Lighting a spark or dumbing down?
I have an interest in how websites use new media tools to explain complicated (to some) issues or issues that have been so convoluted by the mainstream media that even the Rosetta Stone wouldn’t help translate.
Two sites have recently caught my eye: Story of Stuff and Darfur is Dying.
Story of Stuff is “a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns,” according to the site. Don’t focus on the information itself that’s presented, for I’m sure a lot of it can be argued one way or the other. Instead focus on how it’s presented: simple graphics and rich media content. The information is a lot to digest, but Annie Leonard’s presentation along with Free Range Studios’ production magic, a somewhat cerebral topic (for some) has the potential to attract those who may not have had an interest before.
Think of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The message wasn’t new. How the message was presented was.
Darfur is Dying is another example of bringing a complicated (again, to some) issue to the general public. The Flash-based “viral video game” is the work of mtvU, MTV’s college network. The purpose of the game is for the player to keep their refugee camp running by doing such things as collecting water while avoiding the janjaweed or helping with the day-to-day process of running the camp (think The Sims).
But even with the techno-slickness of both sites, I have to wonder: Do they really have an effect? Would someone who had stumbled upon the Story of Stuff site, who previously had no interest in planned obsolescence (discussed in the video), be prompted to investigate her spending and consumption patterns? (Note: I was pondering the fate of my iPod, which is how I found the site). Would someone who couldn’t point to Darfur on a map spring into action after a round on Darfur is Dying?
Or, do sites like these run the risk of oversimplifying, even “dumbing down” these issues? Do they lull the site visitor into a passive, lazy form of point-and-clicktivism in which they think that by just visiting the site they’re making a difference?
Since I’m a believer in using technology to light a spark, I tend to think “Yes, sites like these can promote action,” but when read mainstream media reports on these issues and the lack of real movement on them, I start questioning my own beliefs.
Note: I’ve posted this on another blog. Please comment there.