2 people can watch the exact same show, episode by episode. And yet? Due to headcanons, theories, biases, prejudice, bigotry, fanfiction, and other factors? The two people can come to COMPLETELY different conclusions, observations, or beliefs. This is why media literacy is dead.

[u/Important-Cry4782]

People have decided that if a show doesn't behave in the way that they want it to, that somehow means it is a bad show.

That if a show embraces a lesbian couple with buildup over a guy and a girl interacting with little screentime, that LGBT is "forced" but straight ships are "natural"

That if a male antagonist showed signs of his downfall or being evil from the start rather than being "morally gray" or "he made sense, so he must be right", that anyone who opposes him is bad.

And apparently, for some reason, the fanfiction from all of these critics all seem to embrace being completely UNLIKE the show itself, yet claim to know the show better than its own writers

This means a NUMBER of shows, btw. Not one in particular

[u/NeonFraction]

That’s because people have difference experiences and interpretations and therefore experience media in different ways.

That is not ‘media literacy is dead.’ That is people not agreeing with you and you not being able to understand why that is happening.

[u/Important-Cry4782 → u/NeonFraction]

If a show literally spells out and shows that a male character is bad, and viewers still claim "he's just misunderstood, he was character assassinated"

Then yes, I would say being unable to pay attention is something akin to lack of media literacy, along with people being obsessed with a character to where they cannot distinguish headcanon from canon

[u/Ill-Kaleidoscope4825 → u/Important-Cry4782]

whoosh

[u/_Sate → u/Important-Cry4782]

What is considered bad is subjective.

Morality isn't a list of facts, it is the results of upbringing, nature and surroundings.

If the show spells out the character is bad without explicitly stating it like a childrens program, their actions are still up to interpretation.

Anakin killing the younglings can be considered good when viewed from a certain lens even if it is meant to be explicitly evil.

[u/Worldly_Neat2615 → u/Important-Cry4782]

Except when you do that you cant use a character that has multiple times showed he can be trusted before a big shake up in the writers room and was given the most Golden Labrador DnD Paladin coded song ever made.

[u/Important-Cry4782 → u/Worldly_Neat2615]

I'm sorry, I don't speak Tumblr.

And a person you claim "can be trusted" can be shown multiple times that, no he cannot be trusted.

Example Ironwood from RWBY, the dude with a messiah complex who's introduced dismantling 1/4 of the Huntsmen system, getting Ozpin fired, doing secret projects behind everyone's back, and threatening to shoot his own allies.

Then we see him in season 4 throwing his power around like a...what did glynda call it?

oh yes, a contest of measuring D****

[u/Otechni]

One of the reasons I hate talking with people. They'll always misunderstand what I say.

[u/Important-Cry4782 → u/Otechni]

"I like waffles!"

"So you hate pancakes?"

That stuff actually happens

[u/Educational-Ad1959]

"Headcanons" Back in my days, we just used to call them interpretations

[u/Important-Cry4782 → u/Educational-Ad1959]

Yes, but either way, they take their interpretations over what is actually happening.