An excellent editorial by Peter. You won’t get much of an argument from me on your position here.

That said, I like the Story of Stuff as a piece of media. A couple of years ago, I did use it with some older students in a media literacy context. We asked questions about the techniques that Annie uses to make her points, how effective they were, and why they were compelling. Then, each group of students chose one claim from the film and worked on finding opposing perspectives. At no time was the film presented as fact or anything but one perspective on things.

Admittedly, it takes a lot of effort to do this type of work, and it required a great deal of work on my part ahead of time to frame the activity. And there are things that I would do differently next time…

I feel very uncomfortable just using material like this as scientific fact. But the issues that it raises from an economic point of view are worth discussing.

Thanks for this piece.

Further to my comment above, I happen to agree that, as consumers, many people don’t think enough about how choices affect the planet and the people in it.

I think that we are coming to a critical point in the life of our planet, a point where current levels of consumption are threatening the personal, social and economic well-being of many.

I’m not intending that this comment be anything but a statement that this is an opinion that I’ve come to after a great deal of research and reflection.

I think that teaching young people how to look critically at all points of view, apply the rules of good evidence, and make judgements accordingly is an important part of literacy. There is a stage of development at which this becomes more “do-able”. We have to be careful not to present our own critical analyses as indisputable “fact”, no matter what the perspective.

stephen

The story of stuff site, is all about social engineering. What was not stated, but obvious is getting regular everyday people to accept the responsibility of cleaning up the environment, and advocacy to get big business and government to do more. It gives big government and corporations off the hook, much like the growth industry in food banks. It conditions children that as adults to accept responsibility into accepting that they must also bare the weight and burden of cleaning up the environment, even though it was not their making. Than laws can be enacted, such as the one in my province of where the homeowner is responsible for clean-up of their property, even though the toxins was buried 50 or 100 years ago, by others, including the government. Meanwhile, it takes years for any government at any level, to be responsible enough to clean up federal, provincial, or municipal property. What is not mentioned at all, is the government’s duties and responsibilities in paying their fair share, or doing their part to ensure that big business is not polluting the environment.

Stephen that’s an excellent lesson!  I have no problem with certain things being shown if the kids are encouraged to think about it objectively.  In fact, if An Inconvenient Truth was shown in the classroom and then dissected and picked apart and the kids had to research facts I’d be all for it.

I don’t always agree with you but I have to say i’m impressed with that.

I watched the bottled water, the cosmetics and the story of stuff videos and ended up with very mixed feelings.

* Do I think it’s appropriate classroom material?
Not for under 12 or 14 in any circumstance. They have absolutely no criteria to judge it and it would scare the hell out of them.
For older students, yes as a basis for discussion.

* Do I think she got all her facts right? No.

* Does the material use emotion-inducing advertising techniques? Yes.

* Is the material raising important issues? Yes, a resounding yes. It is meant to cause reaction and it achieves that and truly - in today’s crazy busy world where news are presented this way every day unfortunately it may be the only way to get heard.

These are today’s world dilemmas and I think a lot of us adults are conflicted.
I think she’s right on with the bottled water one, the fire-retardant one and I think that while she did not necessarily proved that cosmetics are dangerous the cosmetic industry hasn’t proven that they aren’t either.
We simply don’t know the long term consequences of the food that we are regularly eating, of the new substances we have manufactured most of what surrounds us and what we use every day.
There have been massive blunders in the past with things that were considered not just safe but good for you: HRT, thalidomide, certain drugs, certain food additives.
So yes, I agree with the basic message: we should err on the side of caution if we can afford it.
Whether people think we can afford it or not or which options are better - such as for example: take the risk and have cheap food or not take the risk and have more expensive food and therefore more people living in poverty - these are cultural judgements.

A lot of what she is saying can be viewed differently based on cultural values ...
Yes, a woman may earn more working in an electronics factory, could buy more food, dress better, have a bit nicer place to live.
However she is indeed more likely to have chronic conditions later in life due to exposure to chemicals then if she stayed in the country side.
Who knows? Who can judge?

For better or for worse our kids and grandkids will inherit these dilemmas.

Good points here. I particularly like the fact that fromEurope pointed out that students under 12 or 14 don’t have the criteria to judge this type of thing.

I think that, once we teach children to read and write effectively, the next best things that our schools can do is help them think critically. While I think that moral development makes a substantial leap between ages 12-14, it is not necessarily guaranteed that children will be able to make judgements based on a set of standards, or criteria.

This is so important in a world where much of the text that our children consume is far from simple, highly constructed, and dripping with…well…meaning and values.

That’s why I think that media literacy is an important part of student development. It’s not always given the attention that it needs and deserves, partly because we, as teachers (as adults!), have never been taught to think critically.

I remember addressing this with parents a couple of years ago at a meeting for a new program I was designing. I wanted to make the point that even Disney, seemingly benign, could be used as a critical thinking tool.

The Little Mermaid. Nice little Friday family film. On one level it is. But it is a text that has some interesting messages. What does Ariel have to give up in order to get the man?

Interesting!

This does look proimsnig. I’ll keep coming back for more.