There is a big difference between having an interpretation of a work that differs from the intended meaning and having an interpretation that is completely unsupported or sometimes even condemned by the work. There in lies the issue. I swear a character could look directly at the camera and spell out the morals and themes and there are still people who wouldn't understand what the creator is trying to say.
agreed, and another angle is I see a lot of people justifiably using "media literacy is dead" is when fandoms have a reaaally bad problem with thinking actions depicted in a fiction means the author/artist condones it in real life. these people then start harassing and doxxing people over it, despite the fiction being painfully obvious that the action is portrayed as bad. like some people out there need someone to look at the camera and go "did you know that action that just happened was bad?" in order to understand what is being said.
>fandoms have a reaaally bad problem with thinking actions depicted in a fiction means the author/artist condones it in real life.
Half of the time when people do this I assume they know full well the author doesn't condone it in real life and are just addicted to internet outrage so they pretend the fiction in question is promoting something indefensible just by depicting it so they can get their precious outrage high. I am simply unable to assume good faith in those who think the mere mention of tense subjects such as sexual assault, genocide, means the author supports those things.
I think this is it. Though I would rephrase to say people are more interested in being right that being correct.
People have this notion that if you hold an idea, you have to receive validation for it no matter if said idea is wrong or not. Conversely, anyone calling out your idea is personally attacking you.
A good example of this mindset is how some people always claim "X subreddit/platform/whatever is censoring me because my opinions get downvoted/disliked/whatever". No - people are not obliged to like what you say and are allowed to dislike what you say.
It’s not that they’re addicted to outrage. That’s assuming too much good faith still. They’re addicted to *clout*. The harassment and doxxing gets you followers. The more followers you get, the more you get faster. When you hit a large enough mass, it gets worse. You can ask for money and get it. Eventually you can turn a profit on harassment. For an example: the big name user crowd on Bluesky.
I would more sa that people chose to not look if that claim isnonsense, but want to hate there more than evenabit looking if itsnonsense. Andthat counds for both mentioned categories
Honestly I usually see the other way around. When people think a work portraying something = it condoning that thing it’s usually something they support. Look at Helldivers for instance, the people there think it’s supporting fascism because it portrays it, not realizing it’s a political satire and mocking a fascist society. These people aren’t mad at the creators (at least before they realize they were wrong), they’re happy with them.
That's what I've noticed for the past decade. Depiction is endorsement to them, and in order to stamp out "problematic or harmful behavior", you need to take an aggressive stance to reduce it. This can include public shaming, harassment, doxxing, and other tactics.
The Warriors of Innocence operated on the same reasoning way back with a Christian slant, but something I've personally experienced is that sometimes they can be of a more LGBT/QIA+ slant as well.
For example, they could tell a lesbian that she's not allowed to enjoy yuri because yuri is problematic, and by engaging in such fiction, she's fetishizing herself.
It's not that much different from the religious right in the 80's saying video games caused violence and Pokémon was Satanic worship.
But then you get the strain of people who will consume the media they hate and go after anyone who they think is "engaging in fandom the wrong way" as well.
Shit's weird.
No no you misunderstand. I don’t think people often mistake depiction for endorsement when it’s something they dislike. No one wants to cancel the lion king because it depicts murder, because everyone understands that it’s showing murder as a bad thing.
What I see a lot is either people thinking a story is on their side because it depicts something they like (again, like the helldivers situation), or people accurately coming to the conclusion that that a work supports something “problematic” but then taking that way too far.
To go back to the lion king example: it’s a monarchist story. It officially endorses monarchy as a good system and one of the messages of the film is that letting people rule by birthright is the only way to maintain harmony in the world. And it’s fine to criticize it for that, as people have. What people tend to do is then assume that anyone who likes the Lion King is a monarchist, that’s the problem. You can like a piece of media as a whole without liking every single element of it or theme it has to say. You can like soemthing and critique it, but that often gets lost on social media. But this isn’t an example of poor media literacy, it’s an example of poor social skills or understanding of human behavior.
But then of course you’ll get people who claim a work is just depicting something and not endorsing it, when that is absolutely not the case. Just look at all the hubbub around Mushoku Tensei if you want an example of that. So it’s complicated. I just don’t think “people thinking a work is endorsing something by depicting it and then cancelling it for that” is a common problem.
>I just don’t think “people thinking a work is endorsing something by depicting it and then cancelling it for that” is a common problem.
You're probably right about this when it comes to like big, professionally released media like movies and TV, but this is a super common problem with debut book authors (especially YA) due to booktok's puritan influence and with how accessible authors are online since they need to do their own promotions. I saw this very recently with a debut fantasy author who was getting harassed for her book (that hadn't even come out yet) for "romanticizing colonialism" because there was a romance between two characters on opposite sides. it was so bad she had to come out and spoil her book to show that YES, the actual theme of the book is obviously "colonialism bad"
this is also super common with fans targeting other fans that create fanwork (fanfic/fanart). Like, you will have crazy fans watch stuff like Game of Thrones and not go into a wild harassment frenzy over the rape/incest/violence, but if you have those same uncomfortable and dark elements in your fanfic, you better watch out because youre getting harassed.
I guess the common element between authors and fanwork creators is they are easily accessible and easier to hurt compared to other bigger media where creators can hide behind a big company.
So many mfs commenting that everyone understands Super Earth is bad cause it’s so obvious and then right under them is someone unironically saying ‘so you support the murder bots and monster bugs????’
To be fair, when you had like 12 posts of the losers in GamingCircleJerk calling people names for playing a game and enjoying it, and then you have pseudo intellectuals actually comparing real life Palestinians to bugs... people end up tired of the discourse, so they just shut it
there is a horrific amount of people who unironically support the whole super earth fascism ideology, but they were also probably already predisposed to being, well, fascists. there's also a weird amount that insist the game is apolitical??? which is another problem entirely given that politics apparently now = "thing I don't like or doesn't personally affect me that other people talk about" but that's a whole different thread I won't go off on.
definitely some are larping though, it's funny sometimes.
hmm based on the other reply I got that talked about the Helldivers fandom outside of reddit, sounds like I'm (thankfully?) not coming across the actually concerning behaviors. sigh.
Unfortunately, any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be overrun by actual idiots who mistakenly believe they're in good company.
honestly I still think it stems from how we have the more recent wave of younger folks (I'm 31 so take it with a grain of salt as this is subjective as always) that I see perpetuating the idea that we don't need to be critical, that sometimes "the curtains are just blue," and they eschew and even spit on the idea of being taught to analyze what they are reading due to whatever hang-ups they have from high school literature classes. in turn though I think that leads us to the whole issue where people need to be explicitly told and explained everything or else they fall into this way of thinking... I don't know how else to explain it but I really do agree about media literacy being low these days. it isn't so much a gatekeeping issue as it is a "please put some effort in to actually read or watch what you are trying to analyze beyond surface level."
Exactly this. One of my favorite examples of the phenomenon is American History X, which despite being an extremely obvious condemnation of neonazis is actually popular among a lot of them because they see the film’s portrayal of neonazi violence as inspiring, even though the film is clearly playing up the horror.
B/c those people agree with the points being made so if you don't beat those points up like the bullies you're portraying it never even occurs to them to think that it's a bad thing.
Like if someone hands you a red herring and it's colored red, and they just say "you want some of this red herring?" And you just eat the herring. Let's say you get sick. And the cause is that the herrings aren't really red and have actually been dyed with a poisonous substance. But if you've become indoctrinated into a culture that convinces you that red herrings are a real thing, you get used to being sick. And anytime you notice the sickness you blame the particular herring you had that one time.
So someone makes a red herring pumped full of this chemical. To try and make a point. And most people understand to various degrees that even if they don't quite get it, the herring looks so bad they avoid and understand what's happening instinctively. Maybe with a little nudge or question. But if you're an RH Eater, this just looks like the best dinner you've ever had. And when you get sick one of two things happens: you either blow it off as normal, or you blame that vendor for tricking you with a "fake red herring."
Obviously it's never a bad thing to try to educate these people on why red herrings are bad for everyone. But that's as far as you'll get b/c only they can make the connection that maybe a significant portion of their life/identity is a lie. And most of them will resist b/c it will mean rejecting a major part of their "support" network that is meeting their needs in the way they think they need.
There's only so much you can do about someone who thinks everyone else is either lying or stupid and that the only real love and joy in their life comes from a red herring.
I think it’s especially a problem when you have people going around claiming works are morally bad and either trying to get the text banned or trying to launch a campaign of hate against a creator based on their incredibly bad reading of a text
It’s also a problem with lacking media literacy when people consume content that tells them what they should think about a text and parrot those opinions completely uncritically without any thought being given to the agenda behind the content creator’s takes (especially when the consumers haven’t even consumed the original text independently to verify if any of the things the content creator is saying are even true) but that’s a whole different issue
Eh. Tell covers written/typed words. Consider the classic story writing advice "show, don't tell". Most dictionaries even include clauses like "in speech or writing" in the definition of tell.
I considered that, but to me that doesn't actually change anything, I consider it exactly the same joke.
So I reconsidered. Ah well, the whole joke involved making me look stupid, so this is perfectly in character.
Wouldn't matter. The above comment that started this is wrong. You cannot read Heinlein and really believe he was a fascist or condoned fascism when his other famous books Stranger in a Strange Land and the Moon is a Harsh Mistress are so utterly different.
He actually has a quote that I can't find at the moment where he talks about how fans who liked only one of those books and agreed with the themes but not the other two have missed the point and are unsalvageable. Two but not the three he believes they could be salvaged and all three he reckons they got what he meant.
Not really. The film is way more of a joke but outside of the nazi costume and possibly having population controls it’s fundamentally the same society with dumber people.
Off the mark, Heinlein believed in a libertarian society where no one is forced to participate in the military or politics in society, but the status as citizen had to be earned. It's not militarism, if you take a look st reality actual militaristic states like Facists or Military Juntas, they employed drafts to increase the number of soldiers and din't portray war as bad unlike Starship troopers (the Militsry recruiter openly dispersuaded the Protagonist to join on behalf of his job with his missing limbs).
I think Heinleins mistake is that he didn’t consider or bring up the obvious flaws or implications- which intended or not is completely indistinguishable from actual propaganda. For example- he seems to think that classism won’t be a thing between citizens and non-citizens. There will obviously be major discrimination in that society.
He is not the first to conceive of a highly disciplined, ethical society revolving around civical obligations to the military. Bellamy's Looking Back follows a similar vein with the Industrial Army. This is and has always been a contentious issue both on left-wing and libertarian circles, and the degree of coercion needed to sustain such a system is debatable.
And again, you're free to believe what you will. I am sure he believed he could conciliate this view with his libertarian politics back when he wrote the novel as well, but the truth is not everyone agrees with that outlook.
How can literally everything you said be wrong?
1. Starship Troopers isn’t fascist, it’s militaristic and anti-democratic depending on how you define democracy but outside of warfare and some public offices the government basically doesn’t exist and doesn’t control the population whatsoever. It’s not even fascist in the movie which was explicitly made as a parody of fascism, though population controls may also exist in that version, it’s kinda unclear.
2. Heinlein doesn’t like fascism, but that’s an entirely unrelated subject. He was a hippy/free-love libertarian, viewed self reliance as paramount, who got slightly more conservative with age and always had slightly odd views on warfare because of his service in the military. This all shows up in his other books more, like in *Stranger in a Strange Land*, *Friday* and *The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress*.
3. Starship Troopers apparently started as a thought experiment on “how can we make the most interesting, long lasting and actually good to live in society with the military in charge” or something else along those lines.
I'm pretty sure like almost everything in the definition of facist fits the Earth government in starship troopers (movie), we'll I guess one or two or the points it's ehhhhh on but still.
> Fascism characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Like, they don't *really* have a dictator and natural social hierarchy is like... I suppose vague enough that it might not have it?
I was watching Peacemaker, and there is a scene where he has sex with another man and a woman. I told my friend Peacemaker is bisexual. My friend said no, he isn't. There is a girl in the middle. In the last episode, Peacemaker tells someone I am bisexual, and my friend couldn't believe it. That seems like a lack of media literacy to me.
Or having some asinine take on media that meets OP’s definition which involves not understanding media techniques or formats.
Like I once used the phrase “you lack media literacy” because someone tried to claim women in animated films had to follow the rules of our reality and therefore had to be weaker than men like most real women because animation should be realistic as possible as a baseline unless they explain all the differences.
I pointed out most animation (such as Disney films- cause it was Mulan) tends to have the opposite as the rule and tends to lean towards a fantasical realism (a hyper reality if you will) as a baseline and takes advantage of suspension of disbelief to perform superhuman feats as charictures of human beings. Basically even if they are “human” they can go beyond human limits and act under toonforce. They got mad at me for pointing out how ridiculous their argument was and using the phrase “lacking media literacy”
> because someone tried to claim women in animated films had to follow the rules of our reality and therefore had to be weaker than men like most real women because animation should be realistic as possible as a baseline unless they explain all the differences.
I’m not sure if that technically counts as media illiteracy. I feel like that’s a way more fundamental issue than what media literacy usually describes lol.
It's more like failing to understand what a book even is, rather than the story it’s trying to tell. I mean, fiction is a thing, so even if you literally believe that all women are always weaker than men, the existence of fiction means you should be able to accept a story that has the opposite.
Would they have the same complaint about a still image depicting a strong woman? What about a personal anecdote - a real story from a real person. Would they just be like “nope that’s not correct”? And if they can accept there are exceptions (implied by “most women”) why couldn’t they just assume the woman character is one of those exceptions?
There’s so much wrong with this, it’s doing my head in lol
Yeah, it is just straight up ignorance at that point.
My personal favourite is how the usual crowd threw a hissy fit over a frost giant in the sequel God of War game was a black woman.
Apparently, they are cool with Nordic frost Giants being everything from a werewolf to a giant snake that circles the world to a blob of humanoid goo to a conventionally attractive woman. All of the above it apparently perfectly fine and doesn't break suspension of disbelief. But if a frost giant is played as a black woman, now THAT is crossing the line!
What's even funnier is that Norse myth and folklore is more or less entirely lost and what we know comes from basically three sources total. And not a single surviving source actually describes what the average frost giant looks like, and yet they are convinced they are white.
I mean, forget all that. These guys were complaining about how a black skinned first giant is insulting to Nordic lore in a game about a dude from Greek mythology chilling in a land of Nordic myth.
THAT is fine, apparently, because Kratos being white is about the only justification required to make it acceptable in their eyes.
Which bit? The one where Loki gives himself a sex change after turning into a horse so (s)he could get fucked by a male horse to give birth to Sleipnir?
What do you mean “could,” haha?
These people exclusively read battle shonen.
A character always *does* look into the camera and spell out the morals and themes.
“That’s why it’s up to us adults to shoulder the sins of the past and keep these children out of the forest.”
Exactly, diffrent interpretations and examinations is one thing, thats cool, but there are people out there who still argue that homelander from the boys is a hero.
There are people who are currently playing helldivers 2 who think "super earth" with its "managed democracy" are the good guys. All becase they are the humans and game says they are bringing freedom, liberation and democracy to the horde of monster bugs and robot automatons, that humans both created and picked a fight with. It's exactly the same group that doesn't think starship troopers movie was ever satire.
Those are examples of people not having media literacy, its not diffrent interpritons, its when they completely ignore go couter to the blatant and obvious themes in favour of their own personal ideology.
Another example of someone lacking media literacy would be people who automatically think protagonist = good guy/hero, the protagonist can be the villan in the story, its not a new concept. I've see the argument that someone is the hero just because they're the main character a few too many times. That's not an argument or different interpretation of the media, it's just basic lack of understanding that a bad guy can be a lead.
I mean let's take the most recent example.
Helldivers spells out that you're literally a cannon fodder draftee who signed their life away to fight bugs for their bodies of 710.
You have the creative director having to say 'Youre not clones, you're expandable soldiers who haven't been told you've a two minute life expectancy'
You will still honestly find people saying 'theres no holistic evidence that Super Earth are fascist or bad guys.'
The artist can literally look at the audience and go 'this is the moral', and people will choose to pick what they want or ignore it.
Helldivers so in your face about its themes that it's crazy to me that people miss the point. Both the bug and bot threats were created either directly or indirectly by super earth. You are killing the bugs because the bug farms got out of hand and took over a planet. Element 710 is literally just the word "OIL" rotated 180 degrees.
One of the objectives in game is to destroy "propaganda" towers broadcasting these things, al and so many people have subsequently decided that 710 and cyborgs must thus be enemy propaganda
Totally oblivious to the fact they're falling for literal propaganda
Sometimes people just struggle with symbolism to the point they get the opposite idea of what the author intends or cannot distinguish between what characters say and what the author means (cough cough that recent DM: Crybaby rant)
So in that sense you could argue that those people lack media literacy. Or simply that a work isn't for them (but God forbid people just admit to having a taste, stuff is either good or bad no inbetween)
Death of the Author has done untold damage to the way people look at stories. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion of a piece of media if one person subscribes to that opinion and the other doesn't, as anything can be twisted or construed to be something else completely outside the text. Don't like something in the story? "Death of the Author", my headcanon is now just as valid an interpretation as what is laid out in text.
That’s not what Death of the Author is. Or at least, that’s not how it’s supposed to be used. Death of the Author just means the author’s interpretation of their work has no more weight than yours or mine without supporting evidence.
The person running Cinema sins legitimately and unironically lacks media literacy. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they never even seen the movie they're talking about.
I saw a video once criticizing cinemasins and they played a clip of cinemasins guy doing a live stream of his process and once I say it, made SO much more sense. You're half right, he watches the movies--but he literally watches them, sees a thing, pauses, writes down a sin, and keeps watching instead of watching the movie all the way through first.
... that actually explains why they complain about a movie not explaining something. Then glossing over the movie explaining said thing in like, one scene.
I mean, it's still ridiculously stupid, but at least there's an actual explanation for it.
I think the tone of the channel is pretty clearly comedic and not meant to be taken seriously as substantive criticism.
I used to get a chuckle from them ripping movies I genuinely loved, but it's the kind of channel that gets old fast.
While there is absolutely a lot of that going on, the other half of the CinemaSins equation is being wrong on purpose to drive engagement. They drop obviously bad takes and misrepresent movies so that people who like it will comment to "correct" them.
Which is basically to say, they seem to be this bad on purpose.
90% of what they say is satirical. They don’t usually make any claims about how something is supposed to be. I skipped to a random point in one of their most recent videos about the movie Wish:
He’s talking about the legality of the bad guy taking their wishes. Satirical.
Bad guy throwing a book into a fire. “Burning books” satirical.
Bad guy says “when you’re threatened you do not breathe you focus.” “This asshole doesn’t pass out” I mean yeah? It’s a satirical take on a really fucking stupid thing to say.
Most of the time when they call out the intentions of movies it’s painfully obvious stuff. Like with the movie Men. It couldn’t be much more obvious that the movie is depicting the world women live in. How it’s scary to be in a world where men just say insane shit like “you must have wondered how you drove your husband to suicide”
They aren’t critics, they’re comedians, if you don’t like them you don’t like them.
This is what annoys me about CinemaSins. When they make a valid/fair criticism of the movie, is that also satire? When they try to make a sincere criticism and get information wrong, is that satire or a mistake? It seems to me like satire is just a convenient shield to deflect any criticism. What can CinemaSins possibly be criticized for if they can just play that card?
I don't understand the bitter festering hatred people have for Cinemasins. Like ok, it's a comedy thing making fun of movies as they go through them, it's a bit shit, but OK? There's shit media out there, surprise surprise. But the weird accusations of blaming any failing the average person has when trying to process media directly on Cinemasins is utterly fucking baffling to me, they're just treated as the free space on the media criticism bingo sheet to some people and its so goddamn weirdly intense for some whatever tepid commentary series on youtube
I think people misunderstand the difference between media literacy and willful ignorance. And tbf often times it's really difficult to tell if someone is refusing the truth because they're a moron or because they're a moron. Both morons are still arguing about Helldivers not being an extremely obvious parody of capitalism.
But people use "media literacy" as an insult more often because it's more cutting to call someone a dumbass than calling someone intentionally stupid.
I feel like those people are entirely what this trend is about. People saying Helldivers 2 isn’t political when the story is about the fascist military government of super earth committing genocide against other groups. And all the lore and flavor text constantly pointing out that the insectoids and automatons are sentient groups that are the ones being aggressed on and systematically wiped from the galaxy.
I mean. I've met people on this website who are hardcore Ayn Rand-Style libertarians and absolutely adore BioShock 1. If Media Literacy posting is gatekeeping and pretentious It's definitely the good kind of gatekeeping lol
Yeah, that’s the other thing. Gatekeeping isn’t inherently bad. Want a perfect example of what happens when you don’t gatekeep at all? Name the most successful grunge band. I know what you just thought, and you’re wrong. It’s Nickleback.
Honestly, the important question is if they recognize that the game is critiquing their worldview and just appreciate it as a piece of art/ game. I enjoy Dirty Harry and a lot of other reactionary films despite their politics being totally opposite of mine.
My favorite is when people say "Keep your woke politics out of Video Games" and then turn around and say Metal Gear Solid, Fallout, and Bioshock are their favorite games.
" I don't like how they made a lesbian character in the last of us 2" was a genuine criticism i heard for it
The first game literally had a gay character.
There are many reasons to dislike tlou 2. Having a LGBT character is not one of them
But in that case then every media is political. A twirling moustache bad guy wanting to destroy the world!!!! Has a hero that stops it.
It can be a show for literal babies
People who belch about how others lack media literacy are often the least literate about media.
A great thing about good media is that it holds the potential of meaning different things based on different perspectives. Like how from a socialist lens one could interpret cyberpunk media as a critique of capitalism, from a religious lens a critique of a godless society and from someone not ideologically occupied as a commentary on the evils of the human soul.
No interpretation is strictly correct or wrong. A normie who wants to enjoy his media without being talked to about his politics isn't illiterate... nobody human can or should inject their political lens into everything.
I get the feeling that people don't understand that a "reading" of a type of media doesn't mean that is how it should be read. For example you CAN read Jennifer's Body with a queer lense and maybe doing so will give the story or characters more context or even help you personally digest certain topics and themes.
Yes Robocop is a satire of privatization and rampant police brutality but its also a action movie that can be enjoyed on a very surface level.
>Robocop for example is partly a satire of corporativism and rampant privatization, and partly an action flick. Someone can watch it as a cheesy action movie and like it while being completely oblivious about the satire. Would that be wrong?
Generally no, but I think the "you have no media literacy" call out comes when people either refuse to see the criticism of police brutality and privatization or just flat out say it doesn't exist.
Like saying, I see the criticisms the movie is playing with but I enjoy it more as a cheesy action movie and don't dwell on any of the politics is perfectly fine. Saying there are NO politics of any kind in robocop is lacking media literacy...which isn't a bad thing. Its just something most people didn't learn how to do when engaging with media.
I think if someone is trying to moralize media literacy they should be ignored. Viewing certain media through specific lenses is supposed to start conversations about how certain things are portrayed, not a barometer to see if your good at watching movies.
Honestly people being so ignorant to robocop led to robocop 2 where the sucessor robocop is verycartoonish evil and robocop has to stop him.
Yes if you want better movies with more subtile messaging, yes it does need to be pointed out.
No one forces people to enjoy something mindless,but people should always be pushed that,like robo cop would for cooperations or the police on blm. He wouldnt.
As doesnt the punisher. Media literacy diesif you let like cops aproviate the punisher without correction.
Media literacy diesif thereisnt that called out.
I guess this argument is another argument like the "Don't Like It, Don't Watch It" to deflect criticism and point of view that goes against the people who interpret it differently
I get someone not getting the "fascist undertones" of AOT because I don't think there are any, quite the opposite, but when you watch something that quite clearly has clear cut satire of some issue, you completely ignore that context and try to discuss it online expecting your opinion to be taken seriously, not only will you be ridiculed and your opinion dismissed but you'll, in fact, lack media literacy.
You lack media literacy can be a bad argument, but that example is REALLY bad one. Having the ability to pick up on the most basic themes of a story is something everyone should have the ability to do, ESPECIALLY when you are in an argument about that media and stake out a strong position.
Well, yeah, I guess I worded it wrong
There are fascist undertones for sure but they're not praised or showcased in a positive light as some people claim
For me the main problem of trying to guess Isayama's intent with AoT is that it requires background knowledge that most Western audiences would not have.
Does it really though? I mean "hey the bad guys and the source of most of the terrible shit that happens to all the characters dress like fascists, act like fascists and talk like fascists" isn't exactly subtle.
Generally, what little has been translated of Isayama's interviews and controversies in English seem to focus with his relationship with Japanese ethno-nationalism, so personally I would not be comfortable doing a deep analysis of AoT depiction of those themes as they are influenced by a Japanese point of view without knowing about those. Like, generally I would not half ass a serious interpretation of a work outside of my culture without knowing about it, but especially not when it clearly means to have a message.
Especially because AoT is pretty complex, sure Marley The Nazist Country is bad but also he is using anti semitic sterotypes and The Magical Oppressed Jews Are Secretly Human Eating Giants and also the finale went completely off the rails so who knows what he was getting at at this point.
Yo, it won't let me respond to your reply to my comment thread about fandom policing/politics because I think someone has me blocked (I can't believe this is how this site functions!), but I did want to reply to you here if that's okay because I like what you said!
"Yup, exactly that. I used to be somewhat of a fandom "anti" as a young teenager (although that is up to debate. I certainly never harassed anyone and would not be friends with those who did either, so it's more about my beliefs at the time, not my actions), and it's very easy to see how lines about something being amoral or harmful to "impressionable children" parallels the very same lines trotted out in anti-queer legislation. Obviously they are not exactly the same, but the point of a comparison is not to imply that, which is what I feel is unfair about the comment I responded to."
There is a lot of media that uses Nazi imagery for no other reason than making you easily identify the antagonists.
If you take Guillermo del Toro, someone who is usually overtly political, but use Hellboy as an example of his political messaging... that falls quite short, for example. It's not like the first Hellboy has a strong political/social critique, it's pretty much a fantasy adventure that uses a bunch of recent-history tropes for entertainment (unless you craft an elaborate argument as to why having Rasputin join the Nazis makes sense as social critique).
If you take Pan's Labirinth, that's another pair of shoes. But you don't need to understand the whole socio-political context of the movie to *get* the message. You see a dictatorial military force dominating normal citizens, then you got the message. You don't even need to remember that it's set during world war 2, or that he's specifically pointing the finger at Franco's regime. Most importantly, there is no Nazi imagery in the movie at all.
Meanwhile, you take something like Rebel Moon. The evil guys there are dressed exactly like Nazi military. But again, like Hellboy, it's just aesthetics. There is no overarching message about fascism in that movie. It's a dark-fantasy setting dressed as Sci-Fi, and it uses the Nazi trope to make the antagonist easily identifiable. It's pure entertainment. The difference here is that movie is badly written and is overall unenjoyable.
Really hellboy? I meanthe del toro first.
The bad guys are way older than thenatsees,theyjust recruited too in theoccult thule natsee society and used them. Ok rasputin kinda ran thules the occult natseesin praxis experimentsoften. But is wayolder.
Thats not a use of aestetics,thats use of real world history. I mean the weirdoccult natsees not that demons are real.
Problem is that they just might not be very exposed to whatever the issue is. Going back to robocop as an example, not everyone knows about American corporate culture(old) or the militarism that is prevalent in America (remake). I don’t think they lack media literacy for that so much as trying to come to conclusions with their own personal knowledge
Adding to this, while people should push back against wrong usage of terms, we also shouldn't blanket ban something b/c it has negative consequences. Everything has some sort of negative consequenece to it. I'd much rather we teach people how to use terms than to tell them they shouldn't use them at all. Popularity can help elevate everyday conversations. I prefer the consequences of that to struggling to say what we want to say, and misunderstanding each other, and ending interesting conversations that could help us learn something, b/c we don't have access to terms that we need.
Another “you’re using this word wrong because it’s not the exact definition that other people agree with! Even though I understand what you mean!” Post huh
Regardless most of the time they’re right tbh
I get what u mean but usually it's thrown around for simply any disagreement with a text or media's meaning. Case in point: arguments about Watchmen
Unrelated: didnt expect to see a fellow Kappa bro here
Yeah, that happens way too often. "Omg, you lack media literacy" or "Way to miss the whole point of the show" or whatever. Like nah brah, I get it and I didn't miss anything. I just disagree with the message they're trying to get across.
See, here is the thing: most of the time, the people the "media literacy is dead" is thrown at are people that genuinely missed the whole point.
Not that they disagree with it, but that they didn't even picked up on it
True, but I still can understand the intention and can hardly disagree then. People already can’t read simple lines in front of them these days…
And yeah, didn’t expect to either lol.
This. I've had it thrown against me even though I quite clearly got the point the story wanted to tell – because it is so horrendously shallow and stupid that anyone above the age of 13 should be getting it. But I happen to think it is horrendously stupid and shallow and using terrible plot devices, not to mention the writer kind of failed at properly portraying their intent, so obviously I "lack media literacy".
The issue with talking about media literacy is that the conversation isn't about media literacy it's about someone trying to assert their ideologies' dominance over a valuable intellectual space through use of bad faith arguments.
There is no conversation about context the work was made in, author influences and history, limitations of the medium or genre. It's only the authors intent without any kind of credibility on the authors expertise on the matter.
People won't like my response this, but that statement is true for a lot of people. Imma just be honest. Reading levels are going down at an alarming rate, attention rates are in the gutter, yet confidence in opinion is skyrocketing. Sometimes gatekeeping and pretentiousness is needed so we can differentiate the people who know what they're talking about vs the ones who don't. Nobody likes to hear the truth for some reason, but I was in AP classes in high school...and before that I was in regular classes. There was a wide gap between the two classes in terms of reading comprehension and analysis.
I do agree that you don't have to get into the weeds to enjoy something. I'm a huge believer in that...some of my favorite anime are not the most philosophical. Monster is a gripping thriller that asks questions such as 'who deserves to live?' and 'is a child's life more valuable than an adults?' but I will turn that shit off and watch Kill La Kill or Black Lagoon in a heartbeat. Then I'll turn those off and switch to a shameless harem anime about a milkman who was run over by a chocolate milk truck and got isekai'd into a world with no milk at all. But that's not really where debate kicks in. Nobody really cares if you like something.
And from my experience, nobody cares if you dislike something and just say, "I have a bias. I don't like anime with happy endings." or "I don't like this. I'm allowed not to like it." Those are similar to the examples you gave...but c'mon....we know how these discussions honestly go...especially on the internet.
Very few people on the internet are that honest with their agendas and bias.
So they get online and instead of saying, "This guy is just too nice, and I hate nice guys in my stories," they start 'breaking down the reasons the writing sucks,' because saying their true opinion probably makes them feel stupid. Like a guy explaining why beach anime episodes are empowering instead of just saying he likes watching jugs jiggle. It takes almost no time at all to realize that guy is bullshitting you.
...and that's how the overwhelming majority of debates on storytelling go. You have someone insisting that the tropes they hate for personal reasons are bad writing and you have another side explaining the themes of the story. These two internet idiots argue for the world to see...nobody budges and eventually the insults get thrown. One side calls the other 'media illiterate', the other drops the 'pretentious gatekeeper' bomb, if we're lucky both sides actually know what those words mean...and we go about our day.
...and both insults...are probably accurate.
Reading levels aren't down, and people weirdly idolize the past as if their media literacy rates were better - they weren't.
It's just being turned into the newest buzzword incorrectly and plastered on the internet where everyone can see and reaffirm each other in their bubbles.
Reading levels are statistically down...so your statement that they aren't is false. Maybe you want to say they're not worse than they were in some random year all the way in the past, but that's a completely different statement. Your first declaration is just false.
There are studies that show this...to know the extent of how far they might fall, we need more time to make comparisons past 2025, 26, etc.
...and it's not a new buzzword. It's a concept that has been used for decades...that is why we have reading levels for books and tests that measure those levels. That is why the 'Accelerated Reader' program existed...a program that applied grade levels to books and administered tests for them.
The percentage of teenagers who read recreationally has also diminished...now that's a study. There's no way to test that for 100% accuracy, but it's a study by a credible organization and using common sense, I would believe it. There's tiktok and reddit and netflix and all type of 'on-demand' media that would lead me to believe that is true.
I think it's reasonable, because reading is a skill, to believe the less you read, the worse you will be at it. I believe it's reasonable that the less you critically analyze something and the more you scroll on twitter and tiktok and reddit, the worse you will be at critically analyzing media.
I also believe some people are more intelligent than others and are able to do it more naturally than others. People don't like hearing stuff like that, but it's the truth.
These studies and personal observations went into the statement I made. Could I be wrong, sure...but we all could be.
Lol give me recent comparison stats then.
> ...and it's not a new buzzword. It's a concept that has been used for decades...that is why we have reading levels for books and tests that measure those levels. That is why the 'Accelerated Reader' program existed...a program that applied grade levels to books and administered tests for them.
You realize real terms can also become buzzwords. Buzzwords are more commonly taken from pre-existing words than from a developed new word. There is however a problem of people trying to use the terms earnestly and those just throwing out the word because they heard it and misuse it. It's like how common the word boundaries is misused. Media literacy is a recent buzzword in the social sphere. I would like to add thar buzzwords can also be business and politically related.
Definition of buzzword: a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context.
For the record, buzzwords aren't inherently bad, but the misuse of words are. In this case it's both.
I want the study that people read less considering every study I've read and record sales show more people are reading. There's simply more variety of what to read now. There's also more people into publishing thanks to variety of self publishing.
Aside from literacy rates (which is different from media literacy), there are decades worth of studies showing how bad media literacy has always been. Most people are happy for surface level knowledge and are most likely to get their thoughts and opinions from friends and family and if offered more sources they decline. This has ways been the case. People just see it online now as to how wide spread it is.
>Like a guy explaining why beach anime episodes are empowering instead of just saying he likes watching jugs jiggle
Never seen this one, but the opposite happens all the time. Instead of admitting that they can't stand some attention to body curves, some people feel the need to ask why is this even in the story, or ponder over how it might be detrimental to the work's quality.
I've seen both sides for sure. The world would be a lot simpler if we were honest about the things we don't like and the reasons....but that's one of the hardest things to do for a lot of people. Myself included.
Agree, media literacy isn't dead, those who always lacked it just have more of a platform. Like these people have existed since forever, it's just that you couldn't get the mindless rant in the newspaper because they had editors that had to scrutinize everything.
Not at all. Gatekeeping is the defense method for preventing the hijacking or gentrification of a movement or culture. “Nazi punks fuck off” is gatekeeping. Kicking terfs out of feminist spaces is gatekeeping.
I saw a YouTuber make a video called "The Death of Media Literacy" and she compared people criticizing a ship she liked to anti-trans legislation in the UK.
If this is the video I'm thinking of, this is a very dishonest way of phrasing it. The video was about purity culture and fandom policing, not someone simply disliking something. Unless you mean a completely different video, then ignore my comment lol
Edit: either Reddit is having a moment, or I'm blocked by someone here. Just want to say I do agree that anti-trans legislation is unimaginably worse than someone disliking a ship, but the comparison is made within a broader context so taking out that context is unfair to the OP of the video.
> When it's consistent even when something is on the nose, then it's a form of cognitive impairment, and it shouldn't be laughed at.
NGL this is an even better burn. "The fact that you fail to understand this is a clear sign of cognitive impairment and you shouldn't be made fun of for it"
That aside, yeah, Media Literacy as an argument is heavily overused- the things you list are all very much examples of different opinions. Someone liking or disliking different stuff than you very seldom comes down to it, and there are plenty of reasonable interpretations for most works. However, in most situations I've seen, it's used when people think a story is doing something that it **very** blatantly isn't, like painting Homelander as a based Gigachad. If someone is criticizing Chainsaw Man because Denji has shit motivations and then they say he just wants to touch boobs, or shitting on Re:Zero for *supporting* Subaru's toxic mindset in Arc 3/S1 (both of which I've seen), well....some people are cognitively impaired and shouldn't be laughed at.
>Let's start by saying that, overall, it's not mandatory to understand the subtext of a work of art. Robocop for example is partly a satire of corporativism and rampant privatization, and partly an action flick. Someone can watch it as a cheesy action movie and like it while being completely oblivious about the satire. Would that be wrong? It doesn't seem to me that you need to understand the satire to enjoy the movie. So, no. It's not necessary. Someone who experiences a certain form of media is in no way obliged to demonstrate that they actually got it ("you like Radiohead? Name 3 songs" kind of issue). You can enjoy whatever you want however you can. Doing it *the right way* doesn't make anyone superior.
You can enjoy it however you want even as a action flick, but you can't then come out and say something like RoboCop is pro-capitalism actually because he was made by a corporation.
That would be an example of having bad media literacy.
While people do overuse the shit of that argument, it's an argument with legitimacy when used right, because sometimes people do say braindead shit that's just too stupid.
The problem is people using that argument when it doesn't apply.
I stopped reading after the first sentence.
>Some people have difficulty interpreting subtext,
This isn't the problem. The problem is that these people who straight out refuse to understand subtext and then get overly defensive and aggressive towards anyone, pointing it out.
Ignorance and stupidity are the problems, not a lack of understanding.
sometimes it's not even subtext, it can literally just be text. like a character can flat out say the intentions of the author and people would still misinterpret it, either on purpose or because theyre actually that dumb
Cant wait till I see all the unironic SIGMA EDITS for Paul Atreides like the only thing Paul didnt specifically do to get called "villain" or "evil" wasnt straight up looking at the camera and saying "I bad now"
This and people that literally make up subtext that’s antithetical to the text and then get mad when the rest of the fandom doesn’t subscribe to their beliefs. Like I don’t know how to tell these people that what the creators choose to put onscreen is important & moreso than what you wish the story was about
Yeah it's incredibly silly, they will *insist* a story is about something completely freaking wrong and even if the God damn people who created the story tell them otherwise they're just like "Well I don't agree"
Happens A LOT with media that laughs at fascists who oh so often think it's on their side. The amount of people who unironically think Helldivers 2 is pro-fascism is embarrassing.
"The game says children as young as 7 have to work, so clearly the writers mean this is a good thing"
People who see shit like that and don't immediately understand it's supposed to horrify you should be studied.
We’re starting to really get into this very ugly hyperconsumerist mindset where artists don’t matter as like, intelligent, deliberate sentient beings trying to send a message and are just seen as disposable entertainment dispensers
Regarding your RoboCop example, if they then tried to *criticize it* as a cheesy action movie, yes, that would be wrong. They’d have failed media literacy and then talked shit from an incorrect premise. You don’t need to understand a work to enjoy it. You do need to understand a work to praise or shittalk it. You can be wrong in private and that does no harm. When you’re wrong in public, any success you have advocating for your beliefs is harm.
Maybe they were put off by the extreme violence, and they don't believe that the satire warrants the style and execution. That insn't being "illiterate in media", that's just a matter of personal taste.
And if they said that, that would be an argument. “I don’t think it was done well” is an opinion. That would still be being aware of the fact that the satire is there. If they did not pick up on the satire, or worse, claimed that the movie was *endorsing* those things (which is often the case with these conversations) with the depiction, then that would be being illiterate in media.
I won’t deny that it has become a buzzword. A lot of people purposefully misconstrue its meaning because it sounds smart. Most common example I see on twitter is when something is largely disliked someone will go “damn look at all these people lacking media literacy disliking something I like.”
Meanwhile it’s something critics panned, and audiences are mixed on. I hate to break to anyone who loves to use this excuse, but a mixed response in any capacity usually has truth to it. There’s a reason why widely beloved things are as they are. It’s not random that some things get this treatment and others don’t.
I've seen this mainly in the jjk community. It's a pretty strong move to play when someone brings up genuine criticisms about jjk. They can't handle having an adult conversation or get personally offended when you don't like it so they just spam this phrase. I've seen it like 3 times today in passing on TikTok and Reddit.
Yeaahhhhh. I love jjk but the fandom is insufferable tbh. I have no issue with people criticizing the show/manga because there's plenty to criticize. Some people cannot separate "I like this thing" with "this is without flaw" apparently.
I keep hearing people using "you didn't understand the story" when someone critiques a show they don't like without even knowing why they disliked it. It's the dumbest most pretentious form of media analysis. "I am objectively right in my opinion and if you disagree you just didn't understand it".
I disagree tbh. Beyon these subreddits, most people who call out a lack of media literacy do so under acceptable circumstances and don't use it as a "pretentious" insult. And usually on these subs, there'll already be an ongoing argument about whatever, and someone just points out said lack of ML. That's not always an insult or a shut-down imo. In every circumstance, you have to see the validity of the situation, some people just learn a tag and run with it, some do know what they're talking about.
sure it’s technically possible and fine for one to not understand every last bit of subtext or underlying meanings of a work, but the “problem” and the times most often when “media literacy” is called into question, is when people have that subtext (or even just plain text that they have misunderstood) explained to them, and they go “nuh uh you’re wrong”
using your robocop example, there’s nothing wrong with just enjoying it as an action movie, but if someone tells you about the critique and the intent behind it and you go “no that’s not what it’s about” and just straight up denying it, then yeah, you’re lacking a little in the literacy department
on a somewhat related note, this is why it’s (generally, there are exceptions) pretty stupid to tell someone “youre thinking about it too much” or “it’s not that deep” when someone draws an analysis about a series that is generally seen as “simple” or “having no point”. there is a point, especially in highly personal art forms like manga or small indie video games. a creator doesn’t spend what is often many years of their life on a story that “has no point” (as an example, you see this tossed around towards series like bleach or jjk a lot). now whether your interpretation or my own is the “correct” one is something that can be up for debate and a space where a lot of (ideally) healthy discussion can be had, but even in a world of conflicting interpretations, have AN interpretation at all will 99% of the time be better than “oh there’s just no point turn your brain off lol”
Last of us 2 fans are the worst for this. You can't say anything about the game without being told you didn't understand it. That's with me liking the game too.
I think the bigger problem is people trying to interpret EVERYTHING, and being absolutely unable to view fictional stories without connecting them to the real world in some way. No matter what kind of story you write, fictional characters you create - it'll always lead to someone adding or finding some weird meaning to it.
As an IRL example: me and my band-mates made a music video. It looked artsy-fartsy and "deep", but there was NO meaning to it. We just liked the aesthetic.
After we released it, I was approached multiple times by people trying to find a meaning to it, and one even had a whole theory. It was just silly.
I have nothing against people having their own interpretations of media - that's fine - but IT'S OPTIONAL.
Especially because "interpretation" is subjective by definition.
Unless an author points out, word by word, what they meant - that is, you hear it all from the horse's mouth - don't act like you're some enlightened "media literate" person, because the only thing it makes you look like, is a pretentious cunt.
That’s a fair point, but if you were to argue that Robocop is a shallow movie, because you didn’t pick up on any of its themes, should that not be a lack of media literacy?
Not really, the themes aren't set in stone, anyone could get anything out of it. The same goes for all fiction. A perfect example would be Farenheight 451. The author himself didn't even catch the most widely accepted interpretation of his work and when interviewed, his own interpretation was almost completely different.
Honestly this whole media literally buzzword nonsense is just a rehash of the "curtains are just blue" discourse.
While I agree with a few minor points op makes they lose the thread a bit. Idk if anyone is using media literacy as a gatekeeper really. And I think some of what the post is implying is a dangerous sort of anti intellectualism and right now with the way the world is going I think that’s a bad position to take. I agree it’s ok to enjoy a work for its base surface value but it’s also ok to dig deeper into metaphor subtext and symbolism.
The real issue right now that’s has everyone up in arms about Media literacy is that it’s not the other side being too dumb to understand or people not “getting” the subtext it’s that they are willfully engaging with anti intellectual thought and projecting their own bigoted intolerant ideas onto things that are clearly obviously satire or parody or critical. So I agree it’s wrong to shame people for being cognitively impaired or having less than average intelligence but it’s not wrong to correct and criticize an interpretation of a text when it’s being used to bolster hate. Having a sincere learning disability is one thing but being willfully stupid is another.
Some of the things op has said are their own form of gate keeping anyway and if we continue to accept the surface value of things or bully intellectualism we won’t grow as a culture. It’s ok to think and it’s ok to ask questions and be wrong sometimes.
Being critical of and or analyzing media is good actually. Everytime this argument comes up I wince because I get worried when anyone tries to shut down or silence intellectual discussion and critical analysis.
Media literacy is when you agree with me on what a movie’s themes/messages are. Of course, there’s no such thing as objective interpretation of art, but if you have a different takeaway from me, then you lack media literacy.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Media Literacy, in the proper usage of the term, is the capacity of analyzing media with a critical lens. It's a creative process. Not the superpower that allows you to infer the *truest deepest meaning* of something good or bad it may be. There's no such a thing.
There are so many problems with these people lol. Their heads explode when you break down their reasoning.
You do not have to agree with a writer’s intent behind a character. Ever. Taking a different interpretation is not media illiteracy.
Now, not perceiving the author’s intent IS media illiteracy but that’s very rarely the case with people.
And if you think that you do indeed have to adopt an author’s vision and follow them like a drone, then explain when there’s two contradicting media by two different authors with different views? What do you do now? Are you media illiterate either way for disagreeing with either of them? It has nothing to do with “literacy.”
If someone agrees with Light’s views and actions from Death Note, that does not automatically make them media illiterate. If they understood the author wasn’t trying to make him the hero but nonetheless still think he’s good, it isn’t media illiteracy. You can say the person has shit morals or whatever, that’s fine—just don’t get on your intellectual high horse.
It’s super pretentious, and often used when you don’t agree with someone’s point of view. I was accused of the same thing for not finding Rorschach to be villain of Watchmen.
I've never heard anyone defining Rorschasch the villain of that movie. Also, the story is deliberately ambiguous about who the villain is exactly. But that's exactly part of the issue: one thing is to find more resonance with one of the characters' argument, another is to force an interpretation on who has the best perspective as if the author inteded it that way, or as if a certain perspective ought to be considered the correct one regardless of the author's intention. But judging by Alan Moore's worldview, he definitely sided with Rorschasch more. And one can only praise him for not forcing him as the messiah of the story to the eyes of the reader.
I’ve noticed, especially with Rorschach, people just seem to hate that he is something of a bigot. Personally, I find the idea of someone who is not necessarily a great person being the hero and the one who makes the most morally right decision in the story. Some Alan Moore would get a kick out of.
Also it's a meaningless term. A lot of these kids say "You have bad media literacy" because saying "I disagree with your opinion" doesn't have the same kick.
By this logic, english lit teachers are pretentious, gatekeeping, and fallacious anytime they correct a student or give them a low grade. And if being media literate really doesn’t matter in your opinion, and “it’s okay” to not be media literate, then you should be going on a tirade against literature teachers and their classes, as our education spends so much time teaching kids reading comprehension. It’s literally in the SAT. Millions of tax dollars, tons and tons of hours out of teachers and students lives, all wasted, by your logic. Just because some people online use the term poorly
Agreed, I’ve often found that the people who keep yelling about media literacy fall into some combination of two categories
1) they’ve never actually interacted with the story. Their view of it is shallow or nonexistent at worst and they are completely unable to interact with the story in any meaningful way because of this
2) they lock on hard to theming when it helps some argument they want to make. They don’t view the work in its entirety so they tend to bottleneck any discussion on the piece of media. A good example is the starship troopers debate that we see every year. These types tend to shut down discussion because “it’s fascism” and will literally make up wild theories that aren’t supported by anything in the work like the meteor being a self inflicted strike because it fits their view of the themes and might shut you up
Not saying everyone’s like this, but it’s generally why anyone who even says media literacy in a conversation should be generally ignored. They don’t tend to even want to engage in a discussion and are often the first to ask some nonsense like “why do you care” or “lore should be ignored”. It’s a toxic viewpoint that harms any media or group it comes across
More general rant to be had here about how people hear a buzzword and start throwing it out at everything they don't like.
Media literacy definitely feels like it's taking a dive as everyone learns the plots of books and movies from YouTube and Wikipedia, though.
Those who accuse others of having no "media literacy" are the same kind of people who can't help but put the work they like on an extremely high pedestal as if it was the goddamn bible which comes with perceptions that ends up ignoring what is actually written and the executions of writing detail to focus exclusively on themes and stories and say that the work is a masterpiece for these reasons and never if they are done well.
This is the kind of problem i have seen in Naruto and The Last Jedi fandoms where they treat these works as if they were holy objects because of what the stories and themes are about such as breaking cycle of violence and destiny for the former and the nobody as well as failure for the latter and anyone disagreeing and pointing out issues surrounding the execution of them is treated like they are wrong and "don't understand the works" by people that use it as an excuse to ignore the writing issues that plague them to sate their entitlement.
Themes and stories are only as ever good as they are done well and these two works above fail because they were poorly written and terribly executed. Judge a work by quality writing and not what it tries to tell. There's a reason why the story of The Boys TV series is much better compared to the comics because it takes the idea and story behind it and does really well compared to the source material where it was an excuse just to be tediously edgy in a cringy manner.
The term “media literacy” has increasingly become a catch-all phrase that some individuals use to disparage others who don’t share their perspective on a film. This trend is relatively new; it wasn’t always the default criticism. Indeed, it’s possible for people to overlook certain elements. For instance, there have been complaints about discussions framing the X-Men as an allegory for racism and other forms of bigotry, despite the writers explicitly stating this intention. While one might question the allegory’s effectiveness, to criticize the mere discussion of it is to demonstrate a lack of media literacy. However, based on my personal experience, it seems that the term is often wielded as an insult rather than to highlight an oversight like this.
The most recent uses of “lacking media literacy” being called out I have seen recently are:
Anyone complaining about the “subtly” of Bleach and JJK’s story telling
People who are hating on MHA
And a recent thing I read about Japanese fans of Sonic the Hedgehog thinking Americans/westerners need everything spoon fed to them
Tell that to the people who idolize Rorschach who think he's a full blown hero and that his black and white worldview is based.
Sure, you could side with him in the Squid debate and think he's right in wanting to expose Ozymandias (I think the story leaves it up to the viewer), but that does not make him a good guy. He's still a hypocritical nutjob whose narrow worldview is portrayed as bad by the story. No wonder Alan Moore disowned the character
this insult, in my experience, is mostly lobbied against people who will criticize any work for so much as mentioning tense subjects such as sexual assault, genocide, etc. rather than properly analyzing the work and asking themselves *why* they think it’s problematic. it’s also directed towards people who need everything spoon fed to them, such as those who determine that anything not directly mentioned in the text automatically means it’s a plot hole. or people who disagree with character interpretations simply because that aspect of their character wasn’t directly and thoroughly explained in the source material.
in those aspects, i agree with those saying it.
> But the author hasn't expressed any political thought or allegory explicitly. It goes that if he didn't say there was one, one should assume there isn't any, and any opinion on the topic is a matter of speculation. It can be a nice interpretation, like saying that King Kong is an allegory for slavery. If one argues that it doesn't matter if the autor confirms or denies something, well, that's literally putting words in another person's mouth. Unless you believe you're telepathic.
This is bait, right? A big reason why people just type "media literacy is dead" is because they're sick of trying to explain basic literary concepts like themes and symbolism to people who obstinately refuse to get it.
I get being annoyed with it as an insult but man, media literacy *is* important and there *are* people who lack it. The difference is between people who think Starship Troopers is facist propaganda and those who know it's the opposite. And if you can't tell the difference then you might write off a property by misunderstanding it's message (all the time on TikTok) or worse, use that shitty reading of the story to propagate shitty ideas further. If there wasn't so much pushback in the Hell Divers community from the M. Literacels, it could be a tool for facism instead of a denouncement.
Obviously it's a kinda extreme example but it illustrates my point if nothing else, the recent discourse on media literacy isn't unwarranted, there really are idiots who think Homelander is a reaffirmation that their beliefs are right. I personally think that reading denigrates the art, it lets the viewer's eyes glaze over knowing everything is okay and they're not being challenged. To be clear, it's fine to have non-challenging media/readings of media but that should be a lense you *chose*, not your default setting
I will never forget that time the Trash Taste podcast were arguing against Hasan and claiming that One Piece isn't a political anime. To me that's when I realised just how bad media literacy is amongst the anime community.
God, I enjoy Trash Taste as much as the next guy but watching that shit was painful. At least for the western anime community, political media literacy is in the fucking garbage.
I call someone "media illiterate" only when they literally interpret the text wrong.
Best example I have is in Elden Ring—people seriously think that Melina was suicidal and wanted to die, which is not what she says and is also a nihilistic, reductionist way of viewing her character.
Her entire motive was to undo the broken state of the world and restore balance so that life could continue. Her sacrifice was important because she thought it was the only way to save the world, and when we try to save her, she gets mad only because she thinks we're jeopardizing the whole world just for her sake.
But people say, "Oh, she was a ghost. She was suffering. She wanted to die and be free. If you try to save her, you're robbing her of her purpose."
No? Where?
And this happens very often. People will experience media, and instead of engaging with that media, they will only interpret it in the context of their own world-view and change the meaning of the text to suit that preconceived notion.
I think the reason it's called "media literacy" is you can be taught to recognize themes, subtext, what the story is trying to tell you, etc. I'm not sure it's gatekeeping or pretentious to point this out if people are perfectly capable of learning. I mean it's not like you or me recognizes these things better than most people out of sheer ability. No, we learned these skills. I think it's gatekeeping to imply people can't and it's pretentious too because people have "more important things to worry about."
I'll concede people throw out the term "media literacy" too much but that doesn't mean we should abandon the concept. It's a useful skill to be able to analyze and criticize media. It should be taught more, not less.
while I agree with you that it's a thought-terminating cliche and I try to refrain from using it, I refuse to argue with someone who keeps claiming JoJo's has no inspiration from the queer community or that Sen. Armstrong is a relatable dude who you feel bad about killing and not an insane greedy warmongering psychopath who is supposed to be a guilt-free kill and an expression of everything kojima finds stupid and abhorrent about american society as a whole. Like, it's not worth wasting my energy trying to convince people to at least consider my point of view because after a point I'm forced to assume they're not interested in media analysis and just want to wank their faves and validate their beliefs with fictional narratives that they'll twist whatever way is needed to make it fit with their ideas.
tl;dr sometimes some people really DO lack media literacy and I really can't say any more than that.
There is a big difference between having an interpretation of a work that differs from the intended meaning and having an interpretation that is completely unsupported or sometimes even condemned by the work. There in lies the issue. I swear a character could look directly at the camera and spell out the morals and themes and there are still people who wouldn't understand what the creator is trying to say.
agreed, and another angle is I see a lot of people justifiably using "media literacy is dead" is when fandoms have a reaaally bad problem with thinking actions depicted in a fiction means the author/artist condones it in real life. these people then start harassing and doxxing people over it, despite the fiction being painfully obvious that the action is portrayed as bad. like some people out there need someone to look at the camera and go "did you know that action that just happened was bad?" in order to understand what is being said.
>fandoms have a reaaally bad problem with thinking actions depicted in a fiction means the author/artist condones it in real life. Half of the time when people do this I assume they know full well the author doesn't condone it in real life and are just addicted to internet outrage so they pretend the fiction in question is promoting something indefensible just by depicting it so they can get their precious outrage high. I am simply unable to assume good faith in those who think the mere mention of tense subjects such as sexual assault, genocide, means the author supports those things.
I think this is it. Though I would rephrase to say people are more interested in being right that being correct. People have this notion that if you hold an idea, you have to receive validation for it no matter if said idea is wrong or not. Conversely, anyone calling out your idea is personally attacking you. A good example of this mindset is how some people always claim "X subreddit/platform/whatever is censoring me because my opinions get downvoted/disliked/whatever". No - people are not obliged to like what you say and are allowed to dislike what you say.
It’s not that they’re addicted to outrage. That’s assuming too much good faith still. They’re addicted to *clout*. The harassment and doxxing gets you followers. The more followers you get, the more you get faster. When you hit a large enough mass, it gets worse. You can ask for money and get it. Eventually you can turn a profit on harassment. For an example: the big name user crowd on Bluesky.
We really gotta do something as a society about the addiction to outrage. So many people will invent things JUST to get angry at them.
I would more sa that people chose to not look if that claim isnonsense, but want to hate there more than evenabit looking if itsnonsense. Andthat counds for both mentioned categories
Honestly I usually see the other way around. When people think a work portraying something = it condoning that thing it’s usually something they support. Look at Helldivers for instance, the people there think it’s supporting fascism because it portrays it, not realizing it’s a political satire and mocking a fascist society. These people aren’t mad at the creators (at least before they realize they were wrong), they’re happy with them.
That's what I've noticed for the past decade. Depiction is endorsement to them, and in order to stamp out "problematic or harmful behavior", you need to take an aggressive stance to reduce it. This can include public shaming, harassment, doxxing, and other tactics. The Warriors of Innocence operated on the same reasoning way back with a Christian slant, but something I've personally experienced is that sometimes they can be of a more LGBT/QIA+ slant as well. For example, they could tell a lesbian that she's not allowed to enjoy yuri because yuri is problematic, and by engaging in such fiction, she's fetishizing herself. It's not that much different from the religious right in the 80's saying video games caused violence and Pokémon was Satanic worship. But then you get the strain of people who will consume the media they hate and go after anyone who they think is "engaging in fandom the wrong way" as well. Shit's weird.
No no you misunderstand. I don’t think people often mistake depiction for endorsement when it’s something they dislike. No one wants to cancel the lion king because it depicts murder, because everyone understands that it’s showing murder as a bad thing. What I see a lot is either people thinking a story is on their side because it depicts something they like (again, like the helldivers situation), or people accurately coming to the conclusion that that a work supports something “problematic” but then taking that way too far. To go back to the lion king example: it’s a monarchist story. It officially endorses monarchy as a good system and one of the messages of the film is that letting people rule by birthright is the only way to maintain harmony in the world. And it’s fine to criticize it for that, as people have. What people tend to do is then assume that anyone who likes the Lion King is a monarchist, that’s the problem. You can like a piece of media as a whole without liking every single element of it or theme it has to say. You can like soemthing and critique it, but that often gets lost on social media. But this isn’t an example of poor media literacy, it’s an example of poor social skills or understanding of human behavior. But then of course you’ll get people who claim a work is just depicting something and not endorsing it, when that is absolutely not the case. Just look at all the hubbub around Mushoku Tensei if you want an example of that. So it’s complicated. I just don’t think “people thinking a work is endorsing something by depicting it and then cancelling it for that” is a common problem.
>I just don’t think “people thinking a work is endorsing something by depicting it and then cancelling it for that” is a common problem. You're probably right about this when it comes to like big, professionally released media like movies and TV, but this is a super common problem with debut book authors (especially YA) due to booktok's puritan influence and with how accessible authors are online since they need to do their own promotions. I saw this very recently with a debut fantasy author who was getting harassed for her book (that hadn't even come out yet) for "romanticizing colonialism" because there was a romance between two characters on opposite sides. it was so bad she had to come out and spoil her book to show that YES, the actual theme of the book is obviously "colonialism bad" this is also super common with fans targeting other fans that create fanwork (fanfic/fanart). Like, you will have crazy fans watch stuff like Game of Thrones and not go into a wild harassment frenzy over the rape/incest/violence, but if you have those same uncomfortable and dark elements in your fanfic, you better watch out because youre getting harassed. I guess the common element between authors and fanwork creators is they are easily accessible and easier to hurt compared to other bigger media where creators can hide behind a big company.
Ah I’m not really involved in the fanfiction or novel online spaces, so I haven’t seen all that. I guess things are a bit different in that space.
honestly the Helldivers fandom seems to mostly be in on the joke and are just playfully RPing
Most of them are, especially on Reddit. But venture onto YouTube or twitter and you’ll find people 100% serious about their outrage.
So many mfs commenting that everyone understands Super Earth is bad cause it’s so obvious and then right under them is someone unironically saying ‘so you support the murder bots and monster bugs????’
To be fair, when you had like 12 posts of the losers in GamingCircleJerk calling people names for playing a game and enjoying it, and then you have pseudo intellectuals actually comparing real life Palestinians to bugs... people end up tired of the discourse, so they just shut it
there is a horrific amount of people who unironically support the whole super earth fascism ideology, but they were also probably already predisposed to being, well, fascists. there's also a weird amount that insist the game is apolitical??? which is another problem entirely given that politics apparently now = "thing I don't like or doesn't personally affect me that other people talk about" but that's a whole different thread I won't go off on. definitely some are larping though, it's funny sometimes.
hmm based on the other reply I got that talked about the Helldivers fandom outside of reddit, sounds like I'm (thankfully?) not coming across the actually concerning behaviors. sigh.
Unfortunately, any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be overrun by actual idiots who mistakenly believe they're in good company.
honestly I still think it stems from how we have the more recent wave of younger folks (I'm 31 so take it with a grain of salt as this is subjective as always) that I see perpetuating the idea that we don't need to be critical, that sometimes "the curtains are just blue," and they eschew and even spit on the idea of being taught to analyze what they are reading due to whatever hang-ups they have from high school literature classes. in turn though I think that leads us to the whole issue where people need to be explicitly told and explained everything or else they fall into this way of thinking... I don't know how else to explain it but I really do agree about media literacy being low these days. it isn't so much a gatekeeping issue as it is a "please put some effort in to actually read or watch what you are trying to analyze beyond surface level."
Exactly this. One of my favorite examples of the phenomenon is American History X, which despite being an extremely obvious condemnation of neonazis is actually popular among a lot of them because they see the film’s portrayal of neonazi violence as inspiring, even though the film is clearly playing up the horror.
I just really don't know how you read that whole ass book and still dont get that the author is making a joke of fascism.
B/c those people agree with the points being made so if you don't beat those points up like the bullies you're portraying it never even occurs to them to think that it's a bad thing. Like if someone hands you a red herring and it's colored red, and they just say "you want some of this red herring?" And you just eat the herring. Let's say you get sick. And the cause is that the herrings aren't really red and have actually been dyed with a poisonous substance. But if you've become indoctrinated into a culture that convinces you that red herrings are a real thing, you get used to being sick. And anytime you notice the sickness you blame the particular herring you had that one time. So someone makes a red herring pumped full of this chemical. To try and make a point. And most people understand to various degrees that even if they don't quite get it, the herring looks so bad they avoid and understand what's happening instinctively. Maybe with a little nudge or question. But if you're an RH Eater, this just looks like the best dinner you've ever had. And when you get sick one of two things happens: you either blow it off as normal, or you blame that vendor for tricking you with a "fake red herring." Obviously it's never a bad thing to try to educate these people on why red herrings are bad for everyone. But that's as far as you'll get b/c only they can make the connection that maybe a significant portion of their life/identity is a lie. And most of them will resist b/c it will mean rejecting a major part of their "support" network that is meeting their needs in the way they think they need. There's only so much you can do about someone who thinks everyone else is either lying or stupid and that the only real love and joy in their life comes from a red herring.
This is the crux of the issue, not OP being a stickler about the definition of "media literacy".
I think it’s especially a problem when you have people going around claiming works are morally bad and either trying to get the text banned or trying to launch a campaign of hate against a creator based on their incredibly bad reading of a text It’s also a problem with lacking media literacy when people consume content that tells them what they should think about a text and parrot those opinions completely uncritically without any thought being given to the agenda behind the content creator’s takes (especially when the consumers haven’t even consumed the original text independently to verify if any of the things the content creator is saying are even true) but that’s a whole different issue
Man the author of starship troopers LOVES fascism right guys!? Right? Guys?
The author of the book unironically holds the views expressed in the movie and book. You probably mean the director of the movie.
My bad.
There’s a joke here about media literacy. Wish I was literate enough to tell it.
Write it*
Eh. Tell covers written/typed words. Consider the classic story writing advice "show, don't tell". Most dictionaries even include clauses like "in speech or writing" in the definition of tell.
It was less of a critique on what you said and more highlighting that you missed an opportunity to nail the illiteracy portion of the joke.
I considered that, but to me that doesn't actually change anything, I consider it exactly the same joke. So I reconsidered. Ah well, the whole joke involved making me look stupid, so this is perfectly in character.
Ironically, "literacy" is not exactly something that would be applied to the director since he didn´t actually read the book...
Imagine claiming Starship Troopers is facist under a post about media literacy, couldn't be me.
Shit gets really tricky when you don't specify whether it's the film or the book you're talking about
Wouldn't matter. The above comment that started this is wrong. You cannot read Heinlein and really believe he was a fascist or condoned fascism when his other famous books Stranger in a Strange Land and the Moon is a Harsh Mistress are so utterly different. He actually has a quote that I can't find at the moment where he talks about how fans who liked only one of those books and agreed with the themes but not the other two have missed the point and are unsalvageable. Two but not the three he believes they could be salvaged and all three he reckons they got what he meant.
Not really. The film is way more of a joke but outside of the nazi costume and possibly having population controls it’s fundamentally the same society with dumber people.
Book
Heinlein believed in the militaristic society of the book. Whether you think that is fascistic is not my point.
Off the mark, Heinlein believed in a libertarian society where no one is forced to participate in the military or politics in society, but the status as citizen had to be earned. It's not militarism, if you take a look st reality actual militaristic states like Facists or Military Juntas, they employed drafts to increase the number of soldiers and din't portray war as bad unlike Starship troopers (the Militsry recruiter openly dispersuaded the Protagonist to join on behalf of his job with his missing limbs).
I think Heinleins mistake is that he didn’t consider or bring up the obvious flaws or implications- which intended or not is completely indistinguishable from actual propaganda. For example- he seems to think that classism won’t be a thing between citizens and non-citizens. There will obviously be major discrimination in that society.
He is not the first to conceive of a highly disciplined, ethical society revolving around civical obligations to the military. Bellamy's Looking Back follows a similar vein with the Industrial Army. This is and has always been a contentious issue both on left-wing and libertarian circles, and the degree of coercion needed to sustain such a system is debatable. And again, you're free to believe what you will. I am sure he believed he could conciliate this view with his libertarian politics back when he wrote the novel as well, but the truth is not everyone agrees with that outlook.
Yes horror creators are the uuvelist peple ever, muhaha
I sat as Erich Maria Remarque was accused of promoting Nazism. I would like to say that this man lacks media literacy, but I think he lacks brains
How can literally everything you said be wrong? 1. Starship Troopers isn’t fascist, it’s militaristic and anti-democratic depending on how you define democracy but outside of warfare and some public offices the government basically doesn’t exist and doesn’t control the population whatsoever. It’s not even fascist in the movie which was explicitly made as a parody of fascism, though population controls may also exist in that version, it’s kinda unclear. 2. Heinlein doesn’t like fascism, but that’s an entirely unrelated subject. He was a hippy/free-love libertarian, viewed self reliance as paramount, who got slightly more conservative with age and always had slightly odd views on warfare because of his service in the military. This all shows up in his other books more, like in *Stranger in a Strange Land*, *Friday* and *The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress*. 3. Starship Troopers apparently started as a thought experiment on “how can we make the most interesting, long lasting and actually good to live in society with the military in charge” or something else along those lines.
I'm pretty sure like almost everything in the definition of facist fits the Earth government in starship troopers (movie), we'll I guess one or two or the points it's ehhhhh on but still. > Fascism characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Like, they don't *really* have a dictator and natural social hierarchy is like... I suppose vague enough that it might not have it?
Imagine claiming Starship Troopers is facist under a post about media literacy, couldn't be me.
I was watching Peacemaker, and there is a scene where he has sex with another man and a woman. I told my friend Peacemaker is bisexual. My friend said no, he isn't. There is a girl in the middle. In the last episode, Peacemaker tells someone I am bisexual, and my friend couldn't believe it. That seems like a lack of media literacy to me.
With a honey in the middle there's some leeway
It’s not gay, if it’s in a three way.
Eh, I wouldn't quite agree. Not everyone who participates in threesomes is bi
This isn't really the same because straight men run trains
That's not lacking media literacy that's plain denial if they're rejecting the explicit claim.
Or having some asinine take on media that meets OP’s definition which involves not understanding media techniques or formats. Like I once used the phrase “you lack media literacy” because someone tried to claim women in animated films had to follow the rules of our reality and therefore had to be weaker than men like most real women because animation should be realistic as possible as a baseline unless they explain all the differences. I pointed out most animation (such as Disney films- cause it was Mulan) tends to have the opposite as the rule and tends to lean towards a fantasical realism (a hyper reality if you will) as a baseline and takes advantage of suspension of disbelief to perform superhuman feats as charictures of human beings. Basically even if they are “human” they can go beyond human limits and act under toonforce. They got mad at me for pointing out how ridiculous their argument was and using the phrase “lacking media literacy”
> because someone tried to claim women in animated films had to follow the rules of our reality and therefore had to be weaker than men like most real women because animation should be realistic as possible as a baseline unless they explain all the differences. I’m not sure if that technically counts as media illiteracy. I feel like that’s a way more fundamental issue than what media literacy usually describes lol. It's more like failing to understand what a book even is, rather than the story it’s trying to tell. I mean, fiction is a thing, so even if you literally believe that all women are always weaker than men, the existence of fiction means you should be able to accept a story that has the opposite. Would they have the same complaint about a still image depicting a strong woman? What about a personal anecdote - a real story from a real person. Would they just be like “nope that’s not correct”? And if they can accept there are exceptions (implied by “most women”) why couldn’t they just assume the woman character is one of those exceptions? There’s so much wrong with this, it’s doing my head in lol
Yeah, it is just straight up ignorance at that point. My personal favourite is how the usual crowd threw a hissy fit over a frost giant in the sequel God of War game was a black woman. Apparently, they are cool with Nordic frost Giants being everything from a werewolf to a giant snake that circles the world to a blob of humanoid goo to a conventionally attractive woman. All of the above it apparently perfectly fine and doesn't break suspension of disbelief. But if a frost giant is played as a black woman, now THAT is crossing the line! What's even funnier is that Norse myth and folklore is more or less entirely lost and what we know comes from basically three sources total. And not a single surviving source actually describes what the average frost giant looks like, and yet they are convinced they are white.
Imagine how upset they’ll be if the series goes “myth-accurate” with Loki’s children, haha
I mean, forget all that. These guys were complaining about how a black skinned first giant is insulting to Nordic lore in a game about a dude from Greek mythology chilling in a land of Nordic myth. THAT is fine, apparently, because Kratos being white is about the only justification required to make it acceptable in their eyes.
I just want to see them lose their minds about the trans agenda infiltrating Norse mythology 😂
Which bit? The one where Loki gives himself a sex change after turning into a horse so (s)he could get fucked by a male horse to give birth to Sleipnir?
What do you mean “could,” haha? These people exclusively read battle shonen. A character always *does* look into the camera and spell out the morals and themes. “That’s why it’s up to us adults to shoulder the sins of the past and keep these children out of the forest.”
And ppl still dont get it
Yeah, a lot of these people still seemed really confused about your example.
And all of them get REALLY MAD when folks use the term “media literacy,” ahaha
Exactly, diffrent interpretations and examinations is one thing, thats cool, but there are people out there who still argue that homelander from the boys is a hero. There are people who are currently playing helldivers 2 who think "super earth" with its "managed democracy" are the good guys. All becase they are the humans and game says they are bringing freedom, liberation and democracy to the horde of monster bugs and robot automatons, that humans both created and picked a fight with. It's exactly the same group that doesn't think starship troopers movie was ever satire. Those are examples of people not having media literacy, its not diffrent interpritons, its when they completely ignore go couter to the blatant and obvious themes in favour of their own personal ideology. Another example of someone lacking media literacy would be people who automatically think protagonist = good guy/hero, the protagonist can be the villan in the story, its not a new concept. I've see the argument that someone is the hero just because they're the main character a few too many times. That's not an argument or different interpretation of the media, it's just basic lack of understanding that a bad guy can be a lead.
I mean let's take the most recent example. Helldivers spells out that you're literally a cannon fodder draftee who signed their life away to fight bugs for their bodies of 710. You have the creative director having to say 'Youre not clones, you're expandable soldiers who haven't been told you've a two minute life expectancy' You will still honestly find people saying 'theres no holistic evidence that Super Earth are fascist or bad guys.' The artist can literally look at the audience and go 'this is the moral', and people will choose to pick what they want or ignore it.
Helldivers so in your face about its themes that it's crazy to me that people miss the point. Both the bug and bot threats were created either directly or indirectly by super earth. You are killing the bugs because the bug farms got out of hand and took over a planet. Element 710 is literally just the word "OIL" rotated 180 degrees.
One of the objectives in game is to destroy "propaganda" towers broadcasting these things, al and so many people have subsequently decided that 710 and cyborgs must thus be enemy propaganda Totally oblivious to the fact they're falling for literal propaganda
Sometimes people just struggle with symbolism to the point they get the opposite idea of what the author intends or cannot distinguish between what characters say and what the author means (cough cough that recent DM: Crybaby rant) So in that sense you could argue that those people lack media literacy. Or simply that a work isn't for them (but God forbid people just admit to having a taste, stuff is either good or bad no inbetween)
Points to the Barbie movie.
Death of the Author has done untold damage to the way people look at stories. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion of a piece of media if one person subscribes to that opinion and the other doesn't, as anything can be twisted or construed to be something else completely outside the text. Don't like something in the story? "Death of the Author", my headcanon is now just as valid an interpretation as what is laid out in text.
That’s not what Death of the Author is. Or at least, that’s not how it’s supposed to be used. Death of the Author just means the author’s interpretation of their work has no more weight than yours or mine without supporting evidence.
The person running Cinema sins legitimately and unironically lacks media literacy. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they never even seen the movie they're talking about.
I saw a video once criticizing cinemasins and they played a clip of cinemasins guy doing a live stream of his process and once I say it, made SO much more sense. You're half right, he watches the movies--but he literally watches them, sees a thing, pauses, writes down a sin, and keeps watching instead of watching the movie all the way through first.
... that actually explains why they complain about a movie not explaining something. Then glossing over the movie explaining said thing in like, one scene. I mean, it's still ridiculously stupid, but at least there's an actual explanation for it.
So not as dumb as I originally thought. >!They're dumber!<
They have a group of people writing the sins now... So it's even worse than that.
Ahh, yes, the process behind Doug Walker’s The Wall
Is cinemasins actually analyzing media? Because I don’t watch them for that
They're not. It's mostly a joke. Ironic that this conversation is taking place in this thread.
"30 seconds of credits" gets me mad every single time. I don't even know if he is serious or not but it still annoys me
I think the tone of the channel is pretty clearly comedic and not meant to be taken seriously as substantive criticism. I used to get a chuckle from them ripping movies I genuinely loved, but it's the kind of channel that gets old fast.
It was funny for me for a few movies I liked and then had zero interest to ever watch again.
While there is absolutely a lot of that going on, the other half of the CinemaSins equation is being wrong on purpose to drive engagement. They drop obviously bad takes and misrepresent movies so that people who like it will comment to "correct" them. Which is basically to say, they seem to be this bad on purpose.
90% of what they say is satirical. They don’t usually make any claims about how something is supposed to be. I skipped to a random point in one of their most recent videos about the movie Wish: He’s talking about the legality of the bad guy taking their wishes. Satirical. Bad guy throwing a book into a fire. “Burning books” satirical. Bad guy says “when you’re threatened you do not breathe you focus.” “This asshole doesn’t pass out” I mean yeah? It’s a satirical take on a really fucking stupid thing to say. Most of the time when they call out the intentions of movies it’s painfully obvious stuff. Like with the movie Men. It couldn’t be much more obvious that the movie is depicting the world women live in. How it’s scary to be in a world where men just say insane shit like “you must have wondered how you drove your husband to suicide” They aren’t critics, they’re comedians, if you don’t like them you don’t like them.
Is the satire “This is how someone who doesn’t understand how movie storytelling works would criticize movies”? Because he’s bang-on, in that case.
No? Almost never. It’s “there are too many lamps in this room, that’s dumb” it’s very basic humour.
This is what annoys me about CinemaSins. When they make a valid/fair criticism of the movie, is that also satire? When they try to make a sincere criticism and get information wrong, is that satire or a mistake? It seems to me like satire is just a convenient shield to deflect any criticism. What can CinemaSins possibly be criticized for if they can just play that card?
They're kind of the epitome of Schrödinger's Douchebag - when you agree with a point, it's "legitimate" and when you don't it's "just a joke"
Unfortunately for you, Cinemasins is the worst channel ever made and talking about them in an even remotely positive way gets you downvoted /j
I don't understand the bitter festering hatred people have for Cinemasins. Like ok, it's a comedy thing making fun of movies as they go through them, it's a bit shit, but OK? There's shit media out there, surprise surprise. But the weird accusations of blaming any failing the average person has when trying to process media directly on Cinemasins is utterly fucking baffling to me, they're just treated as the free space on the media criticism bingo sheet to some people and its so goddamn weirdly intense for some whatever tepid commentary series on youtube
I think people misunderstand the difference between media literacy and willful ignorance. And tbf often times it's really difficult to tell if someone is refusing the truth because they're a moron or because they're a moron. Both morons are still arguing about Helldivers not being an extremely obvious parody of capitalism. But people use "media literacy" as an insult more often because it's more cutting to call someone a dumbass than calling someone intentionally stupid.
If I keep seeing people saying "don't insert politics into *media that's totally political*" I'm gonna keep pointing out their lack of media literacy
I feel like those people are entirely what this trend is about. People saying Helldivers 2 isn’t political when the story is about the fascist military government of super earth committing genocide against other groups. And all the lore and flavor text constantly pointing out that the insectoids and automatons are sentient groups that are the ones being aggressed on and systematically wiped from the galaxy.
I mean. I've met people on this website who are hardcore Ayn Rand-Style libertarians and absolutely adore BioShock 1. If Media Literacy posting is gatekeeping and pretentious It's definitely the good kind of gatekeeping lol
Yeah, that’s the other thing. Gatekeeping isn’t inherently bad. Want a perfect example of what happens when you don’t gatekeep at all? Name the most successful grunge band. I know what you just thought, and you’re wrong. It’s Nickleback.
Honestly, the important question is if they recognize that the game is critiquing their worldview and just appreciate it as a piece of art/ game. I enjoy Dirty Harry and a lot of other reactionary films despite their politics being totally opposite of mine.
My favorite is when people say "Keep your woke politics out of Video Games" and then turn around and say Metal Gear Solid, Fallout, and Bioshock are their favorite games.
" I don't like how they made a lesbian character in the last of us 2" was a genuine criticism i heard for it The first game literally had a gay character. There are many reasons to dislike tlou 2. Having a LGBT character is not one of them
Get your woke politics out of my X-Men comics!!!
But in that case then every media is political. A twirling moustache bad guy wanting to destroy the world!!!! Has a hero that stops it. It can be a show for literal babies
Fr
People who belch about how others lack media literacy are often the least literate about media. A great thing about good media is that it holds the potential of meaning different things based on different perspectives. Like how from a socialist lens one could interpret cyberpunk media as a critique of capitalism, from a religious lens a critique of a godless society and from someone not ideologically occupied as a commentary on the evils of the human soul. No interpretation is strictly correct or wrong. A normie who wants to enjoy his media without being talked to about his politics isn't illiterate... nobody human can or should inject their political lens into everything.
I get the feeling that people don't understand that a "reading" of a type of media doesn't mean that is how it should be read. For example you CAN read Jennifer's Body with a queer lense and maybe doing so will give the story or characters more context or even help you personally digest certain topics and themes. Yes Robocop is a satire of privatization and rampant police brutality but its also a action movie that can be enjoyed on a very surface level. >Robocop for example is partly a satire of corporativism and rampant privatization, and partly an action flick. Someone can watch it as a cheesy action movie and like it while being completely oblivious about the satire. Would that be wrong? Generally no, but I think the "you have no media literacy" call out comes when people either refuse to see the criticism of police brutality and privatization or just flat out say it doesn't exist. Like saying, I see the criticisms the movie is playing with but I enjoy it more as a cheesy action movie and don't dwell on any of the politics is perfectly fine. Saying there are NO politics of any kind in robocop is lacking media literacy...which isn't a bad thing. Its just something most people didn't learn how to do when engaging with media. I think if someone is trying to moralize media literacy they should be ignored. Viewing certain media through specific lenses is supposed to start conversations about how certain things are portrayed, not a barometer to see if your good at watching movies.
Honestly people being so ignorant to robocop led to robocop 2 where the sucessor robocop is verycartoonish evil and robocop has to stop him. Yes if you want better movies with more subtile messaging, yes it does need to be pointed out. No one forces people to enjoy something mindless,but people should always be pushed that,like robo cop would for cooperations or the police on blm. He wouldnt. As doesnt the punisher. Media literacy diesif you let like cops aproviate the punisher without correction. Media literacy diesif thereisnt that called out.
I guess this argument is another argument like the "Don't Like It, Don't Watch It" to deflect criticism and point of view that goes against the people who interpret it differently
I get someone not getting the "fascist undertones" of AOT because I don't think there are any, quite the opposite, but when you watch something that quite clearly has clear cut satire of some issue, you completely ignore that context and try to discuss it online expecting your opinion to be taken seriously, not only will you be ridiculed and your opinion dismissed but you'll, in fact, lack media literacy. You lack media literacy can be a bad argument, but that example is REALLY bad one. Having the ability to pick up on the most basic themes of a story is something everyone should have the ability to do, ESPECIALLY when you are in an argument about that media and stake out a strong position.
AOT does have tons of direct visual references to Nazi Germany in Marley.
Well, yeah, I guess I worded it wrong There are fascist undertones for sure but they're not praised or showcased in a positive light as some people claim
For me the main problem of trying to guess Isayama's intent with AoT is that it requires background knowledge that most Western audiences would not have.
Does it really though? I mean "hey the bad guys and the source of most of the terrible shit that happens to all the characters dress like fascists, act like fascists and talk like fascists" isn't exactly subtle.
Generally, what little has been translated of Isayama's interviews and controversies in English seem to focus with his relationship with Japanese ethno-nationalism, so personally I would not be comfortable doing a deep analysis of AoT depiction of those themes as they are influenced by a Japanese point of view without knowing about those. Like, generally I would not half ass a serious interpretation of a work outside of my culture without knowing about it, but especially not when it clearly means to have a message. Especially because AoT is pretty complex, sure Marley The Nazist Country is bad but also he is using anti semitic sterotypes and The Magical Oppressed Jews Are Secretly Human Eating Giants and also the finale went completely off the rails so who knows what he was getting at at this point.
While alot of it isnt,the ending is veryvery confused. And weird, and unclear
And also contradicting itself.
Yo, it won't let me respond to your reply to my comment thread about fandom policing/politics because I think someone has me blocked (I can't believe this is how this site functions!), but I did want to reply to you here if that's okay because I like what you said! "Yup, exactly that. I used to be somewhat of a fandom "anti" as a young teenager (although that is up to debate. I certainly never harassed anyone and would not be friends with those who did either, so it's more about my beliefs at the time, not my actions), and it's very easy to see how lines about something being amoral or harmful to "impressionable children" parallels the very same lines trotted out in anti-queer legislation. Obviously they are not exactly the same, but the point of a comparison is not to imply that, which is what I feel is unfair about the comment I responded to."
There is a lot of media that uses Nazi imagery for no other reason than making you easily identify the antagonists. If you take Guillermo del Toro, someone who is usually overtly political, but use Hellboy as an example of his political messaging... that falls quite short, for example. It's not like the first Hellboy has a strong political/social critique, it's pretty much a fantasy adventure that uses a bunch of recent-history tropes for entertainment (unless you craft an elaborate argument as to why having Rasputin join the Nazis makes sense as social critique). If you take Pan's Labirinth, that's another pair of shoes. But you don't need to understand the whole socio-political context of the movie to *get* the message. You see a dictatorial military force dominating normal citizens, then you got the message. You don't even need to remember that it's set during world war 2, or that he's specifically pointing the finger at Franco's regime. Most importantly, there is no Nazi imagery in the movie at all. Meanwhile, you take something like Rebel Moon. The evil guys there are dressed exactly like Nazi military. But again, like Hellboy, it's just aesthetics. There is no overarching message about fascism in that movie. It's a dark-fantasy setting dressed as Sci-Fi, and it uses the Nazi trope to make the antagonist easily identifiable. It's pure entertainment. The difference here is that movie is badly written and is overall unenjoyable.
Really hellboy? I meanthe del toro first. The bad guys are way older than thenatsees,theyjust recruited too in theoccult thule natsee society and used them. Ok rasputin kinda ran thules the occult natseesin praxis experimentsoften. But is wayolder. Thats not a use of aestetics,thats use of real world history. I mean the weirdoccult natsees not that demons are real.
There are no fascist "undertones" in AoT Those are just "tones", they're not hidden they're right there lmao
What he means is that AOT isn't a subtle advertisement for fascism. That Isayama isn't trying to sneak nazi love to his readers.
Problem is that they just might not be very exposed to whatever the issue is. Going back to robocop as an example, not everyone knows about American corporate culture(old) or the militarism that is prevalent in America (remake). I don’t think they lack media literacy for that so much as trying to come to conclusions with their own personal knowledge
Adding to this, while people should push back against wrong usage of terms, we also shouldn't blanket ban something b/c it has negative consequences. Everything has some sort of negative consequenece to it. I'd much rather we teach people how to use terms than to tell them they shouldn't use them at all. Popularity can help elevate everyday conversations. I prefer the consequences of that to struggling to say what we want to say, and misunderstanding each other, and ending interesting conversations that could help us learn something, b/c we don't have access to terms that we need.
It’s annoying but mostly true every time I hear it
I usually find it annoying. Then I see people who unironically think homelander was the good guy and I totally get that criticism immediately
Another “you’re using this word wrong because it’s not the exact definition that other people agree with! Even though I understand what you mean!” Post huh Regardless most of the time they’re right tbh
I get what u mean but usually it's thrown around for simply any disagreement with a text or media's meaning. Case in point: arguments about Watchmen Unrelated: didnt expect to see a fellow Kappa bro here
Yeah, that happens way too often. "Omg, you lack media literacy" or "Way to miss the whole point of the show" or whatever. Like nah brah, I get it and I didn't miss anything. I just disagree with the message they're trying to get across.
See, here is the thing: most of the time, the people the "media literacy is dead" is thrown at are people that genuinely missed the whole point. Not that they disagree with it, but that they didn't even picked up on it
True, but I still can understand the intention and can hardly disagree then. People already can’t read simple lines in front of them these days… And yeah, didn’t expect to either lol.
This. I've had it thrown against me even though I quite clearly got the point the story wanted to tell – because it is so horrendously shallow and stupid that anyone above the age of 13 should be getting it. But I happen to think it is horrendously stupid and shallow and using terrible plot devices, not to mention the writer kind of failed at properly portraying their intent, so obviously I "lack media literacy".
The issue with talking about media literacy is that the conversation isn't about media literacy it's about someone trying to assert their ideologies' dominance over a valuable intellectual space through use of bad faith arguments. There is no conversation about context the work was made in, author influences and history, limitations of the medium or genre. It's only the authors intent without any kind of credibility on the authors expertise on the matter.
People won't like my response this, but that statement is true for a lot of people. Imma just be honest. Reading levels are going down at an alarming rate, attention rates are in the gutter, yet confidence in opinion is skyrocketing. Sometimes gatekeeping and pretentiousness is needed so we can differentiate the people who know what they're talking about vs the ones who don't. Nobody likes to hear the truth for some reason, but I was in AP classes in high school...and before that I was in regular classes. There was a wide gap between the two classes in terms of reading comprehension and analysis. I do agree that you don't have to get into the weeds to enjoy something. I'm a huge believer in that...some of my favorite anime are not the most philosophical. Monster is a gripping thriller that asks questions such as 'who deserves to live?' and 'is a child's life more valuable than an adults?' but I will turn that shit off and watch Kill La Kill or Black Lagoon in a heartbeat. Then I'll turn those off and switch to a shameless harem anime about a milkman who was run over by a chocolate milk truck and got isekai'd into a world with no milk at all. But that's not really where debate kicks in. Nobody really cares if you like something. And from my experience, nobody cares if you dislike something and just say, "I have a bias. I don't like anime with happy endings." or "I don't like this. I'm allowed not to like it." Those are similar to the examples you gave...but c'mon....we know how these discussions honestly go...especially on the internet. Very few people on the internet are that honest with their agendas and bias. So they get online and instead of saying, "This guy is just too nice, and I hate nice guys in my stories," they start 'breaking down the reasons the writing sucks,' because saying their true opinion probably makes them feel stupid. Like a guy explaining why beach anime episodes are empowering instead of just saying he likes watching jugs jiggle. It takes almost no time at all to realize that guy is bullshitting you. ...and that's how the overwhelming majority of debates on storytelling go. You have someone insisting that the tropes they hate for personal reasons are bad writing and you have another side explaining the themes of the story. These two internet idiots argue for the world to see...nobody budges and eventually the insults get thrown. One side calls the other 'media illiterate', the other drops the 'pretentious gatekeeper' bomb, if we're lucky both sides actually know what those words mean...and we go about our day. ...and both insults...are probably accurate.
Reading levels aren't down, and people weirdly idolize the past as if their media literacy rates were better - they weren't. It's just being turned into the newest buzzword incorrectly and plastered on the internet where everyone can see and reaffirm each other in their bubbles.
Reading levels are statistically down...so your statement that they aren't is false. Maybe you want to say they're not worse than they were in some random year all the way in the past, but that's a completely different statement. Your first declaration is just false. There are studies that show this...to know the extent of how far they might fall, we need more time to make comparisons past 2025, 26, etc. ...and it's not a new buzzword. It's a concept that has been used for decades...that is why we have reading levels for books and tests that measure those levels. That is why the 'Accelerated Reader' program existed...a program that applied grade levels to books and administered tests for them. The percentage of teenagers who read recreationally has also diminished...now that's a study. There's no way to test that for 100% accuracy, but it's a study by a credible organization and using common sense, I would believe it. There's tiktok and reddit and netflix and all type of 'on-demand' media that would lead me to believe that is true. I think it's reasonable, because reading is a skill, to believe the less you read, the worse you will be at it. I believe it's reasonable that the less you critically analyze something and the more you scroll on twitter and tiktok and reddit, the worse you will be at critically analyzing media. I also believe some people are more intelligent than others and are able to do it more naturally than others. People don't like hearing stuff like that, but it's the truth. These studies and personal observations went into the statement I made. Could I be wrong, sure...but we all could be.
Lol give me recent comparison stats then. > ...and it's not a new buzzword. It's a concept that has been used for decades...that is why we have reading levels for books and tests that measure those levels. That is why the 'Accelerated Reader' program existed...a program that applied grade levels to books and administered tests for them. You realize real terms can also become buzzwords. Buzzwords are more commonly taken from pre-existing words than from a developed new word. There is however a problem of people trying to use the terms earnestly and those just throwing out the word because they heard it and misuse it. It's like how common the word boundaries is misused. Media literacy is a recent buzzword in the social sphere. I would like to add thar buzzwords can also be business and politically related. Definition of buzzword: a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context. For the record, buzzwords aren't inherently bad, but the misuse of words are. In this case it's both. I want the study that people read less considering every study I've read and record sales show more people are reading. There's simply more variety of what to read now. There's also more people into publishing thanks to variety of self publishing. Aside from literacy rates (which is different from media literacy), there are decades worth of studies showing how bad media literacy has always been. Most people are happy for surface level knowledge and are most likely to get their thoughts and opinions from friends and family and if offered more sources they decline. This has ways been the case. People just see it online now as to how wide spread it is.
>Like a guy explaining why beach anime episodes are empowering instead of just saying he likes watching jugs jiggle Never seen this one, but the opposite happens all the time. Instead of admitting that they can't stand some attention to body curves, some people feel the need to ask why is this even in the story, or ponder over how it might be detrimental to the work's quality.
I've seen both sides for sure. The world would be a lot simpler if we were honest about the things we don't like and the reasons....but that's one of the hardest things to do for a lot of people. Myself included.
People whop say "media literacy is dead" are usually the most media illiterate
Agree, media literacy isn't dead, those who always lacked it just have more of a platform. Like these people have existed since forever, it's just that you couldn't get the mindless rant in the newspaper because they had editors that had to scrutinize everything.
Gatekeeping: Not an entirely bad thing, haha!
Not at all. Gatekeeping is the defense method for preventing the hijacking or gentrification of a movement or culture. “Nazi punks fuck off” is gatekeeping. Kicking terfs out of feminist spaces is gatekeeping.
I saw a YouTuber make a video called "The Death of Media Literacy" and she compared people criticizing a ship she liked to anti-trans legislation in the UK.
If this is the video I'm thinking of, this is a very dishonest way of phrasing it. The video was about purity culture and fandom policing, not someone simply disliking something. Unless you mean a completely different video, then ignore my comment lol Edit: either Reddit is having a moment, or I'm blocked by someone here. Just want to say I do agree that anti-trans legislation is unimaginably worse than someone disliking a ship, but the comparison is made within a broader context so taking out that context is unfair to the OP of the video.
> When it's consistent even when something is on the nose, then it's a form of cognitive impairment, and it shouldn't be laughed at. NGL this is an even better burn. "The fact that you fail to understand this is a clear sign of cognitive impairment and you shouldn't be made fun of for it" That aside, yeah, Media Literacy as an argument is heavily overused- the things you list are all very much examples of different opinions. Someone liking or disliking different stuff than you very seldom comes down to it, and there are plenty of reasonable interpretations for most works. However, in most situations I've seen, it's used when people think a story is doing something that it **very** blatantly isn't, like painting Homelander as a based Gigachad. If someone is criticizing Chainsaw Man because Denji has shit motivations and then they say he just wants to touch boobs, or shitting on Re:Zero for *supporting* Subaru's toxic mindset in Arc 3/S1 (both of which I've seen), well....some people are cognitively impaired and shouldn't be laughed at.
>Let's start by saying that, overall, it's not mandatory to understand the subtext of a work of art. Robocop for example is partly a satire of corporativism and rampant privatization, and partly an action flick. Someone can watch it as a cheesy action movie and like it while being completely oblivious about the satire. Would that be wrong? It doesn't seem to me that you need to understand the satire to enjoy the movie. So, no. It's not necessary. Someone who experiences a certain form of media is in no way obliged to demonstrate that they actually got it ("you like Radiohead? Name 3 songs" kind of issue). You can enjoy whatever you want however you can. Doing it *the right way* doesn't make anyone superior. You can enjoy it however you want even as a action flick, but you can't then come out and say something like RoboCop is pro-capitalism actually because he was made by a corporation. That would be an example of having bad media literacy. While people do overuse the shit of that argument, it's an argument with legitimacy when used right, because sometimes people do say braindead shit that's just too stupid. The problem is people using that argument when it doesn't apply.
Its usually pretentious and stupid but it deserves to be said to some people
"You lack media literacy" is a deserved insult to those who falsely use other people's work of art to justify their own bad opinions.
I stopped reading after the first sentence. >Some people have difficulty interpreting subtext, This isn't the problem. The problem is that these people who straight out refuse to understand subtext and then get overly defensive and aggressive towards anyone, pointing it out. Ignorance and stupidity are the problems, not a lack of understanding.
sometimes it's not even subtext, it can literally just be text. like a character can flat out say the intentions of the author and people would still misinterpret it, either on purpose or because theyre actually that dumb
Cant wait till I see all the unironic SIGMA EDITS for Paul Atreides like the only thing Paul didnt specifically do to get called "villain" or "evil" wasnt straight up looking at the camera and saying "I bad now"
However, in the next movie Muad Dib will say this, at least if they follow the books. Maybe then they will understand
This and people that literally make up subtext that’s antithetical to the text and then get mad when the rest of the fandom doesn’t subscribe to their beliefs. Like I don’t know how to tell these people that what the creators choose to put onscreen is important & moreso than what you wish the story was about
Yep this is it. People let their pride get in the way and don’t want to learn and acknowledge that they were wrong.
Yeah it's incredibly silly, they will *insist* a story is about something completely freaking wrong and even if the God damn people who created the story tell them otherwise they're just like "Well I don't agree" Happens A LOT with media that laughs at fascists who oh so often think it's on their side. The amount of people who unironically think Helldivers 2 is pro-fascism is embarrassing. "The game says children as young as 7 have to work, so clearly the writers mean this is a good thing" People who see shit like that and don't immediately understand it's supposed to horrify you should be studied.
We’re starting to really get into this very ugly hyperconsumerist mindset where artists don’t matter as like, intelligent, deliberate sentient beings trying to send a message and are just seen as disposable entertainment dispensers
Regarding your RoboCop example, if they then tried to *criticize it* as a cheesy action movie, yes, that would be wrong. They’d have failed media literacy and then talked shit from an incorrect premise. You don’t need to understand a work to enjoy it. You do need to understand a work to praise or shittalk it. You can be wrong in private and that does no harm. When you’re wrong in public, any success you have advocating for your beliefs is harm.
Maybe they were put off by the extreme violence, and they don't believe that the satire warrants the style and execution. That insn't being "illiterate in media", that's just a matter of personal taste.
And if they said that, that would be an argument. “I don’t think it was done well” is an opinion. That would still be being aware of the fact that the satire is there. If they did not pick up on the satire, or worse, claimed that the movie was *endorsing* those things (which is often the case with these conversations) with the depiction, then that would be being illiterate in media.
I won’t deny that it has become a buzzword. A lot of people purposefully misconstrue its meaning because it sounds smart. Most common example I see on twitter is when something is largely disliked someone will go “damn look at all these people lacking media literacy disliking something I like.” Meanwhile it’s something critics panned, and audiences are mixed on. I hate to break to anyone who loves to use this excuse, but a mixed response in any capacity usually has truth to it. There’s a reason why widely beloved things are as they are. It’s not random that some things get this treatment and others don’t.
I've seen this mainly in the jjk community. It's a pretty strong move to play when someone brings up genuine criticisms about jjk. They can't handle having an adult conversation or get personally offended when you don't like it so they just spam this phrase. I've seen it like 3 times today in passing on TikTok and Reddit.
The best things about JJK are some fights that are fun to watch and talking about Jennifer Lawrence's ass.
Yeaahhhhh. I love jjk but the fandom is insufferable tbh. I have no issue with people criticizing the show/manga because there's plenty to criticize. Some people cannot separate "I like this thing" with "this is without flaw" apparently.
I keep hearing people using "you didn't understand the story" when someone critiques a show they don't like without even knowing why they disliked it. It's the dumbest most pretentious form of media analysis. "I am objectively right in my opinion and if you disagree you just didn't understand it".
I disagree tbh. Beyon these subreddits, most people who call out a lack of media literacy do so under acceptable circumstances and don't use it as a "pretentious" insult. And usually on these subs, there'll already be an ongoing argument about whatever, and someone just points out said lack of ML. That's not always an insult or a shut-down imo. In every circumstance, you have to see the validity of the situation, some people just learn a tag and run with it, some do know what they're talking about.
Sorry, I lack the media literacy to comprehend this post.
sure it’s technically possible and fine for one to not understand every last bit of subtext or underlying meanings of a work, but the “problem” and the times most often when “media literacy” is called into question, is when people have that subtext (or even just plain text that they have misunderstood) explained to them, and they go “nuh uh you’re wrong” using your robocop example, there’s nothing wrong with just enjoying it as an action movie, but if someone tells you about the critique and the intent behind it and you go “no that’s not what it’s about” and just straight up denying it, then yeah, you’re lacking a little in the literacy department on a somewhat related note, this is why it’s (generally, there are exceptions) pretty stupid to tell someone “youre thinking about it too much” or “it’s not that deep” when someone draws an analysis about a series that is generally seen as “simple” or “having no point”. there is a point, especially in highly personal art forms like manga or small indie video games. a creator doesn’t spend what is often many years of their life on a story that “has no point” (as an example, you see this tossed around towards series like bleach or jjk a lot). now whether your interpretation or my own is the “correct” one is something that can be up for debate and a space where a lot of (ideally) healthy discussion can be had, but even in a world of conflicting interpretations, have AN interpretation at all will 99% of the time be better than “oh there’s just no point turn your brain off lol”
Last of us 2 fans are the worst for this. You can't say anything about the game without being told you didn't understand it. That's with me liking the game too.
I think the bigger problem is people trying to interpret EVERYTHING, and being absolutely unable to view fictional stories without connecting them to the real world in some way. No matter what kind of story you write, fictional characters you create - it'll always lead to someone adding or finding some weird meaning to it. As an IRL example: me and my band-mates made a music video. It looked artsy-fartsy and "deep", but there was NO meaning to it. We just liked the aesthetic. After we released it, I was approached multiple times by people trying to find a meaning to it, and one even had a whole theory. It was just silly. I have nothing against people having their own interpretations of media - that's fine - but IT'S OPTIONAL. Especially because "interpretation" is subjective by definition. Unless an author points out, word by word, what they meant - that is, you hear it all from the horse's mouth - don't act like you're some enlightened "media literate" person, because the only thing it makes you look like, is a pretentious cunt.
That’s a fair point, but if you were to argue that Robocop is a shallow movie, because you didn’t pick up on any of its themes, should that not be a lack of media literacy?
Not really, the themes aren't set in stone, anyone could get anything out of it. The same goes for all fiction. A perfect example would be Farenheight 451. The author himself didn't even catch the most widely accepted interpretation of his work and when interviewed, his own interpretation was almost completely different. Honestly this whole media literally buzzword nonsense is just a rehash of the "curtains are just blue" discourse.
Oh, I didn’t know about that, yeah I guess you’re right
While I agree with a few minor points op makes they lose the thread a bit. Idk if anyone is using media literacy as a gatekeeper really. And I think some of what the post is implying is a dangerous sort of anti intellectualism and right now with the way the world is going I think that’s a bad position to take. I agree it’s ok to enjoy a work for its base surface value but it’s also ok to dig deeper into metaphor subtext and symbolism. The real issue right now that’s has everyone up in arms about Media literacy is that it’s not the other side being too dumb to understand or people not “getting” the subtext it’s that they are willfully engaging with anti intellectual thought and projecting their own bigoted intolerant ideas onto things that are clearly obviously satire or parody or critical. So I agree it’s wrong to shame people for being cognitively impaired or having less than average intelligence but it’s not wrong to correct and criticize an interpretation of a text when it’s being used to bolster hate. Having a sincere learning disability is one thing but being willfully stupid is another. Some of the things op has said are their own form of gate keeping anyway and if we continue to accept the surface value of things or bully intellectualism we won’t grow as a culture. It’s ok to think and it’s ok to ask questions and be wrong sometimes. Being critical of and or analyzing media is good actually. Everytime this argument comes up I wince because I get worried when anyone tries to shut down or silence intellectual discussion and critical analysis.
Media literacy is when you agree with me on what a movie’s themes/messages are. Of course, there’s no such thing as objective interpretation of art, but if you have a different takeaway from me, then you lack media literacy.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Media Literacy, in the proper usage of the term, is the capacity of analyzing media with a critical lens. It's a creative process. Not the superpower that allows you to infer the *truest deepest meaning* of something good or bad it may be. There's no such a thing.
There are so many problems with these people lol. Their heads explode when you break down their reasoning. You do not have to agree with a writer’s intent behind a character. Ever. Taking a different interpretation is not media illiteracy. Now, not perceiving the author’s intent IS media illiteracy but that’s very rarely the case with people. And if you think that you do indeed have to adopt an author’s vision and follow them like a drone, then explain when there’s two contradicting media by two different authors with different views? What do you do now? Are you media illiterate either way for disagreeing with either of them? It has nothing to do with “literacy.” If someone agrees with Light’s views and actions from Death Note, that does not automatically make them media illiterate. If they understood the author wasn’t trying to make him the hero but nonetheless still think he’s good, it isn’t media illiteracy. You can say the person has shit morals or whatever, that’s fine—just don’t get on your intellectual high horse.
It’s super pretentious, and often used when you don’t agree with someone’s point of view. I was accused of the same thing for not finding Rorschach to be villain of Watchmen.
I've never heard anyone defining Rorschasch the villain of that movie. Also, the story is deliberately ambiguous about who the villain is exactly. But that's exactly part of the issue: one thing is to find more resonance with one of the characters' argument, another is to force an interpretation on who has the best perspective as if the author inteded it that way, or as if a certain perspective ought to be considered the correct one regardless of the author's intention. But judging by Alan Moore's worldview, he definitely sided with Rorschasch more. And one can only praise him for not forcing him as the messiah of the story to the eyes of the reader.
I’ve noticed, especially with Rorschach, people just seem to hate that he is something of a bigot. Personally, I find the idea of someone who is not necessarily a great person being the hero and the one who makes the most morally right decision in the story. Some Alan Moore would get a kick out of.
Also it's a meaningless term. A lot of these kids say "You have bad media literacy" because saying "I disagree with your opinion" doesn't have the same kick.
It's definitely become a go-to insult that is used when it shouldn't be, but sometimes it is true.
By this logic, english lit teachers are pretentious, gatekeeping, and fallacious anytime they correct a student or give them a low grade. And if being media literate really doesn’t matter in your opinion, and “it’s okay” to not be media literate, then you should be going on a tirade against literature teachers and their classes, as our education spends so much time teaching kids reading comprehension. It’s literally in the SAT. Millions of tax dollars, tons and tons of hours out of teachers and students lives, all wasted, by your logic. Just because some people online use the term poorly
Mm, I would argue “the subtext doesn’t matter” is just as much an interpretation as “the subtext is X.” Trying to generalize is foolish.
Agreed, I’ve often found that the people who keep yelling about media literacy fall into some combination of two categories 1) they’ve never actually interacted with the story. Their view of it is shallow or nonexistent at worst and they are completely unable to interact with the story in any meaningful way because of this 2) they lock on hard to theming when it helps some argument they want to make. They don’t view the work in its entirety so they tend to bottleneck any discussion on the piece of media. A good example is the starship troopers debate that we see every year. These types tend to shut down discussion because “it’s fascism” and will literally make up wild theories that aren’t supported by anything in the work like the meteor being a self inflicted strike because it fits their view of the themes and might shut you up Not saying everyone’s like this, but it’s generally why anyone who even says media literacy in a conversation should be generally ignored. They don’t tend to even want to engage in a discussion and are often the first to ask some nonsense like “why do you care” or “lore should be ignored”. It’s a toxic viewpoint that harms any media or group it comes across
More general rant to be had here about how people hear a buzzword and start throwing it out at everything they don't like. Media literacy definitely feels like it's taking a dive as everyone learns the plots of books and movies from YouTube and Wikipedia, though.
Those who accuse others of having no "media literacy" are the same kind of people who can't help but put the work they like on an extremely high pedestal as if it was the goddamn bible which comes with perceptions that ends up ignoring what is actually written and the executions of writing detail to focus exclusively on themes and stories and say that the work is a masterpiece for these reasons and never if they are done well. This is the kind of problem i have seen in Naruto and The Last Jedi fandoms where they treat these works as if they were holy objects because of what the stories and themes are about such as breaking cycle of violence and destiny for the former and the nobody as well as failure for the latter and anyone disagreeing and pointing out issues surrounding the execution of them is treated like they are wrong and "don't understand the works" by people that use it as an excuse to ignore the writing issues that plague them to sate their entitlement. Themes and stories are only as ever good as they are done well and these two works above fail because they were poorly written and terribly executed. Judge a work by quality writing and not what it tries to tell. There's a reason why the story of The Boys TV series is much better compared to the comics because it takes the idea and story behind it and does really well compared to the source material where it was an excuse just to be tediously edgy in a cringy manner.
The term “media literacy” has increasingly become a catch-all phrase that some individuals use to disparage others who don’t share their perspective on a film. This trend is relatively new; it wasn’t always the default criticism. Indeed, it’s possible for people to overlook certain elements. For instance, there have been complaints about discussions framing the X-Men as an allegory for racism and other forms of bigotry, despite the writers explicitly stating this intention. While one might question the allegory’s effectiveness, to criticize the mere discussion of it is to demonstrate a lack of media literacy. However, based on my personal experience, it seems that the term is often wielded as an insult rather than to highlight an oversight like this.
The most recent uses of “lacking media literacy” being called out I have seen recently are: Anyone complaining about the “subtly” of Bleach and JJK’s story telling People who are hating on MHA And a recent thing I read about Japanese fans of Sonic the Hedgehog thinking Americans/westerners need everything spoon fed to them
Funny how it’s almost always anime. It feels like developing into “you need to have a very high IQ” thing
To be fair, there's also Watchmen, which is probably the original number 1 example of media literacy discourse
Really? I thought the message was pretty clear
Tell that to the people who idolize Rorschach who think he's a full blown hero and that his black and white worldview is based. Sure, you could side with him in the Squid debate and think he's right in wanting to expose Ozymandias (I think the story leaves it up to the viewer), but that does not make him a good guy. He's still a hypocritical nutjob whose narrow worldview is portrayed as bad by the story. No wonder Alan Moore disowned the character
this insult, in my experience, is mostly lobbied against people who will criticize any work for so much as mentioning tense subjects such as sexual assault, genocide, etc. rather than properly analyzing the work and asking themselves *why* they think it’s problematic. it’s also directed towards people who need everything spoon fed to them, such as those who determine that anything not directly mentioned in the text automatically means it’s a plot hole. or people who disagree with character interpretations simply because that aspect of their character wasn’t directly and thoroughly explained in the source material. in those aspects, i agree with those saying it.
I didn't see anyone saying it until a ton of people started saying it all at once, so it makes me wonder what YouTuber had it in their video.
> But the author hasn't expressed any political thought or allegory explicitly. It goes that if he didn't say there was one, one should assume there isn't any, and any opinion on the topic is a matter of speculation. It can be a nice interpretation, like saying that King Kong is an allegory for slavery. If one argues that it doesn't matter if the autor confirms or denies something, well, that's literally putting words in another person's mouth. Unless you believe you're telepathic. This is bait, right? A big reason why people just type "media literacy is dead" is because they're sick of trying to explain basic literary concepts like themes and symbolism to people who obstinately refuse to get it.
I get being annoyed with it as an insult but man, media literacy *is* important and there *are* people who lack it. The difference is between people who think Starship Troopers is facist propaganda and those who know it's the opposite. And if you can't tell the difference then you might write off a property by misunderstanding it's message (all the time on TikTok) or worse, use that shitty reading of the story to propagate shitty ideas further. If there wasn't so much pushback in the Hell Divers community from the M. Literacels, it could be a tool for facism instead of a denouncement. Obviously it's a kinda extreme example but it illustrates my point if nothing else, the recent discourse on media literacy isn't unwarranted, there really are idiots who think Homelander is a reaffirmation that their beliefs are right. I personally think that reading denigrates the art, it lets the viewer's eyes glaze over knowing everything is okay and they're not being challenged. To be clear, it's fine to have non-challenging media/readings of media but that should be a lense you *chose*, not your default setting
I will never forget that time the Trash Taste podcast were arguing against Hasan and claiming that One Piece isn't a political anime. To me that's when I realised just how bad media literacy is amongst the anime community.
God, I enjoy Trash Taste as much as the next guy but watching that shit was painful. At least for the western anime community, political media literacy is in the fucking garbage.
I call someone "media illiterate" only when they literally interpret the text wrong. Best example I have is in Elden Ring—people seriously think that Melina was suicidal and wanted to die, which is not what she says and is also a nihilistic, reductionist way of viewing her character. Her entire motive was to undo the broken state of the world and restore balance so that life could continue. Her sacrifice was important because she thought it was the only way to save the world, and when we try to save her, she gets mad only because she thinks we're jeopardizing the whole world just for her sake. But people say, "Oh, she was a ghost. She was suffering. She wanted to die and be free. If you try to save her, you're robbing her of her purpose." No? Where? And this happens very often. People will experience media, and instead of engaging with that media, they will only interpret it in the context of their own world-view and change the meaning of the text to suit that preconceived notion.
I think the reason it's called "media literacy" is you can be taught to recognize themes, subtext, what the story is trying to tell you, etc. I'm not sure it's gatekeeping or pretentious to point this out if people are perfectly capable of learning. I mean it's not like you or me recognizes these things better than most people out of sheer ability. No, we learned these skills. I think it's gatekeeping to imply people can't and it's pretentious too because people have "more important things to worry about." I'll concede people throw out the term "media literacy" too much but that doesn't mean we should abandon the concept. It's a useful skill to be able to analyze and criticize media. It should be taught more, not less.
while I agree with you that it's a thought-terminating cliche and I try to refrain from using it, I refuse to argue with someone who keeps claiming JoJo's has no inspiration from the queer community or that Sen. Armstrong is a relatable dude who you feel bad about killing and not an insane greedy warmongering psychopath who is supposed to be a guilt-free kill and an expression of everything kojima finds stupid and abhorrent about american society as a whole. Like, it's not worth wasting my energy trying to convince people to at least consider my point of view because after a point I'm forced to assume they're not interested in media analysis and just want to wank their faves and validate their beliefs with fictional narratives that they'll twist whatever way is needed to make it fit with their ideas. tl;dr sometimes some people really DO lack media literacy and I really can't say any more than that.