Government and media-- what's the right role?

Recently, Ofcom, the communications regulator for the UK, released a detailed report on UK media use. (Ofcom is short for Office of Communications) Highlights of the report are shared below. But first, I want to draw attention to the fact that the UK even DOES reports like this. The USA has its own communications regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but the FCC does not provide any analysis of media use in the USA; not annually, quarterly, or in any other time frame. Occasionally the FCC may release a report regarding a specific issue, most likely something affecting the media business or with a technical focus, such as broadband adoption. In fact, in a review today of the FCC website and a search through a list of their available reports, working papers, and guides, I find no sources exploring media literacy issues or children’s media use, only the occasional scripted remark from an FCC Commissioner during a speaking engagement.

The last document providing anything that could be interpreted as a media literacy focus or children’s media focus was the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) from 2009 titled “Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape”. Yes, 2009, over six years ago! Sections of this NOI discuss media literacy and children’s media use, but the role of an NOI is primarily to raise issues and ask for comment, not provide analysis per se. Between late 2009 and early 2010 a handful of media literacy educators submitted an official response to this NOI. I co-authored a response as well with Renee Hobbs and Kelly Mendoza. Subsequent action from the FCC? Nil.

Contrast this with Ofcom’s quarterly media literacy reports on media use providing data on such topics as media ownership, parent’s attitudes towards media, children’s media device use, media influence on children, and numerous other focuses. The report comes from a dedicated Media Literacy Team at Ofcom and the data is used by educators, scholars, students, media companies, think tanks, and advocacy groups. Further, the data is used worldwide, by similar stakeholder groups globally. In other words, people like myself who are interested and concerned about these topics also use these reports, even though the data is UK-centric. The reports position the UK as a global leader in media analysis, media effects, and children’s media. Certainly, there is important research being conducted by non-governmental agencies in the UK and in other countries globally, but it’s worth considering the value of government leadership on this topic, especially because of media literacy’s close connection to education policies.

Why doesn’t the FCC support similar research initiatives on media literacy topics in the US? One can only guess-- and I do this in the next paragraph. But by not taking on a role, the FCC is sending a message to media companies that they need not be concerned with the issue and a message to all the other stakeholder groups that government has no place in this discussion. To be clear, this is not a point about government policies or regulations; this is a point about the need for research and analysis.

Some of this need for report and analysis has been picked up by private foundations, such as the MacArthur Foundation and the Knight Foundation. But foundations change their philanthropic focus. Support for research on media use may be pushed aside, as happened when the Kaiser Family Foundation eliminated its children’s media support several years ago.

I’m not suggesting that government should be the sole financial supporter for media use research, but federal support plays a vital role in encouraging other funders to step up. This can be seen in the funding model of public broadcasting. The government doesn’t FUND public broadcasting; it provides some funding. That funding helps support the mission and encourages other funders to recognize its importance and get involved. Support from a federal agency also helps to encourage state support and local township support. It provides a strong ripple effect.

Perhaps the lack of FCC support for this issue reflects its misunderstanding of media literacy overall. Too often media literacy has been positioned as anti-media. Media literacy becomes synonymous with watching less, downloading less, screening less. But media literacy is about critical thinking, not about a specific position on what makes “good” or “bad” media engagement. This confusion about what it means to be media literate can be seen in the annual event called Screen Free Week (formerly Turn Off TV Week). This event is not an example of media literacy. It may be a worthy exercise and certainly opens up opportunities for other activities, but in itself, it is not an example of media literacy. The focus of the event is on less media use, not critical or purposeful media use. The goal of media literacy is critical thinking. Media literacy is 21st century literacy, an expansion of the traditional literacies of reading and writing.

Perhaps the FCC sees media literacy as anti-media, and if so, one need not wonder why they wouldn’t want to embrace the need for media literacy education or fund research about media use and impact. Lobbyists representing the media business are extremely powerful. Those lobbyists would likely be quite vocal if they perceived support for media literacy as going against their core business interests. But those actions would be emblematic of this misunderstanding. Again, I point to the UK. Years of reports about media use and analysis have not destroyed nor hindered the UK media industry.

So, those of us passionate about media literacy and children’s media need to clarify the real role of media literacy and media literacy education to high level elected officials and to the FCC Commissioners.

Now on to the actual UK report.

Ofcom’s Adults’ Media Lives study was started in 2005 and each year interviews a small group of individuals about their media habits and attitudes. This latest report was published in February 2016. Shortly before that, in late 2015, the latest report from Ofcom’s Children’s Media Lives study was released. This report provides insights on the media use habits of children 8-15 through an annual on-camera interview. Children are asked about their motivations for media use, the context of their use and how media is integrated into their daily life.

A few highlights from the report:

-While technology and media play a significant role in children’s completion of their homework, there is little-to-no integration of media into classroom learning or activities. In fact, in schools, “media” as a concept is most often a conversation about technology use and access, and not a conversation about media habits or critical analysis of media. Almost every child in the sample spoke about mobile phones, smartphones and tablets not being allowed in their classes. (41)

-When online, children’s preferred search methods were influenced by the type of content they wanted to find. i.e. Children seeking detailed instructions did most of their searching on YouTube, whereas children with a preference for visual information relied on Google Image search. They were adapting their search methods to their preferred content, and not necessarily to the area with the most comprehensive information. (27) Further, analyzing search results was not a common action; most children assumed that the top listing was the “best” and most reliable. (28)

-When asked about the trustworthiness of a website, children expressed less trust for websites that could be edited by “anyone” or with user-generated-content, such as Wikipedia or YouTube. However, other than those two sites, children often had difficulty assessing whether a website could or could not be easily edited or contained user-generated-content. This clearly reflects a conflict between behavior and analysis. (28)

-For children, choices about watching TV are driven by access and size of screen. When given a choice, children prefer a larger screen. Due to their schedules, video-on-demand and “catch up” dominate their TV use. Live TV is more frequently used by younger children. (6)

This is a deep report, with detailed data on a wide variety of questions and categories. Still, I understand it is the rare person who will read the full report, let alone use the data to shift actions or revise approaches. But such data is worth even a brief review. The executive summary is a good place to start as it provides a strong overview of the key takeaways.

Having spent much of my professional media career in public broadcasting, I fully understand both the joys and the challenges of government funding and support. I am not naïve about this. However, the total lack of deep research on media use in the US, especially children’s media use, is a serious deficit. We cannot rely on occasional research conducted only when a private funder gets involved. This is vital information for all stakeholders, including parents, children, media companies, and content creators. Formal and ongoing funding for research is needed now.