Alpaca Cartoon Satire of Economic Inequality Issues:Funny, yes, but does this ML Award Winner promote ML?

Friday night, the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) awarded the collection of short films We the Economy its "Media Literate Media" honor. The award is "designed to interest mainstream media in doing, covering or including media literacy in their work by recognizing outstanding contributions made by mainstream media professionals with national reach." At the awards ceremony, the short film, The Unbelievably Sweet Alpacas by Adam McKay, co-founder of the Funny or Die website. I loved the film short, but I was puzzled about its connection to ML. Take a look at the video let us know your thoughts on this question in the comments below:

• How is this short film "doing, covering or including" media literacy? What makes this "Media Literate Media?"

Just to make sure I wasn't totally crazy and out on my own with being confused about the media literacy connection, I asked the people sitting near me at the NAMLE 2015 awards ceremony what the film short had to do with media literacy, and the answers I got ranged from "I don't know" to "Nothing."

"If media literacy means anything that's critical and media, then yes, it includes media literacy." 
-- Dr. Grazi-Prego

Because I like the video itself so much, I watched it with some other colleagues and friends the next night, after the NAMLE conference concluded, and posed the question above. The first response got a lot of laughs among our group, from future long time ML4ML guest pundit, Dr. Grazi-Prego, "If media literacy means anything that's critical and media, then yes, it includes media literacy. They're only posing one perspective. I almost saw it as the opposite of media literacy. But what do I know, I'm just a doctor [of Media & Communication]." Certainly, the video would make a great text for media literacy analysis because of its clever techniques in delivering a complicated message about important issues, but I had to agree that the video itself seemed to be promoting the transmission of knowledge from a particular perspective with strong appeals to authority ("most economic experts agree").

Maybe we're missing something (we usually are). What's your take? [Share in comments below].

[After the jump, I share a funny exchange with colleagues and friends upon a second viewing after the NAMLE conference, and I consider whether our puzzlement is a troubling symptom for the field]

Classic Daily Show Satirizes Apophasis in News: The Rhetorical Art of Asserting by Denial in Media

I'm not saying you're an idiot if you don't use this post to teach about my favorite rhetorical device, but I think you'll find this classic Daily Show clip from 1999 both hilarious and useful for making media literacy learners aware of apophasis, or assertion by denial, if you're not an idiot (see what I did there!). The comedy in the clip comes from correspondents ironically critiquing news media for focusing on critiquing news media, for example: "Media talking about media makes me sick." See if you can note each instance of apophasis in the clip, and I'll list my notes after the jump below.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

I remember a philosophy professor explaining the power of apophasis in relation to the power of suggestion as he told us, "Don't think of pink elephants." And, of course, everyone did. Linguistic signifiers of negation may frame our understanding, but they do not negate our attention to the images we see or hear expressed. Becoming sensitive to persuasive rhetorical devices supports learners in developing heightened awareness of such media techniques, but I wonder whether this awareness has any mitigating effect on the persuasiveness of the message or whether it affects our view of a speaker's credibility. Once you start to notice apophasis, you see it and hear it everywhere, particularly in political discourse. And, as the clip above shows, you can use its simple irony to great humorous effect. However, I don't think I'd have learners practice using the rhetorical device themselves since it ultimately seems deceitful to me. Perhaps the way to go would be to start a discussion about how learners feel about the use of apophasis in communication--is it ethical, deceitful, effective, justifiable, etc.? Then, maybe you could use a tool like Mediabreaker to expose egregious uses of apophasis in politics, news, or advertisements.

Still, studying apophasis raises a perennial issue in media education about studying harmful media messages in order to recognize (to avoid) and perhaps mitigate them, a dilemma captured in Vance Degeneres's comment,

"I have a clip, but I should warn you, it involves shocking sensationalism that should not be shown except as an example of what not to show." 

I suppose the solution to the pedagogical dilemma around whether or not to show bad media to "innoculate" learners lies in balance and shared agency. I think that we need to learn to question and recognize techniques in all sorts of media messages, and that we might be better off selecting texts for analysis and messages/modes for media productions collectively, with our learning group, or at least taking turns, with an eye for balancing our exposure to positive and negative models of communication, and for developing ways for determining such value. It's tough to keep learning open, collaborative, reflective, creative and critical, but I think it's worth the effort, not that I'm saying you're a lazy disgrace to the profession if you don't try to do so.

[AFTER THE JUMP, my list of examples of apophasis from the classic Daily Show clip above] 

"That's Not an Argument": Rhetoric & Writing with Monty Python

I would argue... It has been said... Four out of five leading dentists rhetoric teachers agree... You are an idiot if you disagree... We all need to know what makes up an argument, and better yet a good argument, in order to practice our own skills for making (and winning) arguments. From evaluating newspaper editorials to analyzing TV news pundits, from engaging in comment thread squabbles to posting a substantive essay on a controversial issue, learning and mobilizing argument techniques is key for citizenship and cultural participation. Since my first year of teaching English and media studies 15 years ago, I have turned to Monty Python for help in introducing what an argument is and isn't--and it turns out I wasn't alone. Below, I share some great resources on using classic Python sketches to teach argument from FactcheckEd at UPenn Annenberg and the Argument Research Group at the UMichigan. But first, the funny... Sharpened pencils ready to note: What messages about what counts and does not count as argument (or good argument) does the "Argument Clinic" sketch communicate?

I love the opening mishap where the character looking for an argument wanders into "Abuse"; how many times has that happened to you, on and off line? There are some poignant moments of actually defining argument, which I highlight in the script quoted below [full script available here].

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'No it isn't.'
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It IS!

While the sketch does not explicitly delve into premise/support/conclusion or stance/evidence/warrant, I've linked to some strong resources for teaching such concepts, both of which use the "Argument Clinic" sketch as an introductory clip. FactcheckEd at UPenn Annenberg also has a great lesson on logical fallacy built around the "Witch Trial" scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Here's that scene to whet your appetite for fallacious funniness:
In your comments, I'd love to see some arguments for/against using humorous pieces such as these (or this meta-essay on blog opinions from a prior ML4ML post), and some satirical use of logical fallacy--if you're up to it! I'll leave you with this nice quote from the Argument Research Group at UMichigan to underscore the broad applications for the skills and knowledge of argument techniques, which I argue we all benefit from knowing and practicing, and from teaching in an entertaining way:

The closing argument of a criminal trial, a formal proof in mathematics or a teenager's impassioned plea for a later curfew all require the speaker to take a position, offer compelling data, and explain the underlying assumptions that connect this data to the speaker's position.

Step Right Up and Teach Ad Appeals with Tom Waits

The pitchman cometh! Given the Superbowl blowout last night, most viewers likely paid more attention to the ads than the game. Here's an amusing old song from Tom Waits' Small Change album (1976), "Step Right Up," which I recommend as a fun way to introduce a session on advertising techniques.

Using the lyrics, try grouping the various types of ad pitches in categories and them giving names to the techniques or types of appeals. Compare what you come up with to a classic list of ad techniques, like this or this. Challenge students to find or create commercials to exemplify the pitch techniques in Waits song.

The ultimate challenge: Make a mash-up of bits from commercials with a soundtrack lined up with the song. If you have a big enough group, with a few savvy video editors in it, the work could get done reasonably quickly to great effect--everyone will know and recognize those techniques! [So what?] Here's why that could be a good thing...

Blog Recommends Opinion Essay Satire for Learning about Opinion Essays

Why do we share opinions on the Internet? Why use an opinion essay form? What does the style in terms of opening or closing down dialogue? Are we speaking to the choir, or reinforcing like minds among readers? Engaging opposing views or convincing the uninitiated? Or just venting? What elements of an opinion essay are effective for whom?

Continuing the meta-humor theme from Brooker's, "How to Report the News," from our previous post, today here's a bit from the opening of Edward Sharp-Paul's satire, "An Opinion Piece on a Controversial Topic":

No doubt you will have noticed that Issue has been in the news lately, due to the scandalous behaviour of Public Figure, and the controversial comments of Publicity-Hungry Commentator. The editor of this site and I were discussing the Issue just the other day, and we agreed that making a glib reference to that discussion at the start of this piece would add a sense of authority to my authorial voice, as well as suggesting that the site upon which this piece is being published shares my opinionated stance on this Issue. 

I was inspired to write this piece by Currently Fashionable Polemicist, who summarised the Issue better than I could when they said “oversimplification that makes me feel smart”. I have a strong opinion on this Issue, and my sharing it with you at this time is in no way attributable to opportunism on my part, due to the Issue’s sudden prominence in the news cycle.

Sharp's essay makes a perfect introduction to news-related opinion or argumentative essays for English or other writing classes (advanced high school/ introductory college).