Boyd’s chapter “Why Youth Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life" in Youth, Identity, and Digital Media (2008) was an enlightening read into the effects of digital literacy on – primarily – the Millennial generation. The author states that the motivation behind her study is “simply to unveil some of the common ways in which teenagers now experience social life online” (p. 121). The study provides a powerful look at the formidable effects a social network site such as MySpace has on the personal lives of our youth. Trilling and Fadel’s (2009) ideas advocate digital literacy as a critical skill school systems ought to develop as part of a 21st century education sure to secure global competiveness and economic prosperity in the nation. Boyd’s chapter provides insight, a troublesome one at that, not into the economic contributions of digital literacy – but the social impact of technology on the social interactions, identity “construction,” of our children. Who precisely has forged this path? Who has so widely opened this media channel for thirteen to eighteen year olds to navigate through? In a capitalist society, perhaps I ought to ask: Whose market research has profited from this “service”?
I did some digging and came upon an interview on a Canadian program (the Canadian Broadcasting Channel’s “The Hour”) with the founder of MySpace, Tom Anderson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yWpnto-hqQ&feature=fvw . It is a fascinating watch, sure to provide a back stage look at the site Boyd based her research on.
When asked why he created the social networking site, Anderson stated ‘to compete with a pre-existing site.’ Asked if his development team foresaw interests in their venture by media corporations, he answered: “Yeah, we thought that a media company would come and buy it someday. And we wanted the big money injection to help grow it, make it international, and to pay for all the equipment in the beginning. That was sort of the plan.” News Corp, both the study and the video indicate, bought the site, and so capitalized on the riches 175 million users would surely bring. This, apparently, is not unusual. Boyd states, “Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL, and Wal-Mart have all created social network sites, but these have not been particularly successful. In 2005, Fox Interactive Media (a division of Murdoch’s News Corporation) purchased MySpace for US $580 million” (p. 121).
Put together with Trilling and Fadel’s contentions, Boyd’s study says a sad lot about the corporate influence on the means of our educational system, and the intended goals of education itself.
We will surely see research into the disastrous impact of such control grow.
Samah
You helped me see this article from a different perspective and brought me back to some of our discussions about curriculum this summer. Who influences education? What is the agenda behind the curriculum and teaching tools we implement in our classrooms? Who manipulates what children learn and how is being done?
ReplyDeleteI still do not know how much potential social networks will have as teaching tools in our classrooms and their effect in education.
Samah,
ReplyDeleteYou always bring great perspective you can see the influence of critial pedagogy within your writing. I agree with the question that the path has been opened but who is helping teens to navigate it.
Where is Rupert Murdoch going by purchasing MySpace? Perhaps it is to tap into the wants and needs of consumers.
ReplyDelete“Already we provide news to our readers through websites, email alerts, blogs, twitter, and podcasts. Now we are looking at e-readers. We have no intention of getting into the hardware business. But we have every intention of promoting more choice for our consumers and more competition among distributors by pursuing ways to help us deliver news and information as cheaply as possible and over as many platforms as we can.”
This is a quote from the speech Rupert Murdoch delivered to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in Dec. of 2009 where he talked about the direction of journalism in the age of technology. His speech, titled “The Basic Truth Remains” described his 3-pronged approach for moving forward. Murdoch’s strategy appears to be simply a business survival tactic: reach as many consumers as possible on as many vehicles as possible without government intervention.
This is not any different than what many other corporations want - increased market share. GM wants to sell more cars; Nike wants to sell more shoes; Apple wants to sell more computers, and so on. The difference between these companies and Murdoch’s media empire is that shoes do not influence the thoughts and actions of society. When multiple media streams are controlled by conglomerates, there is the chance for truth to be manipulated overtly by commission or subvertly through omission. This is new water we’re treading into.
Murdoch states that his competition is not other TV stations in the same city but a website on the other side of the world. The internet does offer news content by anyone anytime anywhere. What differentiates Murdoch’s News Corporation from the average internet blogger is his massive ability to use (is this the right word?) expert journalistic sources for superior content and harness new technologies which provide avenues for access to said content.
One aspect which I agree with Murdoch on is his stand on providing a reasonable price for quality. Murdoch firmly draws a line in the sand by stating quality journalism content costs money. This is a shift in internet practice and establishes a new standard - a corporate driven standard, designed to compete with the old popular standard provided by a fickle internet community. My hope is that the new standard is guided by ethical considerations for what is beneficial to society and not the self interests of the United States, News Corporation, or Rupert Murdoch himself.
Murdoch, R. (2010). From town crier to bloggers: How will journalism survive the internet age? Vital Speeches of the Day, 76(2), 61-64.