Digital Media Literacy and... Bath Salts?!

When I set out on this new media and literacies adventure, I have to admit that I had some misconceptions about exactly what it would mean. Like many teachers, I thought that using new media would mean simply incorporating technology into my classroom. How wrong I was!

I came to learn that new media and literacy was about finding authentic purposes for technology use in the classroom (which I've explored in my first posts), but more importantly, about teaching students the critical literacy skills they need to survive in a digital age. According to the NAMLE Core Principles of Media Literacy Education:

"Media Literacy Education requires active inquiry and critical thinking about the messages we receive and create... All media and message contain embedded values and points of view" and, if we are not careful, "media messages can influence beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors, and the democratic process." 

Media literacy is clearly about more than simply switching out the chalk board for the Smart Board. In fact, we can teach students to critically read new media without ever touching a computer!

Bath Salts!

So, why bath salts, you ask? Well, I was polling a few students last week as they worked on a group project, asking them what news stories they were interested in reading in conjunction with our horror unit. A student reminded me about the incident in Miami last year when a man allegedly took bath salts and ate another man's face. I found this article from NPR and thought it would be an excellent one to use to examine the diction (word choice), details used, and the author's tone.

The author's word choices, such as that the victim was "homeless" and is "fighting for his life," paint a picture of a heartless attacker that are clearly heavily opinionated. Through his choice of what details to include (and leave out), the author attempts to influence the public's opinion of this man-- and of bath salts in general. In fact, after this incident, several key laws were passed relating to this "new" drug.

So, what's the problem? The man never took bath salts.

Take another look at the wording of the article-- it claims that there is "a theory emerging" that he was "high on 'bath salts'"-- hardly conclusive proof. And yet, we read it as fact.

In teaching students to critically read new media, I will have them read and analyze this article using critical questions such as what might be left out of this story, what details are used to portray the subject of the story, and how it could influence our opinion. See the worksheet here.

After they more closely read and analyze this article, I will have them read another perspective on the story-- actually, an analysis of another take on the story.

Though this version points out many holes in the original story, it is also highly biased and has some flaws in reasoning-- at one point, the author states,

If Aguilar said bath salts were the new form of LSD, Adams would concur that you "can call it the new LSD," even though he knows LSD and bath salts are completely different drugs....

He claims to know what the police officer who shot the attacker is thinking. Clearly, though there are two sides to every story, every side has its own agenda. Teaching students to examine the inherent biases in the news will help them to form more reasoned conclusions for themselves.