The idea of information literacy always seems a bit ridiculous to me: people are either using and engaging the tools they have, or they have no need to know about these things. “Information literacy” is a band-aid solution to the increasing digital divide that exists within developed nations. To me it is a bit like the advancement of military technology: you only advance yours because you notice other people developing more powerful technologies that you cannot defend against, while in the mean time, the basics for human survival are barely being met for over half the world’s population. The “World as a village of 100 people” metaphor puts a lot of those things into context quickly.

So, media literacy was developed so that consumers were not duped by the dazzling new sounds and images they could access within the comforts of their own homes. It was new, people had no precedence to evaluate it against, and they taught it as an English course in high school when I was there in the late 90s. Everyone who took it thought it was a bird course, as it was clear what the ‘right answers’ were, and if you had the gift of gab, you pretty much aced it. These are the same students whose media consumption habits did not change because of a course, and they continue to adapt to new communication and information tools as they become relevant within their social and professional settings.

So my question is, if it wasn’t essential that everyone had ‘media literacy’ before they could operate and use a television, why is ‘information literacy’ required before one could participate in an information society? I can be ‘media literate’ about talk shows and biases in news coverage, even if I don’t consume that media. However, I don’t think I can be ‘information literate’ without actually participating and engaging with the information tools available to me. Can we ‘teach’ information literacy the same way media literacy was taught? (Part 1)