I suppose that to Michael Moore, if I let myself be "dumbed down and distracted with useless nonsense," I'm merely "another brick in the wall," while if I rebel against adults for a "beautiful, unknown reason," I'm one of the charmingly rebellious heroes of the world. In his introduction of his "highschool newspaper," Moore sounds like an apocalyptic priest grabbing at a last chance to revive the human race: Don't let the adults water down your future with prejudice and lies. Don't let them hand you a world filled with restrictions and propaganda. Rebel, and thou shalt be saved! Fortunately, many teens across the States are already speaking out against this hierarchy, doing wonders - bringing Obama into the White House, making the first page of the Times by overthrowing dictatorships, and simply changing the world for the better. "Effing amazing," so to speak. Moore encourages more of this "effing amazing"-ness by outstretching his hand to teens all across the States - and perhaps even the world - and offering an "uncensored," exclusively teen-based online newspaper.
The initial reaction to Moore's newspaper might be a "cool;" we oppressed students finally get to give a piece of our minds to those idiotic adults! But Moore makes several assumptions that discredits his newspaper, and makes it much less appealing to students like myself.
One, Moore illustrates a need that isn't wholly present in the status quo. Although Moore states that students are silenced of different opinions and perspectives by authority, namely schools, I'm not so sure that this is an accurate analysis of reality. "Adults who were so convinced they had done a heckuva job trying to dumb you down and distract you with useless nonsense?" Lies and propaganda? "You've been told politics isn't cool and that one person really can't make a difference?" True to some extent - in North Korea, maybe. I'm not sure what Moore experienced as a student for him to make such awful pictures of the world, but I certainly haven't grown up like this. When the US-Korea FTA or the mad cow disease brought debates and candle strikes all over the nation, students were actually encouraged to voice their opinions about the matter through various methods - newspaper scrapping, debating, or merely speaking up in class. Students aren't always "dumbed down" (maybe somewhat overbound with tests and quizzes, though); many are interested in politics or at least some matters in their daily lives. I haven't been to the States for five years now, and I have never gone to high school in the States, so I can't exactly account for the precise environment of an American high school. But in Korea, students are upheld as the "future of the nation" (perhaps somewhat saccharine, but still factually true when considering that Korea has very few natural resources), and adults don't usually dare to dumb them down.
The reality of school newspapers are also different from Moore's claims. As a student who is on her fifth year of working for a school newspaper (one year for PawPrints in my middle school in the North Carolina, two years for The Quill in Cheongshim International Academy, and one year for Minjok Herald in KMLA), I can say with confidence that I know more than the average student how a school newspaper works. In most schools, students are free to write about whatever subject in whatever voice, as long as the subject or the voice of the article isn't blatantly offensive (i.e. doesn't contain profanity, unsupported and explicit degradation, racial bias, and so on). I've criticized the school, the government, even the world in school newspapers before, and wasn't either criticized or blamed, as long as I had supporting evidence and a polite tone. Of course, I might have had the fortune of working in a more free environment than other students. But from my experiences and what I hear from my friends in various schools, I believe that most school newspapers actually allow freedom of press to a considerable extent, despite Moore's wild claims. If students want to go over this boundary, I'm sure that they can do this outside school without any big difficulties.
Two, he assumes that high schools must acknowledge total freedom of press and expression for students. But the purpose of a school is education, not dissent. Of course schools have to encourage discussion and critical minds, provide background information of conflicts, and nurture growing minds. Of course students do have rights and access to freedom ("students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates," as so many Supreme Court cases have judged). Yet this does not mean, as I have stated above, that students can put whatever profanity and blatant degradation. Things - like newspapers - in school must have at least a decent appearance, for schools are places where pre-adults grow and practice living in society. Even in adult-version newspapers of more liberal nations, some things are censored or rewritten; the First Amendment is not absolute. If students are banned from writing about student strikes, perhaps it is because they are too extravagant and baseless in their criticisms? Perhaps they should write about the fundamental problem and its solutions rather than merely complaining about the school itself?
Three, he assumes that his newspaper is uncensored and thus very free. Is Moore's High School Newspaper truly uncensored, thus letting all teenager voices speak out to the world? I'm not so sure about that, despite Moore's assurances that it is. In his introduction of his High School Newspaper, Moore "asks [students] to send [their] stories and ideas and the best ones will be posted on MichaelMoore.com." Huh? So what's the exact definition of "best?" I suppose that "the best ones" could mean the ones that are properly edited and grammatically executed, but there are no guarantees that Moore isn't implying about the "best" desired content. Go to the High School Newspaper and look around - its posts delve into controversies like the rebellion in Egypt and the teaching of evolution in schools. Controversies indeed, but well developed, unbiased controversies? How come most if not all of the articles blatantly criticize Moore's version of the "adult world," leaving no room for the voices that actually might agree to some authority? I see posts that praise students' rebellions against their schools and authority, but none that say that these rebellions are poorly executed and rather blunt, if well-meant. To give a more radical example, say that I - a teen who is
perfectly legalized to send something to Moore's newspaper - turn in this very post, with its criticisms of Moore and relatively conservative acknowledgements of the present world today. Even if I have perfect grammar, structure, and diction, I hardly dare to hope that this post will make the first page of the High School Newspaper. After all, Moore wishes for the "best articles," and my voice doesn't exactly suit the best of his interests.So does Moore's newspaper uphold his assumption and foundation that his idea of an idealistic newspaper should be uncensored really fulfilled in reality? Not really.
I'm not so sure that Moore's High School Newspaper can be really called a student newspaper in the truest essence: it's not balanced at all, it's absurdly apocalyptic, it just doesn't seem like a newspaper. Maybe it can, but only as a radical newspaper that serves more as a forum for criticizing the adult world. I'm sorry, but I think I'll have to pass up on this offer and continue working for Minjok Herald.
Or on second thought, maybe I really should send this post to Moore's newspaper, and see for myself how Moore reacts. Now that will be fun indeed.
- Motions
+ THB high school newspapers must not be censored of any subject.
+ THB the intellectual property/media of schools should represent schools before students.
+ THW promote aggressive political action of students. ("active" would be a better word than "aggressive;" what I meant by this term was strikes and relatively more active measures than voting and discussions)
- Oh, and I would recheck the demographical analysis of the 2008 presidential elections before stating that Obama only won the majority vote in 18-29 year old age groups. And since when was a 29-year-old considered a high school student?
2011년 2월 27일 일요일
2011년 2월 16일 수요일
The Story of Stuff, or The Story of Propaganda
The Story of Stuff. Look first at the title of this educational website, directed by the enthusiastic environmentalist Annie Leonard, and notice its adorableness. It doesn't convey the boring or baffling rocket-science aura that other educational material usually have (assuming that you were an elementary school student, would you be interested in The Harmful Effects of the Unaware Citizen in Modern Society? I thought not), for, after all, it's the "story of stuff" - something that elementary school students will be prone to relate to through its innocent diction. As an elementary school teacher who wants to teach the students about the dangers of harming the environment, you might think The Story of Stuff the perfect educational material to show the children: a phenomenon happening all across the United States of America. But people always say that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover - or in this case, an educational site for its face value - and if you delve further into the site itself, you can see that it's not merely a story of environmental harms and concerns, but a story reaching to political stances, social values, and economic messages. It is the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing.
The Story of Stuff is the new hot potato in not only the environmental field, but also the educational and - if to go far - political fields. Although simple, clear, and direct in its message that consumerism has some detrimental effects on the environment, The Story of Stuff has many radical political, social, and economic implications that make it unfit for its current purpose of educating elementary school students.
The first problem of The Story of Stuff is its stance. Most people do not have a problem with the opinion that consumerism indeed provides problems to the environment to a certain extent, and that the environment must be taken care of before there are any further harms. But Leonard's opinions are too radical, at least for the purpose of education; the opinion that "consumerism is the basis of environmental disasters and the government is doing nothing to help, if not promoting more destruction" isn't all too instructive. Hear some of her rhetoric - that George Bush merely asked its citizens to shop after the outbreak of 9/11 - and she seems to be antagonizing the government and capitalism more than instructing the students about saving the environment.
The second problem is the video clip's inaccuracy. Yes, in some cases, we do make exaggerations to intentionally create a response: complaining to your mom that everybody has that new brand of cell phone doesn't really mean that the earth's whole population has it. But in others, especially when we are trying to teach elementary school children who might not always have the ability to discern reality and exaggeration, we must be very accurate in our basic facts. Annie Leonard gives us botched statistics and wrong analysis of the status quo, and uses persuasive rhetoric to present them. The "fact" that we dip our pillows in BFR (brominated flame retardants) and we sleep on them, thus setting our head on fire? The "fact" that the United States spends more than 50% of its federal budget on the military? As Dobb's critique points out, they are not really "facts" that they appear to be, but rather hyperboles or exaggerated interpretations of facts. The problems that Leonard wants to address might be already present in reality. She does not need to exaggerate her statistics to make her arguments more convincing; what she really needs to do is to accurately address the problems that are already present. Some people may find a problem with the US's military budget, whether it's 30% (the actual percentage) or 50%.
The third problem is the video clip's selective blindness. The Story of Stuff does present some accurate facts, such as that the United States takes up 5% of the global population but uses 30% of the earth's resources. But delve more into reality and see (as mentioned in, once again, Dobb's critique) that the US produces 27% of the world's GDP, a notable base for the world's economy. Isn't it only obvious that the nation that produces much takes up as much resources? Or let's take the fact that 95% of the US's forests have been logged down. It sounds disastrous, and probably would have been - if not for the fact that the government has worked towards reforestration and preservation. Yet Leonard completely leaves out this addition to reality, leaving students to antagonize the States as a greedy and evil nation.
These problems can prove to be deleterious, especially with elementary school students. Show this same website to a group of high school students, who have already formed at least some bases of their opinions and worldly viewpoints, and, while being affect to some degree, they won't have their values flipped over completely. But elementary school students are just what they are: elementary school students, mere kids, to state, who are busy either watching the Disney Channel on TV or playing with their friends outside. Although I suppose that there is the possibility of a political prodigy who's more able than the average adult to engage in social controversies, we all have to rationally assume that most children haven't formed their exact social values yet. Show this to such students and their entire values might be decided for them. Yes, showing this website to elementary school students could have the desired effect of implementing early views that the environment simply must be saved (the all-too familiar solution to the current environmental inaction of the majority of the public: that we have to start teaching pro-environmental views to the new generation). But it also brings the danger that in the process, they will develop biased, wholly Leonard-based views that goes against the whole purpose of education: to teach them the basics, and to also raise their critical thinking abilities by providing them both sides of things. Especially when considering that younger children tend to see more things in black and white, or good against evil, who knows what will happen when their education tells them that their government - and worse, the children themselves through the natural action of consuming goods - is terrorizing poor planet Earth? Perhaps this is another generalization, but you certainly don't see the average fourth-grader analyzing the political connotations of the video clip he saw at school; you see him thinking about the "good side" and the "bad side." It's happened before: in Korea, where Japan is usually antagonized by their history teachers, and many Koreans develop at least some sort of wariness or prejudice towards all Japanese.
What if, the Story of Stuff-advocate might claim, the elementary school teachers do use this website in a balanced manner? What if this website is actually being used to (its radical side being admitted) represent a certain side to the debate of consumerism and environmentalism? That through this material we are truly teaching our children the opinions of the left and the right? Very idealistic, but also very unlikely.The very characteristics of The Story of Stuff - its efficiency, its directness, and its clarity - reassure the teachers that it is the right material for elementary school students, simply because it looks and sounds like one. On the surface you certainly can't see the potential controversies of this video clip, especially if your primary task is seeking for material to use for your classroom.
So is The Story of Stuff appropriate to elementary school students? No. But is it suitable for the world at large? Yes. I'm not, despite my former aggressiveness, against either the conservation of the environment or Annie Leonard herself, whom I do respect for her intentions and educational action, if not for her botched statistics and educational policies. I do not wholly support Dobb's critique of The Story of Stuff, either.The problem today is not whether the environment must be saved, but whether the environment must be saved through hardening the political and social stances of the next generation in only one direction. Perhaps after the content, the statistics, and the diction are edited will The Story of Stuff be appropriate for elementary school students and in respect to the Lenoard's fundamental wishes: to save the environment. Delete some, fix some, leave some, and perhaps we'll be left with the truly "good stuff."
The Story of Stuff is the new hot potato in not only the environmental field, but also the educational and - if to go far - political fields. Although simple, clear, and direct in its message that consumerism has some detrimental effects on the environment, The Story of Stuff has many radical political, social, and economic implications that make it unfit for its current purpose of educating elementary school students.
The first problem of The Story of Stuff is its stance. Most people do not have a problem with the opinion that consumerism indeed provides problems to the environment to a certain extent, and that the environment must be taken care of before there are any further harms. But Leonard's opinions are too radical, at least for the purpose of education; the opinion that "consumerism is the basis of environmental disasters and the government is doing nothing to help, if not promoting more destruction" isn't all too instructive. Hear some of her rhetoric - that George Bush merely asked its citizens to shop after the outbreak of 9/11 - and she seems to be antagonizing the government and capitalism more than instructing the students about saving the environment.
The second problem is the video clip's inaccuracy. Yes, in some cases, we do make exaggerations to intentionally create a response: complaining to your mom that everybody has that new brand of cell phone doesn't really mean that the earth's whole population has it. But in others, especially when we are trying to teach elementary school children who might not always have the ability to discern reality and exaggeration, we must be very accurate in our basic facts. Annie Leonard gives us botched statistics and wrong analysis of the status quo, and uses persuasive rhetoric to present them. The "fact" that we dip our pillows in BFR (brominated flame retardants) and we sleep on them, thus setting our head on fire? The "fact" that the United States spends more than 50% of its federal budget on the military? As Dobb's critique points out, they are not really "facts" that they appear to be, but rather hyperboles or exaggerated interpretations of facts. The problems that Leonard wants to address might be already present in reality. She does not need to exaggerate her statistics to make her arguments more convincing; what she really needs to do is to accurately address the problems that are already present. Some people may find a problem with the US's military budget, whether it's 30% (the actual percentage) or 50%.
The third problem is the video clip's selective blindness. The Story of Stuff does present some accurate facts, such as that the United States takes up 5% of the global population but uses 30% of the earth's resources. But delve more into reality and see (as mentioned in, once again, Dobb's critique) that the US produces 27% of the world's GDP, a notable base for the world's economy. Isn't it only obvious that the nation that produces much takes up as much resources? Or let's take the fact that 95% of the US's forests have been logged down. It sounds disastrous, and probably would have been - if not for the fact that the government has worked towards reforestration and preservation. Yet Leonard completely leaves out this addition to reality, leaving students to antagonize the States as a greedy and evil nation.
These problems can prove to be deleterious, especially with elementary school students. Show this same website to a group of high school students, who have already formed at least some bases of their opinions and worldly viewpoints, and, while being affect to some degree, they won't have their values flipped over completely. But elementary school students are just what they are: elementary school students, mere kids, to state, who are busy either watching the Disney Channel on TV or playing with their friends outside. Although I suppose that there is the possibility of a political prodigy who's more able than the average adult to engage in social controversies, we all have to rationally assume that most children haven't formed their exact social values yet. Show this to such students and their entire values might be decided for them. Yes, showing this website to elementary school students could have the desired effect of implementing early views that the environment simply must be saved (the all-too familiar solution to the current environmental inaction of the majority of the public: that we have to start teaching pro-environmental views to the new generation). But it also brings the danger that in the process, they will develop biased, wholly Leonard-based views that goes against the whole purpose of education: to teach them the basics, and to also raise their critical thinking abilities by providing them both sides of things. Especially when considering that younger children tend to see more things in black and white, or good against evil, who knows what will happen when their education tells them that their government - and worse, the children themselves through the natural action of consuming goods - is terrorizing poor planet Earth? Perhaps this is another generalization, but you certainly don't see the average fourth-grader analyzing the political connotations of the video clip he saw at school; you see him thinking about the "good side" and the "bad side." It's happened before: in Korea, where Japan is usually antagonized by their history teachers, and many Koreans develop at least some sort of wariness or prejudice towards all Japanese.
What if, the Story of Stuff-advocate might claim, the elementary school teachers do use this website in a balanced manner? What if this website is actually being used to (its radical side being admitted) represent a certain side to the debate of consumerism and environmentalism? That through this material we are truly teaching our children the opinions of the left and the right? Very idealistic, but also very unlikely.The very characteristics of The Story of Stuff - its efficiency, its directness, and its clarity - reassure the teachers that it is the right material for elementary school students, simply because it looks and sounds like one. On the surface you certainly can't see the potential controversies of this video clip, especially if your primary task is seeking for material to use for your classroom.
So is The Story of Stuff appropriate to elementary school students? No. But is it suitable for the world at large? Yes. I'm not, despite my former aggressiveness, against either the conservation of the environment or Annie Leonard herself, whom I do respect for her intentions and educational action, if not for her botched statistics and educational policies. I do not wholly support Dobb's critique of The Story of Stuff, either.The problem today is not whether the environment must be saved, but whether the environment must be saved through hardening the political and social stances of the next generation in only one direction. Perhaps after the content, the statistics, and the diction are edited will The Story of Stuff be appropriate for elementary school students and in respect to the Lenoard's fundamental wishes: to save the environment. Delete some, fix some, leave some, and perhaps we'll be left with the truly "good stuff."
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)