"Historical Context, It's Why Old People are Sad" (and why ML4ML is Back!)

Where have you been? Well, as you can see from yesterday's new post, ML4ML is back! Our beloved blog has been on hiatus while I finished my dissertation contributing to the history of media literacy--here's a clip of my defense:
Whoops! That was just an approximation of the process brought to you by the funny folks at BYUtv's Studio C, but dissertation defenses do get a bit medieval, and literally reach back to medieval times. My advisor literally told me to "Bring a sword," and that she loves "the ritual," which many describe in terms of brutality and torture. Speaking of which, I won't get it into what my historical research is about here--it's not funny enough, yet. But I will offer the following clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to emphasize the importance of context, and in particular historical context.

Obama: I'm a single mom, and at the end of the month, 

              it's really hard for me to pay the bills.

Stewart: That's not why you lost. Actually, that joke was brought to you by Context.

              Context, look at how silly the world would be without Context. 

In this post (after the jump), I recommend using the Daily Show clip below to remind us how much knowledge it takes for jokes about current events in the news to make sense (this clip is from just last November, the day after the GOP won back the U.S. Congress in overwhelming fashion in the midterm elections), and how accurate representation is not just about showing real images and quoting accurately.

Limitations of the Medium: The Gettysburg Address Powerpoint

As I prepare for a few speaking engagements at academic conferences next weekend, I am keeping in mind lessons learned about what powerpoint presentations giveth, and what they taketh away from effective communication by sharing this classic by Peter Norvig--The Gettysburg Powerpoint Presentation.

Exploring various media in terms of their affordances and limitations is a classic approach to semiotics, and I wish all presenters considered how this powerpoint totally decimates the power of Lincoln's speech while still abiding by many principles for presenting clear information. It's a great piece to discuss with students before they design presentations, particularly in public speaking classes. What does the speech communicate that visuals do not? What makes the speech effective? Why are the visuals less effective? It also presents an opportunity for social studies students in middle school and high school to create a more effective powerpoint presentation for the speech. I'd introduce an audio recording or professional performance in a still shot on video, then show the powerpoint, and then show the clip from Ken Burns' Civil War--and ask students to shoot for something somewhere between Norvig's satire and Burns' film. Students could also go the other direction, and add all sorts of flashy visuals, video clips and preposterous image collages to create their own Gettysburg Address Powerpoint presentations that humorously show the limitations and common abuses of powerpoint features in public speech communication. Norvig has also posted a great story about the making of his powerpoint and the response he's gotten from it.

Back in 2003, Wired magazine hosted a "debate" of sorts pitting the view that "Powerpoint is Evil" from Yale Professor Edward Tufte, author of the Cognitive Style of Powerpoint monograph, against "Learning to Love Powerpoint" from new wave rock God and avant-garde artist David Byrne (front man of the Talking Heads). Tufte bemoans the use of Powerpoint in schools, arguing that the constraints of the software encourage poor visual communication. Byrne discusses how he moved from feeling limited by the software to exposing its limitations through mockery to transcending its constraints in art. Especially for college courses discussing multimodal composition, Tufte's tirade and Byrne's celebratory transcendence make for a fascinating contrast to approaching communication tools and how they shape our discourses. For any class, Byrne's art illustrates how playing with the affordances and limitations of media offers avenues for both critical commentary and self expression. DJ Alchemi posted a nice review of Byrne's powerpoint art in 2004 after arguing that the Tufte/Byrne "debate" was bogus. He also links to an NPR discussion with Byrne and some more presentation software art from DJ Spooky (using Keynote). I really like the idea of designing multimodal composition lessons starting with Tufte's critique and following Byrne's learning curve from mocking the medium in the medium as a means for learning its affordances and limitations, to transcending the rules and habits of communication imposed by the medium for artistic commentary, critique and self expression. So, there's an idea. Any takers?

And here's a bonus image for your Friday pleasure...

 I want a poster of this in my classroom.

"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.

Classing up the Winter Olympics with Onion Satire

With all the TV coverage focused on national identities and the satirical news taking shots at the whiteness of competitors while sending up the anti-homosexual policies of host-nation Russia amidst all of the usual gay stereotypes associated with the winter games (see any Colbert Report or Daily Show over the past few weeks), it's easy to overlook the socio-economic issues involved in the Olympic dream. Bring class back into your class discussion of media representation and reality with this poignant headline and short article from the masters of satire at the Onion (click link to see article):

Winter Olympics Inspire Nation’s Youth To Try Sports Their Parents Can’t Afford

Who can afford to go for the gold?

Just before this article cracked me up, I watched NBC do a short piece tallying the cost of Bode Miller's skiing equipment, which they estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not like the money issue is subtle in Olympic coverage--with all the sponsors, the talk about the costs of bobsleds, etc. However, seldom do we see the equipment costs connected with the opportunities for people to compete or enjoy participating in the featured sports (and even more rare is any connection made between such class issues and nationality, or race, or gender). So, here's an easy way to start the conversation through a bit of satire about media construction of heroes, and unreachable desires--and the Onion's framing within parent-child tensions around money makes this an accessible piece for middle school through college age students in social studies, English, or media studies settings.

Ask a Slave: Historical Re-enactment Survivor Makes Ignorance Look Stupid

In Philadelphia public schools, where I used to teach, African American History is not relegated to Black History Month, but is a required course for graduation alongside World History and U.S. History. Inevitably, teachers must respond to questions about the need for such a course, usually from a non-African American student or parent. Well, Azie Mira Dungey has created a perfect response in her comedy web series, Ask a Slave. The short videos feature ignorant and insensitive questions from tourists to Lizzie Mae, George and Martha Washington's slave whom Dungey played as a historical actor at Mount Vernon. The videos are embellished re-enactments of real interactions Dungey had with tourists addressing her in character as a historical figure--that's a cool enough whirlwind of representation and reality to fuel a full class period's discussion in itself! But the real jumping off point for using this series in teaching and learning is at the intersections of race, gender and history.


The comedy comes in part from the facepalm-inducing outrageousness of the actual questions addressed to Dungey (as Lizzie Mae), and develops in the answers and looks she gives the camera to highlight the tourists' ignorance.  So, the videos call out ignorance about history, but what else do they do? What do they say about our dominant historical narratives about our "founding fathers"? Is it even possible to respectfully address and ask questions of a slave? What knowledge, empathy and sensitivity would remedy the ignorance in the tourists' questions? What media messages and experiences could deliver such knowledge? The videos are ripe for media literacy analysis through the lens of race and gender representation, and they all suggest a need for historical knowledge that your learners could seek and create media to communicate. However, many other discussions need to happen around these videos, as well. For educators, is it harmful to the spirit of inquiry in your learning environment to show videos that shame people for asking questions? Can the portrayal of (mostly) White ignorance do more than instigate paralyzing White guilt and shame, and reactionary righteousness or dissmissiveness? Should we even consider humor as a part of educating about something as difficult, complex, and shameful as the historical institution of slavery? These are great questions for teacher education as well as media studies and social studies classes of high school or college students. But as with any good inquiry about race and representation, it won't be easy.

The Big Game That Shall Not Be Named (For Fear of Trademark Infringement Litigation)

Trademark law in the U.S. is copyright's badass older brother who doesn't want to hear you whining about fair use or parody--he doesn't care if you're kidding or adding value--because he said shut up because he came first and because he said so. This Colbert Report segment highlights the absurd power of intimidation that trademark law gives to big companies along with all the rights reserved to control the names of the culture we buy into. Wait, you mean we risk getting sued out of existence for mentioning the name of the most watched annual media event in the world?!? Viacom thinks so...

Stephen Colbert's coverage of "Superb Owl" satirizes trademark litigation.

U.S. trademark law is a tricky thing, and different from copyright. The distinction is something important for all of us who say or post anything online or make anything for a public audience--because ignorance of the law is not a defense! So, try using the Colbert clip above as a springboard to some research to find out when you can and can't say...

Control the Past and You Control the Future... with Product Placement!

Most TV, youtube and movie viewers understand the practice of product placement where sponsors pay for their brands to be integrated with video content and media makers get money for guaranteeing that their audience will see the ads--an important avenue to revenue in the age of DVRs and fast forward buttons. But what if networks and production houses could make money off ads in reruns? Well, a new ad company is selling just that service: digital revision to place products in syndicated reruns and old movies. Is this creepy? Or, a great opportunity? If your class can stomach an "abstract" sexually graphic visual (or, if you can stomach cutting the final side-splitting 30 seconds), this clip from the Colbert Report makes a great discussion starter.

Stephen Colbert facilitates future marketing by using ad-ready green screen surfaces.

Colbert's plans to include more ad-ready green screen surfaces into his sets and props as a way to facilitate future product placement in reruns of his show are the funniest part of the clip, but they also raise important questions about how new content being produced today might be affected by the prospect of future digital alteration.

Evacuation Day: An Alternative to Thanksgiving from the Daily Show

In the legacy of French academic superstar Roland Barthes, one of the overarching projects of practicing media literacy is to “restore history” to “naturalized myth.” This process involves both disrupting the feeling that meanings are fixed or inevitable by analysis of their construction, and entertaining alternative notions and possibilities of meaning from different points of view. When we study holidays in school, rather than opening possibilities of meaning and revealing competing points of view, we most often simply learn a “better,” or more “correct,” “official” version of history to take for granted. Learning multi-cultural perspectives on and versions of holidays is a step towards the sort of thinking involved in media literacy practice. Learning about how a holiday came to be and considering alternative ideas for what we might celebrate is another way to activate media literate thinking. To this end, here’s a crass alternative holiday to Thanksgiving from the Daily Show’s Sarah Vowell, Evacuation Day:

Jon Stewart turns to an alternative view of Thanksgiving history from Sarah Vowell.

To add media literacy to multi-cultural study of holidays, we must simply take a small step to ask: How is the holiday represented using various production values in different media?; Who created the traditions and representations and how have they changed over time?; What purposes do the representations serve?; How do different audiences understand the holiday representations differently?; and How do historical realities compare to the representations in the holiday tradition?