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]

Soundtracking Senator McConnell: Mobilizing Remix in Politics

Last night, Jon Stewart invited Daily Show viewers to join in the fun of setting a two and a half minute wordless campaign ad from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to music. As a moderate liberal democrat incensed by McConnells socially conservative republican leadership, Stewart regularly mocks McConnell on the show, often simply for his diction and appearance, which Stewart apes in the character of Cecil the Turtle from Looney Tunes.

Click the pic to see Stewart's call for remixing McConnell's campaign ad.

Aside from the obvious juvenile derision of a political adversary, Stewart's bit poses as pure Internet silliness--fun with remix culture. He shows the same few seconds of the ad with several different songs, showing how the music can change the message in myriad humorous ways. This suggests a fun and fruitful media literacy exercise lesson for any age group (hint: you don't have to use McConnell!). I'll offer some specific ideas and reflections on my experience doing similar remix activities with students (and Girl Scouts!) to develop media literacy after the jump. However, partisan political attacks aside, this Daily Show clip is more than just a call to mockery; buried in the lead is an important lesson on remix and convergence culture in politics. Stewart points out that McConnell most likely posted this 2m30s wordless ad in order to facilitate Super Pacs (political action committees) using and remixing the images in their own ads to support his campaign. Super PACs can collect and spend unlimited funds on political ads without disclosing sources of the money (as candidates must for donations over a certain amount), provided there is no collusion or communication between the politician and the Super PAC [Colbert did an absolutely hilarious series of segments exploiting and exposing how Super PACs work--a brilliant teaching resource on the topic]. Ask: How does McConnell's alleged strategy work? How does he intend to benefit? How do voters lose out in the process? So, McConnell offers these images to the public, affording him some direct control over his public image portrayed in remixed ads by the Super PACs supporting him without directly communicating with them.
[After the jump: More on this, w/ the Daily Show clip and ideas for soundtracking lessons for media literacy]

Colbert on Telecomm Contracts, Privacy: Feds Bound More by Phone Service Agreement than U.S. Constitution

Here's a biting bit of irony blown up by the Colbert Report about the U.S. Department of Justice publicly suing Sprint for overcharging $21M on their top secret wiretapping service, which federal judges have declared illegal and unconstitutional.

"That takes balls. It's like a guy telling his wife, 'I'm suing the prostitute who gave us both herpes. And by the way, I go to prostitutes, and you have herpes."

How's that for a way to start off a discussion about government surveillance and taxpayer money? So, that joke in the caption probably makes this useful for discussion with the college/adult crowd only (who should also notice the casual insensitivity of using sex workers as a vehicle for the joke), but it's certainly worth discussing both the ethics/legality of government spying (especially in connection to some research about how they're spying a la the Snowden leaks), and Colbert's clever method for bringing up the fact that taxpayers pay for all of this. Of course, Colbert's satirical impersonation of a right wing pundit demands that he couch the economic issue as due to Obama's mistakes, which he brilliantly frames from the point of view of a disappointed parent chastising a kid for jacking up the family bill through irresponsible cell phone use.

"Someone is going to have to pay for this, sir. Because even the President of the United States is bound by his cell phone agreement, though apparently not by the Constitution."--Stephen Colbert

So, what's left out of that critique? For starters, taxpayers had been paying for the service either way, and now pay for the law suit. I'd love to hear from you--what are the most important questions to ask to frame debate about the ethics of government wiretapping/data-mining, transparency of government action, and use of taxpayer money? And what research questions does this piece inspire?
[clip autostarts after the jump]