[eDebate] todays offering

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Tue Jul 15 00:01:15 CDT 2008


Some very cool organizations train high school students to use professional
quality studio technology and techniques to produce broadcast quality
media.Often times in areas where students wouldnt otherwise have these
resources, programs discuss the necessity of bringing unheard youth voices
into the mainstream. While very cool and definitly helpful for the students
involved, because of the exclusive nature of being a mainstream media maker
it is perhaps likely that 1 out of 25 students will be able to translate
that skill into a career as a mainstream media maker. Perhaps 3 more of that
25 will get jobs in the industry but ultimatly not ones that allow them to
exert control over the media as it effects the world. The other 22 will have
a valuble experience but for the most part will not actualize the media
making goal of the activity.

Consider in the alternative a world where less money is spent on equipment
and  more students participate. Instead of aiming to make media that effects
the mainstream, the focus  is on using tools commonly avaialble  to
everybody, handicams and computers,  and  the colective power of the
students to produce  media  for  internet and local dvd distribution.While
sharing a goal of bringing unheard youth voices into the world, the
mainstream is less significant of a focus, not that its not a coordinate in
the questions youth attempt to answer through media, but a more tangible
goal of teaching folks the skills they need to use video to build support
for an achievable local goal is thought to be a better training tool, for
continued use of the skills to connect to real world change.  If 25 students
participated its likely that maybe 10 of them would have a job that utilized
media,perhaps working with a community organization or a school,  but
probably likey that 20 of them would use the skills they had learned in work
that they did toward some productive end tied to the mission of the training
they had.

Program A probably is less likely to engage in real world politics than
program b.
Program B is probably more likely to effect the mainstream media as a result
of local success than program A is by a direct approach to the mainstream.
Program B is more likely to teach skills that apply to day to day life
Whereas Program A teaches skills that are useful in process(often when
people from program a realize the futility of its mission and the
anachronistic nature of its focus and go to program b) but  very
infrequently toward the  stated goal of program a pedagogical design.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080715/6fbf8051/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list