This particular activity was timely for me as this past weekend my children (both boys, aged 11 and 12) wanted to watch the Marvel Comic movie – “Dead Pool”. Having previously begun watching it with them, and within 15 seconds shutting it off because the content was too violent and inappropriate, I was sure that though 3 months had passed, they were still “too young” to watch it. With added pressure from my husband (who does not have a background in education and does not often think critically about the effects of movies on his children’s growing sense of the world) to let the boys watch the movie (because he wanted to watch it too) I quickly googled movie reviews and came upon this web-page first: www.commonsensemedia.org/ . The movie was rated 17+, with graphic violence, language and sexual content and I immediately stood my ground and refused. Despite the fact that I was trying to work on my courses and wanted them to leave me be the pressure continued and I nearly gave in when my husband used the excuse “I’m not going to let the internet decide what my kids can and cannot watch.” I nearly jumped out of my chair and strangled him because I had recently been practicing critical evaluations of webpages and in my professional opinion, the site I was using to gauge appropriateness was meeting my standards. As we continued to debate the issue (and I continued to lose precious study time) my side gained traction and eventually it was determined that “Dead Pool” was indeed inappropriate, and the kids were still far too young to watch it. As I said earlier, this activity was quite pertinent for me this weekend. Please have a look at my quick survey and then completed review and let me know your thoughts! critical-evaluation-of-a-web-site and critical-evaluation-of-a-web-site-complete
Using Delano’s critical assessment of web pages to further examine my choice of website for media content this is what I’ve found:
The 10 second glance
- URL: .gov (government) .edu (educational institution) .mil (military) .org (non profit) .com (commercial) or .uk .br (country origin) – didn’t think to use this as part of my criteria; another great way to validate the source!
- Author: Author’s name provided or anonymous? (Search the author) – I was not able to search the author, but did read a lot about the site under the header About Us
- Purpose: Teach/Inform/Persuade or Sell Product? – teach and inform
- Links: To other relevant information or Click Advertisements? – links to many other relevant and useful tools to support educating families, teachers and the public about the importance of developmentally appropriate media consumption
The 60 second scan
- Authority: Biased or Fair? POV? Profession? Reputable? – fair, proffesional, and reputable
- Pass the smell test? Use your OWN opinions. – high quality, excellent resource Delano’s quick, easy to use assessment criteria to determine validity and appropriate use for webpages was helpful and less onerous than my own. Great to have other options!