Unmentioned in this article is the intent of journalism. While Wikipedia may do a good job of describing what journalism is, and at least the ideal of what it is, journalism seldom lives up to this ideal.
A goal of any media is for it to be viewed. While most networks do a good job of informing, it is selective and many times trivial compared to more important, but less easily televised issues as President Obama complained today in a press release.
The point is that there are two components to journalism: the ideals and dictionary definitions, and the actual "business" of journalism. What makes an informed citizen is someone who understand media agenda and bias, and is willing to investigate issues on their own. This is what media literacy is about.
Is anything just anything? It is human nature to analyze things but there isn't always meaning there. A great example is the show Lost, which often uses plot devices episodes back to lead on the the next arc, and at the same time will throw in red hearings and seemingly significant details for nothing.
The difference is that movies are only on average two hours long. Each detail is combed over for effect. I recently watched the film Source Code.
Without giving away too much of the plot there are several details that are specifically put in place to help tell the story. There is a capsule, which malfunctions and helps show the frame of mind of the main character. As a movie that goes back to the same point in time, every detail and event is repeated dozens of times in several takes. It is amazing when you think about it how how the continuity is kept in tact while still progressing the story. Small details are later investigated, leading to the crux of the plot.
One thing that being "just a movie" is about are moral implications. Many an action hero has gone on essentially murderous rampages yet because this person is a "hero" it's somehow OK. There is one controversial decision made in Source Code that has received media attention fairly recently. A character is found in a vegetative state, and a decision is made whether to pull the life support. This is a case where a moral argument, where some thing is a little more than a movie is present.
There is no such thing as an uncontroversial thing. Every decision, every action is a choice, and for each there is a moral statement made. Movies portray characters making choices, and often there is a reason for it all, there is almost always a point, some obvious, some buried. From the stories of the bible to Aesop's fables storytelling has always had a moral component. Morals commentary and connotations are simply the nature of the beast in movies, or anything else.
Go read a book. No really, read a book. Try some Tolkien or "Treasure Island" for a change. Dr. Sues doesn't count. I'll be here when you get back.
Okay back? Yeah I knew you weren't the type to listen to what people say anyways. Moving on, Internet Literacy is a different animal than English literacy. The internet was created for the very purpose of rapidly relaying information from one user to another. This has permeated its design and function in every aspect. By contrast a novel is to be digested.
A short story, a poem, a book, or other piece of literature does not intend to convey information easily. There are forms to be observed; rhyming, alliteration, dissonance, consonance, meter, etc. There is a plot to be dissected, characters to analyze, hidden meanings to interpret, and allusions to find. By all means, a book or a poem is not an easy thing.
In one these "book smarts" refer to a type of art: it is poignant, it is meaningful, it is controversial, and it is not easily understood by all, nor do they interpret it the same way. It seems disingenuous at first to make this comparison, because at a certain level English skills (reading comprehension, grammar, syntax, writing, etc.) are truly essential for people to interact in our society. But there is such a "higher English" that i am referring to: there is an art. This perhaps is a small part of the controversy and may help many understand those people who simply "don't get" English and do not appreciate it. It almost seems trite to say, "Art is never appreciated."
Thus in this context we understand the New York Times Article by Motoko Rich. There exists a sort of "literate elite" that abhors the thought of the garbage of internet speak and unorganized and the sporadic thought process of browsing. They think that this new form of literacy won't help anyone understand Hemingway or Chaucer. The truth is: they're right.
Any form of written or symbolic communication is literacy. Yet as communication serves different functions, so does literacies. An internet forum will not help an individual develop a comprehension of "Treasure Island" (unless of course it's a forum on comprehending "Treasure Island"). What the person is more likely to develop is rhetorical and interpersonal skills; he/she will learn how to reason, debate, and collaborate better with others in writing. Something that has all but disappeared since the advent of television has begun to return, the written debate (I of course do not pretend that a majority of these "debaters" are rhetorical geniuses, rather the opposite in fact). The internet serves a variety of functions that books cannot do to the very nature that the internet is more than just mere text, it is links, audio, pictures, text, and video. Thus people have creatively utilized these capabilities to communicate with each other.
In conclusion, Internet Literacy is a new form, independent of the old form of written literacy. Both are important, each uniquely in its own sphere. Proper English skills are still very much valid in for an idividual to communicate and interact in a professional environment. On the flip side, much of Internet literacy is an informal, or common, form of communication. Increased internet usage does not cause a decrease in literacy as may be implied. A better culprit would be our educational system, parents, and cultural standards (correlation does not imply causation). No form of literacy shall disappear in the short, or even long term. What we will see is a greater emphasis on Internet literacy and its function as communication, with acknowledgment of how it evolved from the old standards of written communication.
