Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select a real media text and apply a named critical theory framework
4 weeks
Select a real media text — film, news broadcast, advertisement campaign, or social media trend — and analyse it using a named critical theory framework: Marxist/political economy analysis, feminist media theory, postcolonial theory, Foucauldian discourse analysis, or Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding. The framework must drive the analysis — not just label a content description.
Proof required
Critical theory analysis document (700+ words) identifying the media text with citation, naming the theoretical framework, applying the framework to produce at least three specific analytical observations, and explaining what theory reveals that a content description alone would miss.
What gets checked
- A named theoretical framework is applied — not a general 'the media is biased' observation
- At least three specific analytical observations derive from the framework — not from common sense
- The analysis explains what applying theory reveals beyond a content description
Common mistakes
- Describing the text then appending theory labels — theory must drive the analysis
- Applying multiple frameworks without explaining which is primary and why
- Observations that could be made without the theoretical framework
Powstik Guide
A 700-word critical-theory reading of one media text.
Steps
- Cite the media text.
- Name the framework and its source.
- Apply it to specific moments.
- Note one limit of the reading.
Template
Text (citation): Framework: Moments analysed: Limit:
What gets sent back
- Under 700 words.
- Sources uncited.
- Hypothetical instead of real.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify media text is real and accessible — request the citation
- Review theoretical observations — confirm each derives from the named framework specifically
- Check the 'what theory reveals' section — confirm it goes beyond content description
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Assess ideological implications and produce a counter-reading
3 weeks
Extend M1 by assessing ideological implications: what power relations does the text naturalise or contest, whose interests does the dominant reading serve? Produce a counter-reading — a different but textually supported interpretation challenging the dominant ideological reading, using the same theoretical framework as M1.
Proof required
Ideological assessment and counter-reading document (400+ words) identifying power relations naturalised by the text specifically, interests served by the dominant reading, and a textually supported counter-reading using the M1 framework.
What gets checked
- Power relations are identified specifically for this text — not generic media bias claims
- Counter-reading is textually supported with specific evidence
- Counter-reading uses the same theoretical framework as M1
Common mistakes
- Ideological assessment making general claims about media bias without identifying what is specifically naturalised in this text
- Counter-reading that asserts rather than grounds textual evidence
- Not using the same framework as M1 — a different framework to find an alternative reading misses the point
Powstik Guide
An ideological reading and a grounded counter-reading.
Steps
- Name what the text presents as normal or natural.
- Say whose interests the dominant reading serves.
- Use the same framework as M1 for the counter-reading.
- Quote the textual details that support it.
Template
What the text naturalises (with evidence): Whose interests the dominant reading serves: Counter-reading: | Textual detail | How it supports the counter-reading | |----------------|-------------------------------------|
What gets sent back
- General claims about media bias.
- A counter-reading with no textual evidence.
- A different framework from M1.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Review power relations — confirm they are specific to this text
- Check counter-reading — confirm it is textually supported with specific evidence
- Verify counter-reading uses the same framework as M1
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Defend analysis under media studies academic challenge
1 week
Present the critical theory analysis and counter-reading to a media studies academic or communications scholar. The reviewer must probe framework choice and analysis — 'why Foucault here rather than political economy?', 'your counter-reading — is it textually grounded or are you importing your own ideology?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's media studies or communications background, at least three specific challenges with responses, and any revisions committed to.
What gets checked
- Reviewer has media studies or communications academic background
- At least three specific framework or analysis challenges are documented
- At least one revision is committed to based on the session
Common mistakes
- Reviewer validates rather than challenges framework choice
- Not being able to defend the counter-reading as textually grounded
- No revisions after a genuine methodological challenge
Powstik Guide
Your media analysis, challenged by a media studies academic.
Steps
- Justify your framework over one rival in two lines.
- Mark your least supported textual claim.
- Book a media studies or communications academic.
- Ask for three challenges to framework and reading.
Template
Challenge session log Date: Duration: Reviewer name: Reviewer role and credentials: Challenge 1 (framework choice or a reading): What they asked: My answer: Did it hold? Challenge 2: What they asked: My answer: Did it hold? Challenge 3: What they asked: My answer: Did it hold? Update I am committing to:
What gets sent back
- A reviewer who doesn't challenge the framework.
- A counter-reading you can't ground.
- No revision after the session.
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm reviewer has media studies or communications academic background
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three framework or analysis challenges are documented
- Check that at least one revision is committed to
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.