages 18-29 say they use the app to get news, and 48% say they use it to keep up with politics.
Marie Sova, who attended the panel for her opinion-writing class, found the academic terminology hard to follow, but recognized the discussion as important for the current generation.
“I’m a very shy student, so I am always the last to answer questions in a class,” Sova said. “Hearing them say that they want students to actually have these kinds of conversations is a big thing for me.”
Sova said she sees a lot of uncivil discourse in the comments of social media posts.
“It’s important for us to [debate] in a more open setting, and not through the phones,” Sova said. “On social media, you’re hidden, so you can be as rude as you want. In person it’s better because then you can have more of a civil conversation.”
One student said they never talked about race because it was a touchy subject vulnerable to accusations of racism.
“Talking about race is not the same as being racist,” Shore said. “Not talking about race is the same as being racist.”
Delancey explored the philosophical side.
“Epistemology … is probably the central issue for what is called media literacy,” Delancey said. Epistemology, the study of truth and determining truth, shaped the direction of the panel, particularly the question of how to identify a reputable source — and whether one should even focus on that.
Delancey scrutinized the idea of media literacy as “how we can identify an authoritative source,” instead arguing that truth derives from “conjecture of debate,” a sharing of diverse perspectives that he says depends on free speech.
But while Mejias agreed that truth is “negotiated and debated,” he cautioned about the risks of leaving truth to public discourse.
“The most media-literate are the sh*tposters and trolls who are manipulators of truth,” Mejias said.
Mejias brought up the “gamification of truth,” a media environment in which searching for and providing knowledge becomes competitive and strategic as a game. When social media platforms incentivize users to post more and gratify their sense of popularity, Mejias argued, they enable the spread of misinformation and uncivil discourse.
College-age students are susceptible to this. A Pew Research survey from March found that 52% of TikTok users ages 18-29 say they use the app to get news, and 48% say they use it to keep up with politics.
Marie Sova, who attended the panel for her opinion-writing class, found the academic terminology hard to follow, but recognized the discussion as important for the current generation.
“I’m a very shy student, so I am always the last to answer questions in a class,” Sova said. “Hearing them say that they want students to actually have these kinds of conversations is a big thing for me.”
Sova said she sees a lot of uncivil discourse in the comments of social media posts.
“It’s important for us to [debate] in a more open setting, and not through the phones,” Sova said. “On social media, you’re hidden, so you can be as rude as you want. In person it’s better because then you can have more of a civil conversation.”
Photo by Quinn Youngs
