Beyond “It Didn’t Age Well”: Media Literacy, Virtue Mirroring, and Judging Older Media
Edited & fact-checked by @jorgebscomm
 |
| Deeper media analysis can foster a more nuanced understanding of both past and present content. (📷:mylifesnotes) |
In today’s online conversations, especially on social media, it is common to read that a beloved movie or show “didn’t age well”. This phrase often marks the end of debate rather than inviting closer analysis. For example, a magazine notes that older Hollywood classics are full of “blatant examples of racism, misogyny and homophobia”. Viewers then use this as a catch-all reason to dismiss these works outright. But simply declaring content outdated or offensive undercuts any chance to understand why those stereotypes or attitudes appeared. It prevents us from asking questions about the story’s intentions, the creator’s context, or the norms of the time. In effect, saying “it hasn’t aged well” can be a way of avoiding the hard work of examining media critically.
This problem is exacerbated by our current fragmented media landscape. Unlike earlier decades when most people shared the same TV shows and films, today audiences are divided among countless streaming services and social platforms. This means fewer shared cultural reference points. A viewer might encounter an old film outside its original era and simply judge it by today’s standards without recognising its era’s perspective. When every viewer watches media on their own terms, it becomes easy to project contemporary values onto past content. The result is that older works are often reduced to a single moral verdict: good or bad, outdated or not.
The Importance of Media Literacy
At the heart of this issue is media literacy – the ability to access, evaluate, analyse, and create media messages. According to the U.S. National Association for Media Literacy Education, media literacy “is the ability to access, evaluate, analyse, act, communicate and create using all forms of media”. UNESCO similarly emphasises that media literacy involves skills to find, evaluate, and produce media content, which are vital for people to be actively engaged in society. In other words, media literacy is more than just spotting fake news; it is a broad critical-thinking competency. Researchers define it as a skill that gives audiences “critical autonomy in relationship to all media”, allowing people to understand a film or news story on deeper terms.
 |
| (📷:medialiteracynow) |
These skills are widely acknowledged as crucial, yet they are often missing in education. A 2022 survey by Media Literacy Now found that almost half of American adults (ages 19–81) reported never learning media literacy skills in high school. Only about 38% said they were taught how to analyse how media affects beliefs or feelings while in school. This gap matters: adults who did receive media literacy education were less likely to believe conspiracy theories, suggesting that critical media skills help protect against misunderstanding and misinformation.
The ubiquity of media in daily life makes this gap urgent. Researchers note that the average American now spends over 12 hours a day using media (including TV, movies, social media, news, music, even billboards). Every one of these media messages is created with intent, to persuade or influence. Without media literacy, people simply absorb these messages without questioning them. They may miss how editing, music, or camera angles shape a story, or overlook hidden assumptions about race, gender, and class. In short, without the tools to analyse media, we tend to accept or reject it superficially. Media literacy skills let us step back and ask: Who made this? What are they trying to say? What values are embedded here?
The Pitfalls of Presentism
One common pitfall for an untrained audience is presentism – judging the past by today’s moral standards. In media criticism, presentism can lead to unfair conclusions. For example, a film set in the 1930s might portray an attitude or stereotype that was common at that time; dismissing the film outright ignores its historical context. Good media literacy teaches us to consider context as part of meaning. Some scholars call this “structure literacy”, understanding how the era, audience, and institutions behind a film shape its content.
For instance, beloved 1980s teen films by director John Hughes have been criticised today for outdated attitudes. A recent review bluntly describes his popular movies as “riddled with misogyny, racism, toxic masculinity, homophobia and straight-up abuse.” We now recognise that many scenes which were meant to be funny then (relentless pursuit of a disinterested girl, crude racial nicknames, or a nerd’s girlfriend getting cornered while drunk) are deeply problematic. But in their time, these films often went unchallenged or even celebrated. The older audience that grew up with them can remember why they connected (style, music, teenage angst) even as they cringe at the flaws. Younger viewers encountering these films through social media clips have little patience for nuance: if it seems unfair or ugly now, they may dump it without discussion. The bottom line is that calling something “aged poorly” throws away opportunities to learn about the past – both about the media itself and about how we’ve changed.
Introducing “Virtue Mirroring”
Part of the reason we rush to these judgements is what we’ll call virtue mirroring. This concept means that audiences often expect media to reflect their own sense of virtue. It is related to the idea of virtue signalling – expressing moral opinions to show you’re a good person – but applied to media consumption. In other words, when we engage with a film or song, we subconsciously ask “Does this reflect the values I hold dear?” If it does, we are comfortable. If it clashes with those values, we might feel an immediate sense of distrust or disapproval.
Social critics note that publicly signalling virtue can signal trustworthiness to others. By analogy, when media seems to share our moral stance, we may trust it more easily; when it doesn’t, we quickly doubt it. Imagine two old TV shows: one that features an outspoken, outspokenly feminist heroine, and another with a male-lead who makes sexist jokes. Viewers might applaud the former without thinking much about story or craft, while writing off the latter as “problematic”, even if both were products of their time. The media that mirrors our own virtues (or the virtues society loudly professes today) is rewarded in our minds; media that doesn’t is penalised.
This virtue-mirroring lens can flatten our analysis. Instead of asking why a character behaves badly, or how a film reflects its era, we only note that it doesn’t match our current morals. For example, some old comedies treat bullying or female shaming as jokes. A media-literate viewer might recognise these as reflections of then-common attitudes (or challenge them ironically). But a viewer engaging in virtue mirroring only sees “bullying = bad” and thumbs down the show. The phrase “it didn’t age well” becomes shorthand for “this doesn’t reflect my values”, rather than a meaningful critique.
Toward Deeper Analysis
To move past these traps, we need to strengthen media literacy and invite more nuanced criticism. This means teaching people not just to identify stereotypes, but also to discuss their origins and effects. For instance, instead of simply banning or ignoring an old cartoon with a dated stereotype, a media-literate approach would note the stereotype, explain its history, and consider how culture has shifted since the cartoon was made. It would also encourage empathy: recognising that people of any era are products of their time, even as we remain critical of harmful ideas.
In practice, media literacy can be fostered by education and conversation. Schools and community groups can discuss classic films in context (as some film classes do), and online commentators can highlight both the good and bad parts of old media rather than condemning it entirely. When viewers see both sides (the entertainment value and the faults) they are less likely to retreat to slogans. They might note that a movie’s romance leads to an implied assault scene, and then analyse why that happened (script oversight, genre trope, a wink at rebellion, etc.) instead of just reacting with “ugh”. Media literacy thus turns passive viewers into active analysts.
 |
| Unlike earlier decades when most people shared the same TV shows and films, today audiences are divided among countless streaming services and social platforms. (📷:colostate.edu) |
Ultimately, our discussion of old media tells us something about ourselves and our society. Blanket statements like “X didn’t age well” are easy and self-congratulatory – they affirm our own present-day virtue. But real understanding comes from critical engagement. By acknowledging our tendency toward virtue mirroring, we can correct for it. We can ask: What was this work trying to say? How might audiences have felt then, and why? By doing so, we build a richer media culture. We connect more thoughtfully with older works, and we model sophisticated analysis for others. In the long run, stronger media literacy and open-minded critique will build bridges between generations of audiences and creators, keeping conversations alive instead of closed off by a dismissive catchphrase.
⭐⭐⭐
Comments