Media education in the common interest: Public perceptions of media literacy policy in Latvia

Anda Rožukalne, I. Skulte, Alnis Stakle
{"title":"Media education in the common interest: Public perceptions of media literacy policy in Latvia","authors":"Anda Rožukalne, I. Skulte, Alnis Stakle","doi":"10.19195/1899-5101.13.2(26).4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the academic interest in media and information literacy (MIL) is ever increasing, there are not many studies that analyze the public perception of media literacy. This article analyses the interrelations between encouragement measures implemented by media policy and the perception of media literacy in society. The research employs data from a national representative survey (May 2019; N=1,017 respondents). The study explores the respondents’ media literacy perceptions; opinions on risks potentially caused by insufficient media literacy skills; and respondents’ experience with MIL activities. The survey results are compared with survey data on media literacy encouragement measures, aims and target audiences obtained from the Media Policy Unit at the Ministry of Culture media literacy partners. The theoretical background is supported by the media literacy ideological model, which explains media literacy within relationships with the social institutions in which it is practiced, as well as social processes. The data results are controversial. Even though more than half of Latvia’s population view their media literacy knowledge as insufficient, 52% of the respondents are not interested in MIL issues. Concerning the consequences of insufficient media literacy skills within society, the respondents focused mostly on threats to children (40%) and general public safety (28%), decrease in welfare (28%), societal regress (25%), fewer opportunities for high-quality education (26%) and Latvia being behind other EU countries (24%). Even though the media literacy encouragement measures in Latvia include activities aimed at various audiences, they have been noticed by only a slight number of respondents (7–10%).","PeriodicalId":40610,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.13.2(26).4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Although the academic interest in media and information literacy (MIL) is ever increasing, there are not many studies that analyze the public perception of media literacy. This article analyses the interrelations between encouragement measures implemented by media policy and the perception of media literacy in society. The research employs data from a national representative survey (May 2019; N=1,017 respondents). The study explores the respondents’ media literacy perceptions; opinions on risks potentially caused by insufficient media literacy skills; and respondents’ experience with MIL activities. The survey results are compared with survey data on media literacy encouragement measures, aims and target audiences obtained from the Media Policy Unit at the Ministry of Culture media literacy partners. The theoretical background is supported by the media literacy ideological model, which explains media literacy within relationships with the social institutions in which it is practiced, as well as social processes. The data results are controversial. Even though more than half of Latvia’s population view their media literacy knowledge as insufficient, 52% of the respondents are not interested in MIL issues. Concerning the consequences of insufficient media literacy skills within society, the respondents focused mostly on threats to children (40%) and general public safety (28%), decrease in welfare (28%), societal regress (25%), fewer opportunities for high-quality education (26%) and Latvia being behind other EU countries (24%). Even though the media literacy encouragement measures in Latvia include activities aimed at various audiences, they have been noticed by only a slight number of respondents (7–10%).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
符合共同利益的媒体教育:拉脱维亚公众对媒体素养政策的看法
尽管学术界对媒体和信息素养的兴趣与日俱增,但分析公众对媒体素养认知的研究并不多。本文分析了媒体政策实施的鼓励措施与社会对媒体素养的认知之间的相互关系。该研究采用了一项全国代表性调查的数据(2019年5月;1017名受访者)。该研究探讨了受访者对媒体素养的看法;关于媒体素养不足可能造成的风险的意见;以及受访者对MIL活动的经验。调查结果与文化部媒体扫盲合作伙伴媒体政策股提供的关于鼓励媒体扫盲措施、目标和目标受众的调查数据进行了比较。理论背景得到了媒体素养意识形态模型的支持,该模型解释了媒体素养与实践中的社会制度以及社会过程之间的关系。数据结果存在争议。尽管超过一半的拉脱维亚人口认为他们的媒体素养知识不足,但52%的受访者对MIL问题不感兴趣。关于社会中媒体素养不足的后果,受访者主要关注对儿童(40%)和一般公共安全(28%)的威胁、福利下降(28%)、社会倒退(25%)、接受高质量教育的机会减少(26%)以及拉脱维亚落后于其他欧盟国家(24%)。尽管拉脱维亚的媒体扫盲鼓励措施包括针对不同受众的活动,但只有极少数受访者(7-10%)注意到了这些措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Central European Journal of Communication provides an international forum for empirical, critical and interpretative, quantitative and qualitative research examining the role of communication in Central Europe and beyond. The journal welcomes high quality research and analysis from diverse theoretical and methodological approaches, as well as reviews of publications and publishes notes on a wide range of literature on media and communication studies. Submission of original articles is open to all researchers interested in communication and media.
期刊最新文献
Futures of algorithms and choices Imaginings of the Future of Conflict and Communication Technologies Future of Gender and Gender Equality Online Techno-pessimistic and techno-optimistic visions of surveillance and resistance in Europe Transforming Toxic Debates towards European Futures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1