Wandering and wandered

Test

A media literacy lesson in a group of students, the second course of studies. A lecturer of theirs is also here. I ask everyone to say what they think about the following “news” broadcast several years ago by a radio station: “The Government always care for the health of the growing generation. Thus, this summer 100 thousand pupils improved in health in summer camps. For this purpose the Government allocated 6 million lei”. Silence in the study hall. I assure the students that I don’t give them marks and, therefore, I urge them to say what they think. The silence is broken by the lecturer, perhaps embarrassed by the lack of reaction of learners (happens, like a friend say, a little too often): “I find it's a good information, it's positive, look at those from TV - only murders, robberies, blood and everything you want. But in this case, at least we have something positive”. Students who, each in his/her own way, picked on the words of the lecturer, cheered up. Moreover, it also happens in many public activities attended by senior officials, let’s say representatives of a ministry, when minister starts talking, there are many of those who wish to talk about the topic being discussed. Well, let’s come back to the study hall. It seemed like everyone delivered the verdict: live the news! live such positive news! I felt stupid and I came down on myself because I began with this test. But on the other hand, how could I know that the lecturer would answer first?! And I did that like radio Yerevan: if a tiger attacked the mother-in-law, let’s it get out of that. The tiger, I mean. What followed was mathematics. Further I asked them, even if they were “humanists”, to recall the basic mathematical operations. For instance, I asked them to divide 6 million lei to 100 thousand pupils and then to 10 or 14 days - the duration of a shift at summer camp. Then I asked them to find out how many pupils are there in Moldova as it is easy to find out with mobile Internet. Further, as they were in any case in the Internet, I suggested to find the exact meaning of the word “always” and to “link” that meaning with the “Government’s care”. All these operations didn’t last long and, at their end I saw faces with a mixture of disconcertedness, disappointment, revolt. Hold on, a student said, it follows that the “constant care” is 5-6 lei per day per pupil? Yes, I confirm, that actually “the news” says, but that one who gives them to us knows very well that we will not listen to it with a pencil in hand. And only the lecturer, perhaps wishing to save his honour, insisted: “But let's agree that, however, this is positive news. Even if it is little, the Government does something, for pupils”. “Yes, I thought. Someone “learned” the media literacy lesson”. But I said to all that everyone perceives messages as they wants and how they know, but for their own benefits, it would be appropriate to see what's beyond them. As English people say: if rain is forecasted, take your umbrella, and if rain starts falling, it's your job, if you open it or not...

Stupor

Another lesson, but a lesson of journalism and with part-time students at the SUM. At one point, the lesson plan is going to hell (I have never followed the plan), because after talking about how news should be, regardless of the topic and protagonists, perplexities arose and hence questions. Perplexities arose when  an example of standard BBC news about the war of the Great Britain for the Falkland Islands was brought. I said that BBC used in the news the phrase “British army” and not “our army”, wanting to ensure thus a full impartiality. Perplexities came from students from Transnistrian region. They could not understand no way why they can not write that “our president” is good if everyone knows it. The discussion lasted about half an hour, because each student had something to add to the qualities of “our president”. I don’t believe I convinced that this is not the job of journalist to appreciate someone in the news. Instead, unbelievable for me, I learned that, in fact, “our president” was ... Vladimir Putin.

Double stupor

I'm at the countryside. In my native village. And, as it often happens, either a villager or another one come to me, all of them to complain about something, knowing that I’m a journalist (when will we get the situation where our afflicted citizens will seek justice at those for whom they vote, rather than at editorial offices?!). This time a young boy, former district police officer, enters the yard of my parents to talk to me. He tells his story of how he was removed from his position, a story with many characters and all zealots to hurt him. Finally he says (I translate from what he said): “I guarantee that I’ll find justice for me! Last week, I sent a letter to Putin”. So? Further discussions of about 20 minutes followed, after which, like anyone who reads this lines, and who can not be blamed for the lack of hospitality, I proposed him to go back home, to his home, with a parabolic antenna. He had not to walk too much, as we were neighbours. My mother, may God give her health, with a little education and much wiser, didn’t ask me about what I discussed with the neighbour even if she noticed my astonishment (how a mother would not notice that?!). She asked me about the essentials: health, family, work, kids. How good is it at my mother! She, without parabolic antenna, event being aged almost 84 old, knows how to approach an issue. The neighbour, with a parabolic antenna, chose the wrong approach.

_____________
The article was published within the Advocacy Campaigns Aimed at Improving Transparency of Media Ownership, Access to Information and promotion of EU values  and integration project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360.
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.