A Media Literacy Refresher

Gather round, children, let me tell you a tale of old Black Twitter that only those of us born in the late 1900s will remember. It is a searing example of people lacking basic literacy skills— and my earliest witnessing of an online mob blossoming from a poor grasp of language. A black writer named Feminista Jones tweeted “If an alien were to come from another planet and ask you do Black American men value black American women, what would you say?”

They dragged that lady so badly that it became twitter lore.

"Feminista believes in aliens."

"If aliens came to us, I think we'd have bigger problems."

"Aliens don't give a fuck about the problems of the black community."

"You bitches are so dumb."

"Shea Butter Twitter strikes again!"

"You bitches love to make shit up."

Few people who dragged her understood that her statement was a metaphor. The aliens represented an impartial third party. The question was how would you describe black men’s value of black women to an impartial third party. It was an invitation to discuss gender issues in the black community and nothing more. Some people gauged this and responded with misogynistic vitriol, but others were genuinely confused. "How do these two topics correlate?" they asked. Years later, you'll still see someone bring up the incident and chuckle.

If people paid attention during language arts classes, the obvious metaphor would have been clear. Instead, this type of mass online misunderstanding has underpinned a bunch of Internet discourse, and taught me to over-explain my ideas so that people do not misinterpret me. I'm sure we all have an early memory of witnessing our first internet dogpile, but this was mine. If one loud and wrong person misunderstands you, the gate opens for others to flood through and begin attacking. I've seen it in nearly every type of topic, from politics to sports to film and music interpretation.

If you think the point of me using the Feminista Jones example was to start an argument about black women vs black men or ANYTHING else except for how bad media literacy is, this essay is definitely for you. If you see a picture with big text on it and automatically believe whatever is written, please stick around. This essay is also for you if you were falling asleep in Language Arts and English class back in high school or if you hate reading or find it hard to parse through information. If you love reading but somehow think an author writing bigoted characters or plot lines means they are endorsing bigotry, you may also need this literacy refresher.

To be media literate, you must know how to analyze, evaluate, create, and act on communication and information. So, let's go over how to do that in a language arts crash course for busy adults with a bunch of content in their 'Watch Later' playlist.

When you come across a document, tweet, article, instagram post, reddit post, quote, comment, etc, please remember to consider the five Ws.

WHO

Who wrote this? Who is being discussed? Who does the author usually talk about? Is the author someone who always operates in good faith? Is the author known for malevolent or cruel statements? Who does the author like/dislike? Who is being promoted? Who published or produced this? Who is the target audience?

WHY

Why is this being discussed? Why does the topic matter? Why does it not matter? Why should I promote this media? Why should I not? As an example, let's say you’re a cracker. A whole bunch of pancakes are on your twitter timeline debating their favorite ways to be topped— whipped cream, syrup, honey, etc. It upsets you as a cracker, because why are none of the pancakes saying Cheez Wiz or brie? You get pissed— but as a cracker, why are you invested in this conversation? Why does it matter to you if you’re not a pancake? Why do you think the pancakes need input from a cracker? And as a reminder to all the crackers, this was a metaphor.

WHERE

Where is this information coming from? Is it from a valid source? Where is the primary location of the piece of media you are consuming? What city/country customs are applicable? Is this statement, factoid, or generalization relevant to you? For example, when the South African pop star Tyla referred to herself as “colored”, which is a distinct racial category with its own history in her home country, as a black American, why were YOU upset? Were you a cracker trying to have a pancake conversation?

WHEN

When was this piece of media made? If its not recent, what was also happening when it was fresh? Is it still relevant? In what ways has the subject matter changed? Take this opportunity to double-check what you “know”. Verify facts and what has changed about what you know. For instance, when I was writing and researching A Short History of Virginity years ago, I skipped looking for updated research on Elizabeth Bathory because I was so familiar with the story of the Hungarian noblewoman sacrificing young virgins to stay young. Had I been as diligent as I am now, I would have found and included updated theories about the likelihood of Madam Bathory being the target of a misogynistic witch-hunt.

Information evolves.

WHAT

What is the subject? What do you know about the subject? What don’t you know about the subject? (Be honest). Look up what you don’t know. Re-read/re-view the media that you aren’t sure about. When you’re done consuming, think about what you learned in this piece of media. What emotions is this media trying to make you feel? What is it trying to make you buy? What literary and rhetorical devices are being utilized? What is the tone? Is this media sarcastic or satirical? Or is this media serious and earnest? What metaphors, if any, are being employed?

1. Pathos appeals to your emotions and tries to stir up feelings that you already have— anger, hurt, disgust, despair, etc.

2. Ethos relies on authority and credibility, using respected people or careers to make their product or argument appealing, a la testimonials.

3. Logos appeals to your sense of rationale by using facts, evidence, data, and logical arguments.

Lets say big pancake wants you to eat pancakes every morning for breakfast. They issue three campaigns for three different audiences.

1. For pathos, they might say, “Warm, soft, and delicious pancakes are always there for you when you need them. You should eat them everyday because they’ll make you feel good, like when your mom used to make them.” If they want to stir up certain audiences by reinforcing stereotypes, they’ll rely on your desire to conform or toe the party line. Think “Patriotic Americans eat pancakes every morning. Only filthy communists and hippies don’t eat pancakes. Eat pancakes so people don’t think you’re weird or support the LGBT agenda.” OR “Good people eat pancakes! Only disgusting fascists don’t eat pancakes for breakfast everyday. Eat pancakes so people don’t think you’re weird or a TERF.

2. For ethos, they might show a doctor or fitness influencer eating pancakes for breakfast to give credibility.

3. With logos, they might say, “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Here’s all the scientific reasons why eating pancakes is healthier than eating nothing.”

Of course, this is an exaggeration of actual advertising, ideological discourse, and engagement bait, but all of this matters because what exactly are you taking serious? What are you not taking serious? What words are being used to persuade you or entertain you in the media you are consuming? What words are distracting you?

Let's zero in on that logos argument. “Here’s all the scientific reasons why eating pancakes is healthier than eating nothing.” You may walk away believing that pancakes are healthy because it has been posed as a direct alternative to no breakfast at all, skipping actual healthy options. A lot of online discourse built on logic and rationale skips shades of grey to give you two options to choose between. Us or them. Good or bad. Left or Right.

This brings us to our next WHAT— what is missing from the piece of media you’re consuming? Before you become invested or angry, is there context you are not familiar with? If something is missing, was the author attempting to be nefarious or is it basic information that they assumed most readers would know? Is the missing information beyond the scope of the communication?

Example Tweet: Pancakes are food that people regularly eat for breakfast. There are a few top brands.

Obnoxious Troll: Pancakes are actually just one of several breakfast foods that people eat because we HAVE TO EAT or WE’LL DIE. Have you talked about that? Humans DYING?!

When evaluating a piece of media, is there sarcasm you’re not accounting for? What other rhetorical devices are you skipping? Recognize hyperbole (exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally). Not everything is iconic or violent, or the best or worst. Be able to recognize what a metaphor is and what isn’t, harkening back to the introduction of this video.

What is the conclusion?

Are you sure the author/creator is saying what you believe they’re saying? Is your interpretation implied? Are you projecting?

Example: I love pancakes.

Implied Interpretation: You hate waffles. And let me tell you why… you didn’t mention them, and everyone knows waffles should be mentioned when you’re talking about breakfast food.

Or, is your interpretation something that everyone can see.

Example: I love pancakes, waffles are awful.

Clear Interpretation: This person dislikes waffles and loves pancakes.

Lastly, sprinkle in the H. HOW

How does the subject/conclusion of this piece of media challenge your views? How does it align with your views? How does it affect you? How does this opinion, news, or topic matter to people who are not you? How can you connect this knowledge to what you know about the world? This one I’m putting an asterisk next to because you should always be seeking to expand your knowledge about the world in some way. I understand not everyone has the ability, time, or interest to track big idea history the same way I and other historians do, but you can still learn about the world around you. The history of your favorite hobby, how your favorite products are made and where, the basic historical timeline of the country you aspire to visit or the culture you love so much. All of the information you pick up and verify about the world will help you be a better thinker.

But back to the hows. How can you apply the information you are consuming to real life? If it’s inflammatory or propaganda, how does your engagement with this tweet, video, comment, etc— benefit you? How does it benefit the original poster?

While taking all of this in consideration for something short, like a tweet or reddit post seems like an asinine waste of time, the more you do it, the quicker it becomes. It’ll be an immediate and cat-like reflex that enriches your social media experience and critical thinking skills but only if you exercise and massage your brain with regular practice. Of course, there are times where we all make mistakes when consuming information— and this is because of stress, time restrictions, and sheer human error. But even with those mistakes, the more people who actively decide to consume media critically, the better off we are as a society.

Take in everything. Consume everything-- twice or more if you must. Verify claims and sources. Make sure you’re not dealing with generative AI. Comment after considering everything, if you must comment at all. Lastly, be mindful of what you share on your social platforms.

Circling back to that Feminista Jones tweet. Years later, the original meaning has been overshadowed and misrepresented. In the grand scheme of the internet, it's tiny and insignificant, but when you consider the sheer amount of these moments in which ideas and people are misread by the media illiterate, how much has this affected us? If people are, and have, misunderstood short pieces of media like tweets, how much have they misunderstood entire tv shows, movies, articles, and books— and ultimately, events, ideas, and politics?