Media Rants Interview: Dan Shafer of the Recombobulation Area

 

Recent Media Rants Videos

Some recent Media Rants videos. 

The New York Times appears to be torn between its noble mission of seeking truth and helping people understand the world and the business model of the paper which has Jerry Springer features: 

In his new book, Jake Tapper claims that Democratic Party insiders enabled the declining Joe Biden. Tapper was involved in his own scandalous behavior in 2024:

If you're wondering what you would be doing during the slavery era or other times of great injustice, you're probably doing it now: 

Challenging A Generation Z Stereotype

Generation Z includes people born between the years 1997 - 2012. We all know the stereotypes: "They're addicted to social media, hate emails, can't be bothered to read, misuse AI tools for homework, and only think about themselves." 

As a college professor teaching students primarily in the Gen Z age range, I've got first-hand experience with all those stereotypes. But with 40+ years of teaching experience, I can't say the challenges Gen Z presents in educational settings are any worse than what I saw from their parents' generations. Different, yes. But not necessarily worse. Since the invention of classrooms (and now online spaces too), distraction and disengagement (D & D) have plagued large numbers of students. Perhaps it is more obvious with Gen Z because, in showing up with phones, laptops, and/or other technologies, their D & D has an "in your face" quality more off-putting than the blank stares of older cohorts. 

As a media critic, one thing I'm told frequently about Gen Z is that they have ZERO regard for so-called "legacy" news media; i.e. the traditional guardians of public knowledge like the New York Times, ABC News, or cable TV outlets like CNN and Fox. Gen Z, we are told, will always prefer to be informed via TikTok videos, Reddit threads, or trendy podcasts.  Even though all of the legacy media have now dedicated significant resources toward adapting to the requirements of grabbing and maintaining attention in the digital age, they are not the first choice for news for most young people.  

Is it true that Gen Z will not engage legacy media, even when presented in a digital format? Recently I decided to test that hypothesis. From March-May of this year, I taught a 7-week, fully online course called "Rhetoric in Action." There were 29 students enrolled, including 25 Gen Zers and 4 millennials (I learned the generational status by asking everyone to share with the class the name of the #1 song on the day of their 10th birthday). The class population included 19 seniors set to graduate in May or December, 8 juniors, and 2 sophomores. There where 19 women and 10 men, and most were Communication Studies majors. 

The Home Page of the Online Syllabus for COMM 388: Rhetoric in Action.

                                                    

A week or two before the official start of the class, all students were contacted and told that they had to subscribe to the online New York Times, as we would be doing a "deep dive" into the paper. 

Approximately two-thirds of the course material required students to do rhetorical analysis of the New York Times. Assignments included: 

• Critical analysis of a piece of reporting from any of the following sections of the NYT: Arts, Business, Climate and Environment, Education, Food, Health, New York Times Magazine, Parenting, Politics, Science, Style, Technology, Wellness, World. 
• Critical Analysis of an assigned NYT Opinion Page writer: Students analyzed columns by Jamelle Bouie, David Brooks, Gail Collins, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, David French, Thomas Friedman, M. Gessen, Michelle Goldberg, Nicholas Kristof, Carlos Lozada, Tressie McMillan Cottom, Lydia Polgreen, Bret Stephens, and Zeynep Tufekci.
• An evaluation of as assigned episode of the New York Times The Daily podcast.
• An evaluation of the New York Times as a form of visual rhetoric.
• Two exams covering the course textbook (The Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking and Writing Critically by Karlyn Kohrs-Campbell, Susan Schultz-Husman, and Thomas Burkholder. Cengage Learning, 2015.). 

Approximately one-third of the course required students to "do" rhetoric; to write and speak in ways that would be suitable for publication in the New York Times. Assignments in this section of the course included: 

• Engaging in an in-depth, written conversation with a classmate about current events. In essence, the students were asked to mimic The Conversation by NYT writers Gail Collins and Bret Stephens. 
• Writing a 1000-1500 word opinion piece that would be suitable for publication on the New York Times opinion page.
• Preparing and Recording a 4-6 minute message, designed for the New York Times Editorial Board, with the purpose of persuading the Board to publish the student's 1000-1500 word opinion piece.

Going into the course, the two Gen Z stereotypes I was most concerned about were: "can't be bothered to read" and "misuse AI tools for homework." These ended up really not being major problems. Only 4 of the 29 students were not subscribed to the NYT by the first day of class, and only 1 probably never subscribed.  Scores on the exams were not great, but the exams involved reading the course textbook. Students have been doing poorly on textbook exams since way before Gen Z. 

As far as reading the New York Times, the results were very encouraging. In the assignments that required analysis of NYT articles and writers, I could tell that the clear majority of students had engaged the material as evidenced by their ability to summarize and pull relevant quotes from specific articles. Every student seemed appreciative to have the opportunity to think and write about public issues that do not frequently come up in college classes. 

Emme Hornung was a student in the Rhetoric in Action course. Her insights about what it was like to study the New York Times in an academic setting are fascinating. 

Artificial intelligence abuse did not appear to be a problem. I only detected two blatant attempts to pass off an a AI generated paper as original work, and both students immediately admitted it. Each individual told me that they simply got busy with other classes, work, etc. and used AI just to get done by the deadline. (I allow students the opportunity to redo the assignment with no penalty IF they admit that they used AI without proper citation and/or letting me know in advance why they are using it.). 

For me the most inspiring part of the course was the 1000-1500 word opinion pieces. Before the students wrote them, I did have them each send me a thesis statement and short justification for their choice of topic, which allowed me to provide feedback and ensure that the proposed piece would be appropriate for the NYT. Students wrote on a range of topics dealing with education, media, politics, culture, and other areas. One thing that became obvious, just from the topic choices and style of writing, was that the students had in fact been engaging the New York Times for six weeks.   

I enjoyed all the student opinion pieces, but I will quote from just one. Student Ava Heeringa wrote a piece she titled "Reclaiming Peace In a Digital World." I'm quoting Ava's because her piece powerfully, and in an authentic student voice, contests the idea that Gen Z is not reflective about the digital culture they find themselves mired in. She writes: 

I’m 21 years old, just months away from earning my degree in Communication Studies at a university I’m proud to attend. While I’m optimistic about the future, there’s a quiet anxiety that follows me. One that is fueled by the pressure to be constantly reachable and online at all times. 

This morning, I woke up and immediately checked my phone for any notifications. The day before, I responded to emails while brushing my teeth. Constant digital access is real and I am living proof of it. 

The consequences of this constant connectivity have crept into nearly every corner of my life. Mentally, I experience waves of anxiety throughout the day. It's as though my mind is always on alert, constantly cycling through notifications and tasks that need attention. This has left me feeling mentally exhausted, even when I'm supposed to be relaxed.

Academically, I feel drained and constantly on edge. A single email about homework or a new grade notification can ruin my focus and control my mood. My ability to multitask, once something I was proud of, now leaves me scattered, like I’m doing everything halfway. Professionally, it’s just as overwhelming. Every time my phone buzzes at work, I glance at the screen out of habit. It’s as if I’m on-call all the time. The mental energy I give to my devices each day is exhausting. Yet stepping away feels like I’m breaking an unspoken rule. I know this isn’t a unique experience. It’s part of a cultural shift and a redefinition of what it means to be “available.” 

Students are expected to respond to professors and classmates around the clock, as if class never really ends. The same applies to remote work, where being “reachable” at all times has invaded traditional boundaries. We've normalized a culture where being off the clock almost feels irresponsible. Even our friendships have adapted to this normality where texting, reacting to stories, and leaving comments have replaced deeper conversations, and yet we still call it connection. 

She then described a number of ways she has tried to manage digital overload in her own life. She concludes: 

Each of us has the power to redefine our relationship with technology. It starts with recognizing the need for balance and then taking even the smallest steps to disconnect. As I continue down this journey, I encourage others to do the same. To reflect on their own relationship with technology and consider how they, too, can reclaim peace.

Obviously, this course did not provide me with enough data from which to make generalizations about everyone in Generation Z. Still, I can confidently say that my experience does--to my satisfaction at least--debunk the idea that young people will not engage legacy media. In private interactions, students told me that have never been hostile to established sources of information like the NYT. Rather, those sources do not show up in social media algorithms, and if they do they too often have information restricted behind a paywall.