This is an interesting debate - as I have said, the response to my paper at MeCCSA was that much more work needed to be carried out about Media Literacy and our notion of what this is. Also there were considerations that the growth in FE was not being catered for by those with insights into new media texts (or even comfort with new media). I think there is a general concern in this area about many factors.As a media academic and educationalist I'd like to work on getting the critical abilities improved above all else (and from the feedback I have had this isn't only in my own subject). This doesn't only mean traditional critical approaches - and I don't think I would be a professional if I didn't take this stance.I certainly don't see the Internet/New Media as an add on in terms of studying the media. The 2.0 model seemed odd to me; as at UCE we already engage all of these elements through both new and old theoretical frameworks. I just had concerns about the assumptions related to media literacy and claims of what it should be in model 2.0 (I am most uncomfortable with the issue of student being 'savvy enough' to be critically aware, it just doesn't stand up from my experience).I welcome the debate, although I really didn't think the opinions were as polarised as you considered, I just think many people in HE are already doing what you outline (perhaps from a slightly different approach)and are keen to integrate ideas and pedagogy into lower levels too.If this was meant to provoke debate - that's good....but you have to remember that we (media/cultural studies academics)are constantly barraged with criticisms of the topic and subject and sometimes people can be....vehement! It's going to generate that feeling when anything is polarised.Overall,I see this as good - people care about the topic and their approaches to students!By the way - am I a 'head in the sand' or just 'surly'? ;-)
Faye Davies, University of Central England.
