----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 [log in to unmask] wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I have been teaching  a television course in our English
> Department for almost twenty years. When I first proposed the
> idea, someone said, "good, you're going to steer them away from
> the drivel and direct them towards PBS and CBC type offerings."
> I cleared them up on that idea and have been happily teaching
> 'drivel' ever since.
 
Good for you. But . . .
>
> An approach to TV that I have problems with is the media literacy
> approach, whereby Television commercials are deconstructed
> as an example so that students will be better able to withstand
> the bladishments and hard sell of sponsors. Hmmmmmmnnnnnnnn!
> Ads are fun to watch. >
>
I don't follow your logic here. I, too, think commercials are fun, but
what's the problem with deconstructing them. I teach HS students. We
deconstruct. They learn not only production and propaganda techniques,
but they end up enjoying commercials more than before. Deconstruction can
be fun too.
 
I'm all for enjoying what we see on TV, but can't we look at content
critically too? Are we just supposed to study drivel for its own sake?
 
Jim