I found another media fearmongering article—this one about computers in the classroom ruining students’ handwriting. There is a hilarious disconnect between the title of the article—“Computers ‘Will Ruin Handwriting’”—and the actual content. The content discusses much of what our class has been looking at this semester, the need for computers in the classroom to provide digital literacy for students. The ruined handwriting concern makes a brief appearance at the start of the article, and then vaporizes. Readers are left quizzically wondering at the disjunction between headline and content; those familiar with Drew Curtis’ It’s Not News, It’s Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News should be familiar with the ploy. If you’re in want of a laugh or a way to waste a few minutes, here is the link to the article:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/98202/Computers-will-ruin-handwriting-
The talking heads that the journalist cites to provide a counterview seem dangerously uninformed, but that is standard at this level of journalism it seems. Let’s move on to more interesting topics.
After writing my previous blog entry about MS Word’s “writing-level,” I began to wonder how the function might benefit my composition class next semester. It might provide some interesting insight into freshmen’s initial perceptions of writing. If I were to show them the function and, after having learned the algorithm that it uses, inform them what criteria it employs, I could question the students on some important aspects of composition. It could provide for a great discussion, or, should that fail, at least a solid segue.
The semester is nearly at an end and I wonder what will become of my blog. Part of me wants to keep writing in it; part of me thinks I will plan to keep writing in it and, after a sporadic entry or two, it will fade into disuse. Having discussed the potentials of blogs all semester, I know the benefits of continuing: blogging provides me with a creative outlet, the practice of continual writing, and a tentative tendril tickling the tubes, not to mention the fame, fortune, and female groupies—okay, maybe not the last three—but there are strong incentives to encourage me onward.
A colleague and I intend to start up a website similar to Dr. Barton’s Armchair Arcade (http://www.armchairarcade.com/). There, I will publish semi-formal, intelligent (though not always scholastic) articles on a variety of topics, many of which I’ve already dipped into on this blog. I will analyze popular machinima videos, internet memes/viral videos, Hollywood releases, video games, and the like. The URL for the site hasn’t been purchased yet, but I will keep any readers I have here informed.
Showing posts with label fearmongering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fearmongering. Show all posts
Friday, May 1, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Facebook, Autism, and Media Fearmongering
I came across an article called “Social websites harm children’s brains” awhile back and never got around to reading it till tonight. You can find the article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html
The rhetoric of this article, of media fearmongers in general, is boggling. I see it with 'text-messaging ruins grammar' news pieces frequently. It almost seem as if there is a template, or formula even, to churn out articles about web 2.0 technologies: take one curmudgeonly authority, one “new” technology, add a lot of qualifiers, and voila—a new cautionary tale of woe, a lot of hot air scented with plausibility and devoid of empirical evidence.
Notice the way Greensfield’s quotes are handled. “Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively ‘rewrite’ the brain.” My emphasis. The next line, however, supplies a semblance of certainty: “Computer games and fast-paced TV shows were also a factor, she said.” A factor in what? The plausibility of her notion? The article references no study, no data, no evidence—only speculation.
Another quote, beginning with “My fear is that…,” confirms the Baroness’ ideas are purely speculative. “Then she argued that exposure to… could leave a generation with poor attention spans.” Again, my emphasis. If this article is the judge, Greenfield has not done any actual research on the topic. She has merely wondered about it. “I often wonder whether real conversation will give way to these sanitized and easier screen dialogues…”
Her picture’s caption is almost comical. “Professor Susan Greenfield: Concerned.” But the real treat is the bit on autism. Correlation does not equal causation. At least the ‘connection’ between autism and computers is tempered by her admission of ignorance.
Fearmongering aside, her credentials are nothing to laugh at (except maybe the royal title, tee-hee). She may very well be right. But who is to say that the changes aren’t for the better? Aren’t necessary given the acceleration of technology? If youths’ brains are being reprogrammed because of the changing environment, perhaps the old stubborn brained folks will be the ones in danger of not being able to communicate. L2Txt, Gramps.
The rhetoric of this article, of media fearmongers in general, is boggling. I see it with 'text-messaging ruins grammar' news pieces frequently. It almost seem as if there is a template, or formula even, to churn out articles about web 2.0 technologies: take one curmudgeonly authority, one “new” technology, add a lot of qualifiers, and voila—a new cautionary tale of woe, a lot of hot air scented with plausibility and devoid of empirical evidence.
Notice the way Greensfield’s quotes are handled. “Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University neuroscientist and director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively ‘rewrite’ the brain.” My emphasis. The next line, however, supplies a semblance of certainty: “Computer games and fast-paced TV shows were also a factor, she said.” A factor in what? The plausibility of her notion? The article references no study, no data, no evidence—only speculation.
Another quote, beginning with “My fear is that…,” confirms the Baroness’ ideas are purely speculative. “Then she argued that exposure to… could leave a generation with poor attention spans.” Again, my emphasis. If this article is the judge, Greenfield has not done any actual research on the topic. She has merely wondered about it. “I often wonder whether real conversation will give way to these sanitized and easier screen dialogues…”
Her picture’s caption is almost comical. “Professor Susan Greenfield: Concerned.” But the real treat is the bit on autism. Correlation does not equal causation. At least the ‘connection’ between autism and computers is tempered by her admission of ignorance.
Fearmongering aside, her credentials are nothing to laugh at (except maybe the royal title, tee-hee). She may very well be right. But who is to say that the changes aren’t for the better? Aren’t necessary given the acceleration of technology? If youths’ brains are being reprogrammed because of the changing environment, perhaps the old stubborn brained folks will be the ones in danger of not being able to communicate. L2Txt, Gramps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
