Internet culture loves nothing more than adopting half-understood academic jargon. And more and more I’m seeing the phrase “media literacy” to mean: being smart enough to come to the correct interpretation, or even worse: being able to decipher authorial intent.

I’m a ‘death of the author’ kind of guy, but we all should agree that any text will have multiple valid interpretations, so long as you can back it up with the text.

I wanna stress that I’m not gatekeeping the phrase, I just want to promote the idea of media education over the smug notion that one person reads books better than another.

  • m_f@midwest.social
    10·
    17 days ago

    I’ve heard the phrase as meaning “able to analyze veracity of media source”. I’ve never heard it used in a sense like “smart enough to come to the correct interpretation”, other than being able to say “Yeah, this is probably propaganda”.

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    17 days ago

    I’m somewhere between “death of the author” and “there are no/all valid interpretations”. Stories help you explore through eyes that aren’t your own and ask questions or raise contradictions you wouldn’t otherwise consider, but I don’t really think critically analyzing fiction is all that useful.

    Dive deep into a story, feel what you feel, let your mind wander. I think classes analyzing themes in the Scarlet Letter or whatever are missing the point of storytelling. It should be organic, and whatever it triggers is valid.