http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/10-things-you-dont-know-about-teens-and-social-networking-2527367/
I was drawn to this article because it discusses the issue of social networking and how much students/children are invested in the online world as opposed to the "real" world. There are especially interesting comments concerning the statements from the teenage girls regarding their relationship with technology and social networking.
Who is this article directed towards? It seems to suggest that too much time online is bad--what types of evidence does the author use to support her argument and how do they affect her readers? What points are under contention in the comments section?
As ever, make sure to look over the Blog Project prompt to pick a specific analytic lens!
It's pretty clear that the audience for this article is parents. It says at the beginning "do you know where your children are?" and then gives advice to parents at the end. The suggestions come from Professor Larry D. Rosen, who is called "an expert," which makes it sound like parents should trust his opinion. Overall, the article takes a very negative tone and seems to be trying to scare parents. This may suggest that the author already expects parents to be worried about their teenagers' technology use. The article only has one sentence that mentions positives and then immediately says "But" to counteract that. This could be seen as a very biased view of how teens use technology. Even though there are quotes from teenagers, they're all negative, and the teens don't say anything that would make parents think their technology use was a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marion that the author seems to be trying to scare parents by presenting social media as a negative force in their child's life, though the inclusion of the parenting advice suggests the author is trying to use fear to prompt a particular action (helping children have healthy technology habits). However, the comments on the article seem to have polarized the audience against social media rather than encourage the positive parenting strategies suggested in the latter half of the article. Comments such as "First off a child under the age of 18 doesn't need a phone, PERIOD." and "the outcasts are the ones online" indicate a rejection of social media as a whole rather than an increased awareness of potential negative effects (Ian, Manjot). The extreme reaction to the emotional appeal of the personal testimony and the dismissal of the second, more analytical portion of the article suggests that the article did not succeed in encouraging parents to "help their kids have a healthy and productive relationship with technology" (Weir).
ReplyDeleteAs the previous two comments have said, this article is clearly aimed at parents. It also appears that teenagers have responded to it as well which makes me wonder whether or not the target audience includes both parents and teenagers. The inviting title suggests that there is mystery surrounding teen interaction with Facebook. I think as a parent, I would want to uncover what my child is doing and as a teenager, I would be curious to see what adults have to say about my Facebooking habits.
ReplyDeleteMoving beyond the title and into the article, as Marion has noted already, the quotes from the teenagers are negative and even a bit shocking. Rather than merely wasting time that could be put towards homework, these kids' fragile psyches are at stake, and they are quickly confusing "life" with the personas they have created online. As a parent, I would be pretty darn scared after reading this article and that is precisely the point. As a teenager, a might get a little scared too--"I don't want to be one of THOSE kids." But, based upon the reaction in the comments section by teenagers, it's clear that bias is at work in the article. These quotes don't necessarily represent all teenagers on Facebook, but instead present an extreme example of what can happen when teenage social networking goes too far.
Shock and the resulting fear are the driving force to prompt change in this article. What the comments section has proven, however, is that the assumptions this article makes--that kids are constantly connected to technology, that parents are completely ignorant and that teenagers are living virtual lives rather than real ones--are not true reflections of the beliefs of the audience. In fact, the passionate responses prove that there is greater discourse on all of the above issues, not just Facebook itself.
I'm really interested in the way the author presents and uses evidence in this article, especially since the article is comprised almost completely of testimonial evidence. The author presents the evidence unevenly, privileging the perspective of the professor over those of the students (who are often referred to as "children" throughout the article, in a rather demeaning manner).
ReplyDeleteIn the initial introduction to the types of evidence, the author writes that she'll publish the "experience" of the social network users and the "advice" of the professor - automatically granting him authority on the subject. Also, the author positions the professor's bulleted advice points at the end of the article, even after her own final comments, giving him the literal "last word" on the matter.
Moreover, the author privileges the quoted professor by creating somewhat of a flimsy "straw man" argument in the paragraph preceding his advice, saying that "some research" has shown the positive effects of technology, while not naming any particular researchers or fully exploring their claims.
The use of evidence in this article makes me uncomfortable because it sets up a dichotomy between a group of seemingly troubled internet users (all young women, too, which seems like an unfair representation) and a single, "expert" professor providing advice, not necessarily for the young people themselves, but for their parents, about how to help them with their internet troubles. The author elides any consideration of the agency of the teenagers and does not temper her evidence with contrasting viewpoints (such as positive reviews of technology from teenagers or other researchers).
I don't wish to minimize concern with the self-esteem problems that are caused by the way teenagers present themselves in the shiny, photo-filled world of facebook, where students assess each other's appearance not just during the school hours, but constantly. However, what I would find more compelling as an audience member would be an article that trusts teens more, perhaps an article that allows teenagers to advise other teenagers on positive, self-affirming uses of social media.
The previous comments offer a lot of insight, and I just wanted to add that I don't think that the brief mention of "some research" supporting positive uses of technology is a straw man argument so much as a superficial way of trying to appear even-handed. The author acknowledges counter evidence but then dismisses it without really dealing with it in a meaningful way. The quotations from the teenagers also seem like they are taken out of context: I don't get a sense of a conversation between the author and the teenagers. Instead, the quotations come across as rapid-fire, horrifying blurbs. They make me think that the author just chose the most shocking snippets from a conversation about social media and only published those. Thus, I agree that the article is meant to scare parents into action.
ReplyDeleteLike Rachel, I think that commenters’ extreme reactions show a lack of interest in most of the advice for helping teens develop a healthy relationship with technology. Reading through several pages of comments, I was struck by the dismissal of technology as any sort of valid means of communication for teens. On the second page, one commenter wrote “wait for the rude awakening when these kids realize that real life is not lived on the computer, real bills and real problems won't get taken care of on facebook and they won't know how to deal with it” and then two comments later, “our youth are going to have no ability to personally communicate with others.” There isn’t any acknowledgment here of technology as a viable means of communication or navigating the “real world”
ReplyDeleteI also think that the overwhelming response to the girls’ personal testimony and comparative neglect of the second half of the article could also be stemming from the way the article is set up visually. The testimonials are widely spaced in short, easy to read sections. As a whole, they take up far more room on the screen than the more compactly spaced “advice” section of the article. Though the article ends with advice to parents, the space devoted to “what the kids had to say” further suggests, as Melissa wrote, that “shock and fear” prompted by the testimonials are the driving force of the article.
I agree with those who have commented on this article thus far that it is “one-sided” and is being used to shock and drive fear into the parents who read it. It would be a more interesting article if it had delved into why the teens felt the way they did about their technology use. From the teenagers’ comments, there are signs of pressure to be on Facebook, etc. We might ask ourselves, why is that pressure there? Why are teenagers feeling the need to spend half of their lives on the computer? What are they getting from it that they cannot get in person? One teenager mentioned that she felt “safer.” Why is that? Safe from what? Furthermore, we are becoming a more visual culture. There is more pressure to look a certain way, to conform by playing the computerized networking world. How can we make this move towards using technology in a more positive light? More balanced? One teenager mentioned that she wished her parents would tell her to get off, to set boundaries.
ReplyDeleteEveryday there is a blog about a movie star being on the beach in her bikini. There is a sense of voyeurism spun out-of-control. If adults can do this, how can we be judgmental of teenagers who are “modeling” what they see? Obviously I have posed more questions than answers, but it is important to look at a situation from many different angles.
As has been noted, this article is directed toward parents, particularly those with teenagers and tweens. What is most striking about this article is how little the author has to say herself--she relies mainly on the comments of teenagers and the advice of the "expert" to illustrate her point, when she could have integrated the comments of both in order to present a less biased, more evenhanded argument. She used the shock value of the quotations from the teenagers as her argument, when she could have been more effective if she had used the advice of the expert to inform parents about how to deal with the various issues that came across through the teenager's comments.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the evidence she used has not been drawn from across the social spectrum; rather, she interviewed members of a high school drama cast, which, regardless of what particular social groups these teenagers might be a part of, they are arguably not a very socially diverse group. Her lack of different kinds of evidence weakens her overall point, especially since there are differing opinions about social networking within the teenagers. One teen said, "I feel safer online than I do offline," while another stated, "Sometimes I feel like I’m losing control." By giving the teenagers more of a voice instead of taking their comments out of context like someone previously noticed, the author could have written a stronger article that could have been utilized effectively by parents. As it stands now, it's merely "shocking" and "scary."
I agree with the analyses posted; a lot of insightful things have already been said. I don’t think this article is even attempting to relate information in an unbiased way. Shine’s About Us page zeros in on its commitment to provide counterpoint perspectives to women in the face of gender-biased media representation. (“We women are presently experiencing something very cool happening in our culture and Shine intends on being a part of it. We no longer need to stand by passively as the media portrays us as fashion-obsessed diet victims. With the internet as our megaphone, we can now portray ourselves as funny, opinionated women who are in charge of our incomes, careers, families and happiness.”) I think this probably explains the focus on the perspectives of women and girls; the audience is meant to be made of self-conscious women. For all that then, I am interested in the way this article presents some of the social problems facing young, middle-class, generally white women as arising from the inherent problems with technological advance, specifically social networking.
ReplyDeleteI am speaking specifically here of the quotes given that cast social networking sites as to some degree responsible for the insecurities the young women have around their looks and social standing (anxiety over reception of their pictures, for instance, or fear of being shunned for not appearing “fun” and keeping everyone happy). The suggestion seems to be that girls would just get along better if they left the computer alone and physically played together more, abandoning their immature use of technology. But this seems like too easy an argument to make, especially for a site that strives to give women real options for ways of seeing, instead of bowing to stereotypes and marketing ploys. Basically, I want to know if what these girls are facing is really the problem of technological modernity and not a result of the way Western cultures have been said to socialize women in general to appeal to us physically first and to keep us satisfied with their behavior by being easy to get along with. Did young women feel these pressures at all before the advent of technological advance? Did playing together more help then?
I only ask because the article is directed not at parents in general, but at moms in particular. Is it possible that treating women’s issues in young adulthood as problems of the times instead of as problems of cultural mindset may hinder moms’ abilities to draw from their own experience as women to assist their children in thinking critically about the roles they are expected to play, both online and in person? If so, what sort of context ought to be provided in an article that approaches a current problem such as this for it to be considered credible and unbiased?
I agree with the main point that the comments have stated so far: that the approach is to use fear to motivate parents to consider how they can intervene in their teens’ use of social media. Like Madeline, I also found the quotes in the first section unsettling as a reader. The language of these quotes are particularly suspect to me. Not only are these quotes isolated from the context of the conversation with the author/interviewer, but they also seem to me to voice some of the “fears” that adults have about teens online a little too perfectly. For example, the phrase “I feel safer online” (as others have noted) sounds like an appeal to the audience of parents for whom the combination of “safety” and “online” would likely bring to mind online predators. Another obvious parent and adult fear is heavily implied by the next comment: “I’ve become very good at taking pictures of myself.” Readers are clearly led to imagine the pornographic/pedophilic implications of this quote.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not these were actual statements made by the interviewees, I can’t help but feel manipulated by such “perfect” evidence for a story about monitoring teens’ use of social media. Even the quote that begins “I feel sad, depressed, jealous, or whatever” sounds like a serious disclosure of a personal experience, but I would love to hear how it was stated and in what context; the “whatever” suggests that the speaker’s tone may not have been intended to be as dire as this statement sounds.
Given that the article’s title is “10 things you don’t know about teens and social networking,” I agree with Hannah that the author is primarily interested in scaring parents and concerned adults with these ten quotes. Readers can take or leave the advice below it; the article doesn’t seemed as invested in supporting these suggested actions (perhaps, instead, readers should click through more stories about how to combat this frightening situation with their teens?).