Critique of Mielke's Article

Does television really lower the academic achievement of children? Keith W. Mielke is a vice president for research at a children's television workshop in New York City. He also has a Ph.D. from Michigan State University, 1965 and his study interests include formative and attained evaluations of educational media projects. Mielke wrote an article titled, "On the Relationship between Television viewing and Academic Achievement" that was published in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media vol. 38, number 3, about the relationship of television and academics and how people negatively criticize television without having sufficient evidence. In this article Mielke's objective is to show that television does not affect academic achievement and to convince people to use sufficient evidence when judging television, but does he really accomplish this in an effective way? I feel he has many good points but that his paper is underdeveloped and poorly presented. In the next few paragraphs that are to follow, you as the reader will get the chance to decide for themselves if they agree with me or not with the criticism presented.

In this article Mielke presents his thesis in a series of questions. He asks where is the evidence stating that television lowers academic achievement? Also, if TV attracts and controls many people why is it so bad? Mielke then proceeds to explain that people who critique television as a negative influence have no permission to do so, seeing as they have no real evidence. He also continues to talk about how television is oversimplified and how it is not criticized correctly. Next, he begins to talk about real evidence and shows the readers studies and researches that have been performed to conclude if television is negative or positive towards the learning of children. In his conclusion he suggests that we start using television in a more effective way.

In Mielke's writing he tends to leave questions unanswered. For example in paragraph three he asks, "Is this standard media hype, perhaps relatively benign, or dangerous propaganda?" He is talking about how the popular press, radio speakers, newspaper reporters, and television reporters criticize television as negative. Then, instead of answering his question he continues, "Whatever the case, most treatment of this issues fails to reflect the rigor of a serious search for truth." He never answers his question and leaves the reader wondering what the answer really is. Instead of answering the question, Mielke continues on with the article. Also, in paragraph one he asks, "Why should we be advised to avoid the medium instead of using it aggressively in the service of raising academic achievement?" Again an answer is nowhere to be found. Also, found in paragraph one are the questions he asks as his thesis, "what is the real evidence that television is guilty as charged in lowering academic achievement? Second, if television is so attractive and powerful, and the needs of education so great, why should the devil have a monopoly on such an instrument?" Mielke never fully answers these questions as well. This not only affects the reader, but the article itself and Mielke's purpose. By leaving questions unanswered Mielke leaves the readers waiting for an answer and disappointed because they never find the answers they are waiting for. This keeps the readers from fully grasping and understanding Mielke's article. This also makes the article incomplete because not everything is answered. Mielke appears unprofessional for this subject because he cannot answer questions he has asked. Unanswered questions take away from the full meaning of the article and leave the reader unsatisfied. It is great to get the reader thinking, but generally they also want to know what you think which is why they are reading your work in the first place.

Besides leaving questions unanswered, Mielke does not provide enough detail for his readers. When stating his real evidence in paragraphs 11-16 he never provides detail or examples. Mielke simply states the research or study that was performed but he does not state the significance or what they prove; his evidence is unfinished. He does not explain what is going with the studies either. He never states what kinds of kids were studied, how old they where, or if different kids were used for each study, that is important information the reader needs to reach a full understanding and conclusion on the studies. The studies need further detail and explanation. When stating the six main points in paragraphs three and sex he makes them appear important, but does not further address them. The points that are in paragraph tree are, "The task gets complicated if details like different programming content, different viewer characteristics, and different viewing environments are taken into account." In paragraph six the points are, "Seeing some but not all of a picture' not applying common criteria across different media' or basing a serious policy argument on a fundamental assumption that has not itself been thoroughly probed and validated." The reader hopes to find some connection with the points in the article, but there is none. One feels like the points were never mentioned and that they hold no value. Also, in paragraph two he brings up a good point about how people need more evidence, but he does not elaborate on it and why that is important. By not elaborating on these things and others throughout the article, the reader loses interest. There is not enough information in the article to fully understand the article and Mielke's main points. This affects the readers' needs because the article is inadequate and has no meaning because there is not enough detail to support the article and Mielke's arguments. The article is not fully explained and is hard to follow or prove a point when there is not enough information provided. Again, this affects Mielke's purpose because he looks like he is not fully educated on the subject he is writing about.

Another negative criticism within this paper is contradictions in what Mielke writes. He writes very defensively in this article and in some cases that leads to contradictions. For example, in paragraph one Mielke states that the popular press has no right to criticize TV negatively without good evidence; however when he goes to present his "real" evidence, it is just as bad. He should not be so quick to judge. His own evidence that he uses contradicts itself, another instance of contradiction within the article. The one study he uses in paragraph 14 states that out of all the theories gathered, there is not "enough support to explain difference in academic achievement." However, in paragraph 15, another study says, "the evidence indicates a modest causal contribution by television to lesser achievement, with viewing in excess of a modest-to-moderate amount the major factor." So, is there enough evidence or not? One study says there is not while the other ones say there is. Another contradiction is found in paragraph 14. At first the study states that a positive affect from television was seen from viewers who watched two to three hours per day, but a negative affect for viewers who watched four or more hours per day. The study then concludes that, "there are no deleterious effects of television on learning achievement." So, does television have a positive, negative, or no effect at all? According to this study television has all three of them. Contradictions may leave the readers confused and unsure if they should believe Mielke's side. The article does not make much sense with all of these contradictions and Mielke looks as if he believes whatever has been written.

In contrast, one plus to Mielke's article is his use of word choice. Mielke uses a colorful vocabulary that provides a nice change to the article. Examples of his vocabulary can be seen throughout the entirety of the article. One example can be seen in paragraph five where Mielke says, "Blanket condemnation of the entire medium is demeaning...," meaning all of it is bad. Another example is in paragraph six where he says, "Frontal salvos", meaning front line ammunition being shot. He was talking about prejudice against television form the popular press. In paragraph four Mielke tries using some French vocabulary saying, "polemics du jour", which means politics of the day. Here Mielke was talking about how oversimplification and uninterrupted daydreaming of facts does not have a place with every day politics. Although this vocabulary is challenging for the everyday reader to understand it provides a nice change in the flow of the paper. Using difficult vocabulary makes the reading hard to understand at first, but once the reader knows the meaning of the word it makes the paper come together and seem livelier. The reader is engrossed with the vocabulary and wants to keep reading. The words stick out and make the paper more interesting. This not only educates the reader more but also makes Mielke appear to be a literate writer.

In conclusion Mielke uses strong vocabulary, but leaves questions unanswered, does not provide enough detail, and contradicts himself - this leaves the paper incomplete. Mielke never fully demonstrates in his paper that television does not lower academic achievement; thus he does not fulfill his objective. This makes the article unfinished and the reader unsatisfied. In order to fulfill his objective Meilke must use more details, further explanations, not contradict himself, and learn to answer important questions so that the reader may understand him and see what he is trying to prove.