Conclusions
The data garnered from these focus group sessions involving teenage participants were enlightening in several ways. First, they deepened what is known about teenagers’ per¬ceptions and awareness of digital devices. Teens’ interaction with each other and the world through social network websites via their computers can be just as valuable as face-to-face encounters; their use of cell phones to connect to one another via texting enables teenagers not only to share ideas and make friends, but to plan and coordinate social time; their use of computers to download entertainment content as well as trade and share personal messages significantly shapes today’s youth culture in broad, essen¬tial and significant ways, at times even trumping social contact itself.
The digital world may represent a cultural divide between some demographic groups based on age, race, education levels and other factors, but among teenagers, it is more of a connection and an enabler that cannot easily be replaced. A major implication of our findings is our concern about the cavalier attitude our participants demonstrated regarding online risks and the idea that few, if any, repercussions are assumed for those who could potentially inflict harm. It also appears that there is little ethical concern about online lying. People in general are more apt to lie online (Calvert, 2002). This finding may easily extend to today’s teen populations. Our data reinforce this notion and reveal that teenagers fully expect others to lie. We see this as a serious development that can have a potentially corrosive impact on traditional social cohesion and expectations about norms of accept¬able behavior. While we do not view lying as something new, we see the justification of such behavior among teenagers on the internet as a cheapening of social expectations. Better internet security may reduce the validity of the rationale used to justify wholesale deceptive practices among users; yet trust eroded by such behavior is an unwelcome side-effect. Silverstone (2004) urges that morality and ethics should be central to our media agenda. He calls for a social and just development of media civics that should be at the heart of our media regulation. Furthermore, regulation, Silverstone (2004) argues, is both a private as well as a public matter. Thus, we concur that media civics should be integrated into our media literacy curriculum, with hopes that it will seep deeper into our culture.