Quack! 285
If America's kids aren't going to be the safest and most moral in the world, they are fast becoming the most harassed and regulated. And wait till the pedes get around to the Net.
Last week it was the nation's pediatricians' turn to show us how to muddle medicine, technology and truth.
No institution is above exploiting kids these days, it seems, even the ones supposedly responsible for caring for them.
Along with posting copies of the Ten Commandments in public schools and harassing teenagers at movie ticket booths and video stores, the world's richest and looniest country has taken another giant step towards "protecting" children from the technology-driven culture it creates and then peddles all over the world.
Journalism and politics have been the most enthusiastic practitioners of this art in recent years. Now the American Academy of Pediatrics has joined the clergy, V-chip manufacturers, blocking software makers, educators and theater owners in the booming movement to protect kids from cultural technologies like movies, TV and the Net.
Given all the people fussing over their well-being, American kids ought to be the safest and most secure on the planet. They aren't. That this nearly insane debate takes place against a backdrop of horrifying video of bullet-riddled children and innocent adults in cities all over America highlights the surreal nature of this discussion. "What a strange country America is," said a commentator for the BBC last Tuesday night. "People are regularly shot down like animals and they just keep making, then banning movies and TV shows and dirty pictures."
The BBC got it right, even if the American press rarely does. If there's a link among these episodic outbursts of violence, it isn't media, but the juxtaposition of emotionally disturbed teenagers and middle-aged men -- almost invariably white -- and lethal weapons.
The sad truth is that American kids aren't becoming safer, healthier or more moral as a result of all this "concern." They are simply becoming the most hassled and over-regulated.
Announcing that television viewing can affect the mental, social and physical health of young people, the Academy has, for the first time, unveiled a plan that will allow physicians and parents to manage children's media habits.
"As pediatricians, we are taking all the research concerns into account and trying to raise the bar a bit, as suggestions for optimal parenting," declared Dr. Marjorie Hogan, the lead author of the Academy's report. (The report appears in the August issue of Pediatrics, published on Monday, but is not available for free on the Web, of course.)
The report doesn't actually raise the bar, it simply lowers the boom on kids' freedom. The Academy has no plans for its members to ask parents how much time they spend with their small kids, whether they watch movies and trawl websites with them, or abandon them for hours to sophisticated new media.
Nor does the report suggest the future consequences - social, educational and economic - for children cut off from new media technologies. The report makes few useful distinctions between newborns and teenagers about to head off for college or the workplace - all patients would be subject to this latest in a growing list of mindless restrictions and petty harassment sparked by the rise of techno-driven popular culture.
And make no mistake about it: if pediatricians are asking parents to ban and restrict TV, the Net -- which links users to much more diverse kinds of information -- can't be far behind. This is, after all, how a Communications Decency Act is spawned.
The pediatric academy suggests that children under two shouldn't watch any television, older children shouldn't have television sets in their bedrooms, and - most astonishing - that pediatricians should have parents fill out a "media history", along with a medical history, at office visits. Thus in addition to being blocked from "dangerous" movies like "American Pie," teenagers would be denied the dangerous practice of watching TV alone in their rooms, forced instead into familial cable-surfing. The Academy doesn't offer suggestions for what ought to happen when Mom and Dad want to watch CNN when Kimberly and Justin want to see what's up on "Dawson's Creek."
Although the report didn't address the issue, these "media histories" could become a permanent part of the individuals' medical files, available to insurance companies, school doctors and psychologists, government agencies, employers, the military, or anyone else who might have any reason for checking into a person's past. Along with drug busts and drunk driving convictions, kids might one day have to explain to potential bosses or government investigators why they watched "South Park" when they were six, downloaded pirated MP3s or saw that postponed version of "Buffy" on the Web.
Mainstream media reports have long linked pop culture to violence. Perhaps it was inevitable that kiddie docs would climb onto the bandwagon. Nobody wants to be seen as missing the kids-and-morality campaign.
"Violence in movies and television has been linked to aggressive behavior in young people in studies by the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the National Institute of Mental Health," reported the New York Times in its print and online editions.
Such statements have become an integral part of journalistic reporting on violence and the young, a major reason so many Americans link cultural technologies like TV, movies and the Net to horrors like the Columbine massacre.
But pronouncements like these are profoundly misleading.
For one thing, violence among children of all ages has been dropping for years and is now at its lowest levels in half a century, according to statistics released by the FBI just last month (and reported in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, and elsewhere). Violence among the young isn't a growing, but a declining, medical problem. (Abuse of children by members of their own families, on the other hand, appears to be rising).
Also on the increase is the number of underclass children with no access to computers or the Net, kids who may therefore be forced into low-paying dead end jobs when they grow up.
As one who has waded through many of these studies, - I've written a book and too many stories to count on this subject - I've seen that they don't, in fact, conclude that movies and television cause youth violence.
Some have found links between such bad parenting practices as allowing excessive watching of violent TV and "aggressive behavior" in children; that is, a small child left alone for many hours with violent TV imagery will behave more aggressively towards peers in some situations than a child who isn't subjected to vivid imagery for so long. These same studies almost invariably show that small children who are supervised and well-parented rarely have problems with violence or aggressive behavior, regardless of what they watch.
Hardly any of these studies take us much past common sense. And none suggest that TV or movies are responsible for violence, and few even define "aggression" clearly. Most offer no specific instances of violent acts can be traced to TV; those that do include only a tiny handful. The idea that a well-parented, well-adjusted kid should be prohibited from having his or her own TV on the basis of these reports is ludicrous.
Besides, there are also scores of reputable studies - including one by psychologists at Brown University - which find that TV, movies and the Net have no impact on violence or sexuality in the young.
In the days following the pediatric academy's report on kids and TV, a number of respected neuroscientists completely dismissed the idea that television should be discouraged because, as the pediatricians suggested, "research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant caregivers (e.g. child care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills."
Dr. Charles Nelson, a professor of child psychology, neuroscience and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota said there was no such data.
Dr. Steven Petersen, a neurology professor at Washington University Medical School of St. Louis told reporter Gina Kolata of the New York Times that not only was there no brain research to support the Academy's statement , but there was also no logical reason to ban television for the very young. Why, he wondered, no TV as opposed to one or two hours?
"Couldn't your child watch a little bit of TV and also get lots of interactions with caregivers?" Dr. Petersen asked. The pediatric Academy's position, he said, "is like saying that tons and tons of junk food is bad and so therefore kids should never have a hamburger."
Dr. Hogan, the lead author of the pediatric report, responded to a barrage of criticism from other physicians and researchers by conceding that there were no studies of young children that supported its recommendations. "We extrapolated," she said: that is, the pediatricians used other research to infer that children's brains are harmed when they spend their time gazing at television screens instead of interacting with humans.
And on the basis of this "extrapolation," responsible parents are supposed not only to ban TV for toddlers but to restrict older kids as well.
It's perfectly sensible enough for parents to encourage moderation in all things technological, especially when they're dealing with the very young. Hours of unsupervised TV a day is obviously unhealthy, as is 40 hours of Web trawling a week by eight-year-olds. Parents who don't know that have problems already. No small child - as in kids younger than eight or nine - should be left alone with any form of new media. All kids should be taught how to use new media technologies in a reasonable, safe and healthy way - and too few are.
But the unthinking institutional embrace of the idea that it's media that pose the primary dangers to children in the United States is a creepy but ascendant idea in American society. "Extrapolated" reports like the Academy's legitimize the notion that if we simply ban, filter or block access to new media technologies, then nobody has to bother looking at how children are raised, or at the structures, value systems or effectiveness of American schools - not to mention such bitterly divisive - and expensive - issues as public funding for day care or health insurance.
This noxious distraction, which keeps real problems from being addressed, is much more harmful to children than any media technology. Pediatricians aren't improving children's lives, only pandering to baseless fears about them.
As always, journalism is eager to buy into the idea. For the past half century, from rock and roll to hip hop, and from teen horror movies to cable programming, a central ideology of American journalism is that too much information is dangerous to children.
Kolata's reconsideration of the Academy's report, buried inside the Times' Week in Review section four days after the paper put the report itself on the front page, was a rare and not-very-prominent exception. So it's no surprise that many Americans believe that culture kills.
This cycle drives politicians to exploit the issue and pass Communications Decency Acts. It inspires Hollywood studios to adopt ludicrously arbitrary and useless ratings systems. It emboldens chains like Wal-Mart and Blockbuster to ban "unwholesome" movies and CDs.
The idea that pediatricians may soon be recording whether your kid watches "Rug Rats" would be a hoot if its implications weren't so outrageous.
Children who have no political or other representation are thus subjected to wider restrictions and censorship than would ever be considered for adults (no politician proposed banning TV in the wake of the Atlanta office-building shootings ).
Pediatricians, like journalists, are supposed to provide clarity and rationality in discussions like these. By declaring media a health hazard, pediatricians cross the boundary between medicine and politics. They distort the boundaries of privacy, rational social policy and common sense.
As the news demonstrates regularly, they aren't protecting kids but exploiting technology, buying into voodoo moralizing that, in America, passes for confronting the real issues facing children.
Re:They might have a point, you know. (Score:1)
From one Jon Katz [in.net] to another, I really think you're going overboard this time.
Traditionally, parents have regulated the TV viewing habits of their children, and for at least the youngest of children, they should! In listening to NPR first report on this decree two weeks ago the Pediatricians made this decree more as a tool to get parents to be parents to children, and get involved in their children's lives. The TV should not be a babysitter.
What is their motiviation? (Score:1)
Last Tuesday there was a show on NBC I think about all of the violence children are faced with today, how schools should be locked down, and children should not be allowed to have any privacy. They suggested breaking into your childrens bed rooms going through there stuff to find out what your kids are really up to. They kept touching on a very, very, very scary theme -- that all children are criminals.
All through the show, as I watched it, I kept questioning everything they said, in a way, it seemed like they were trying to propogate fear to confused parents. Why would they do this? This is not a subtle move at all, this is hardcore blaring in our face all over television, all children are criminals.
So let me pose a question, Children are the future of our society of course, so what affect do you think this controlling of media will have on them when the get older? will it benefit the powers that be now? hmm...
What is THIS?!?!?! (Score:1)
If you don't stop that, you'll be ripped to shreds by the next mob that passes by... don't you know logic and reason went out of style in Amerika (and on
You've been warned.
Re:Its the COMMERCIALS that are most damaging (Score:1)
My pastor pointed out in a sermon that TV networks claim that TV doesn't influence personal behavior, while adversisers pay them millions of dollars trying to influence personal behavior. So who's right?
-jimbo
Re:History and morals and religion. (Score:1)
I just wanted to point out that there's a pretty complete body of modern philosophy that establishes morality in the absence of the existance of a personal god. Check out any of the existentialists (especially Sartre and Camus), or even go back to the moral philosophy of Kant, to see how this is accomplished. I'm certainly no expert, so I won't attempt to present these arguments myself . . .
The point is, you certainly can have morality without religion, and religion is certainly no guarantee of moral behavior. You yourself bring up the example of Jonestown--people acting immorally for fundamentally faith-based reasons. I could trot out dozens of other tired examples, but I'm sure we're all familiar with those.
Here is the problem… (Score:2)
Announcer: "We have heard the teachers and factuality may stand in a line around the kids to shield them from the media and show support"
Minutes later the camera zooms in on kids.
As a physician, I'm embarrased by the AAP report (Score:3)
Skipping all TV is for morons (Score:1)
"I've written a book and too many stories" (Score:2)
s/to count / /
yeesh.
Re:jon katz (Score:2)
Since you are, i guess that's your problem.
Thank you. (Score:1)
I'm more than fed up with the popular impression that our morality is based on fear, desire to get into heaven, whatever. Unforunetely, this impression is spread largely by Christians -- or people who call themselves such.
Meanwhile, studying the New Testiment closely entirely refutes this point of view. It claims that it is impossible for people to maintain salvation on their own merits -- otherwise, the forgiveness it offers would be unneeded. Rather, it is expected that those who love God will, out of this love, do as He desires.
Not fear at all. Love.
(* - Actually, a fairly strong argument can be made both ways. In addition to my belief that this position properly reflects the intentions of the author, I find this one a far better thing to live by, though. Don't you?)
Re:Moderators - Can't "suppress" (Score:2)
My goodness, irony out of an A.C. (Score:1)
Someone moderate that one up.
double standard? (Score:1)
You know, it's funny, Katz wants to talk about the "epidemic of violence" when it comes to rights he disapproves of, but when it comes to rights he approves of, he actually takes the time to notice that crime rates are going down?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Re:TV is unhealthy (Score:1)
The net is, at least to many of us, different than television. It's more interactive; you're engaged with a give and take with other people, rather than just a passive receptacle for what someone else wants you to think. You also have a lot more choices about what to watch. You can look at spaceflight news web sites daily, for instance. There isn't a spaceflight channel available here. And no, I don't think the NASA channels provide completely unbiased information.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Help! My kids are being oppressed! (Score:2)
Exhibit B: A dead horse
Mr. Katz, is it not true that you have been beating exhibit B with exhibit A for far too long?
Re:They might have a point, you know. (Score:2)
Kids watching kid's programs, with someone, is (IMHO) perfectly fine, and probably very good for the kid.
Kids watching those same programs, on their own, with no supervision, because mum went to the store for a bottle of booze, are probably not going to get anything like as much out of it.
Kids watching mindless violence and witless sex are probably going to end up as politicians, or worse. A few unfortunates may even become ultra-conservative religious extremists.
Re:Hmmmm. . . . (Score:2)
IMHO, any "right to self-harm" stops, right there. If Joe Average knows that smoking is harmful, then fine. They have no case. What they did, they did of their own free will and free choice.
But, if Joe Average is -deliberately- deprived of that data, and is presented with Doctors recommeding smoking for "health reasons" (as happened in the 60's), then free choice has nothing to do with it. If you're presented with deliberately attractive illusions and falsehoods, and deprived of essential data, yes, it's still your choice, but there's no way that that "self-harm" should be protected.
Let's say you went to the doctor, with a cold, and he gave you a bottle of pills which he said would cure it. Now, let's say that the pills were a very slow-acting lethal poison, and were also very very addictive, with almost no known treatment. You're still opting to take them, albet completely oblivious to their real nature. But I bet you that if you found out that was happening to you, you wouldn't just lie back and die, lining the pharmacutical industry's pockets in the process.
So, what's the difference? Same experts, same advice, same deprivation of information in both scenarios. If none, what holds true for one holds true for the other.
I don't believe the First Amendment actually does protect "medically harmful media", where genuine harm can be shown. That's the crux. The First Amendment doesn't completely protect hate groups, calls to incite violence, subliminal advertising, slander/libel where real harm is done, etc. Nor, IMHO, should it.
Yes, "free speech" should be free, but without some boundaries, freedom is meaningless. Too many or too rigid, and freedom doesn't exist. (Personally, I think Terry Pratchett puts it better in "Feet of Clay" than I could hope to.)
Re:Sorry to say it... (Score:2)
(eg: If a kid gains a reputation for blowing up straw figures of people, or burning down buildings, outside of school hours, would you be keen on seeing them within a hundred miles of your kid's school during hours?)
Drugs are no "safer". Many are addictive, more than a few are lethal over time, some do very disturbing things to a person's sense of reality (such as make them paranoid and/or schitzoid), contaminants can kill as surely as a .45, relatively little is known about their effects on the brains or body of a still-growing child and even less is known about the effect of secondary smoke.
I'm amazed the kid who bought the drugs got away with so little, especially as I bet they cost rather more than he got in pocket money. Expulsion, though, probably won't affect the seller, though. IMHO, suspension and compulsary NA would have made more sense.
Re:Sorry to say it... (Score:2)
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
I mean, get real here!
Re:Here is the problem… (Score:2)
I doubt it'll happen, though. The press would claim "First Amendment" rights, over and above the safety or well-being of the kids.
(Safety? Yes, safety. If a camera can zoom in on a kid, so can anything else. Including a rifle held by anyone in the area of that school with a grudge against either the athletes or the Trenchcoat Mafia, after what happened.)
You can't protect kids against everything. Even if you could, they'd never learn to survive on their own. On the other hand, there's no reason to add stupid dangers to the list, whether it's to boost ratings, look good, be more "right" than everyone else, or because the responsible person doesn't feel like acting responsibly.
Re:Here's Looking at You, Jon... (Score:2)
Actually, only one episode was about TV. The rest was about mindlessly following "the rules", or blindly believing anything without first thinking.
Those who blindly believe politicians, the religion of their choice, the media, advertisers, OR the US Constitution, as all-knowing, all-wise sources of knowledge would do well to watch it.
And Never, Ever subject a child to The General. Speedlearn is Not Good.
This is STUPID!!! (Score:2)
When was the last time TWO YEAR OLD KIDS had absolute freedom of choice? Hmmm? You quite willing to let them cross the busy road on their own, or play with the chemicals in the garage, by the car?
Face it, parents with even an ounce of sense are already making a great many choices for kids of that age, because kids of that age have neither the rational capacity, OR the experience, to make such choices for themselves.
There is NOTHING WRONG with placing limits on a TWO YEAR OLD. They probably would have a much higher liklihood of survival if you did so more often.
That is NOT the same as controlling a child mercilessly, at all times, "defending" them against every possible encounter with their world. If you did that, they'd REMAIN emotionally and mentally TWO YEARS OLD. Kids HAVE to experience the world, to grow, but kids HAVE to have checks on that experience to prevent them accidently stumbling into situations for which they are not equipt to handle.
Personally, I'd say that Jon Katz' views are verging on the positively reckless. Kids need some degree of safety. They NEED to know that it's safe to explore, to learn, to grow. Without that safety, you'll get scared adult children who are not equipt, emotionally or mentally, to deal with anything. Most of those will become leaders and media moguls.
Re:Sorry to say it... (Score:2)
Nothing more severe than that is needed. Major punishment is more likely to produce hostility than understanding. If the object of school is to teach, then it is counter to the very purpose the school is there to produce ignorance and animosity.
No punishment at all, whether it's for drugs, cigarettes or alchohol, teaches kids that those they are supposed to be able to look up to aren't worth the effort. If crimes aren't dealt with, in some way, they cease to be crimes.
But punishment alone does nothing. What do you learn from it? Nothing! That's why it MUST be coupled with something from which the kid CAN learn alternatives.
Should the punishments be different, whether it's drugs, tobacco or alchohol? I don't see why. As you say, they all have very similar effects on health and all are crimes.
Alchohol is a major mood-altering substance (it's a depressent) and also personality-altering, to some degree. Tobacco, I'm not sure, but I suspect it's at least mood-altering. They're both very addictive. That's NOT safe for a kid to be playing with, more so for those they're around.
If a kid wants to take risks on their own, with no consequences to anyone else, that's their business, and their problem to pick up the pieces. But tobacco, alchohol and drugs don't just affect you "instantaneously" and then go away. They have long-term affects. But how many kids are going to be honestly aware of that? Even if they're told, it's just words, and usually from "bossy", over-pretentious adults who are probably closet alchoholics & chain-smokers anyway.
Nor are kids going to bother with problems they see as "someone else's". If it's not immediately relevant, why should they care? That's why I think it makes sense for those to whom these ARE immediate issues to learn from those who suffered the consequences, but why I think any kind of prevention through teaching is a waste of time.
Re:TV is not new media (Score:1)
Besides, knowledge of Star Trek would seem to be required in many companies. I think you have a good point in general about letting kids be kids, but don't be quite so quick to dismiss the social implications. TV is now one of the few things that act as shared experiences out here in the 'burbs.
Kids' TV (Score:1)
When I talk about it, it sounds like I watched a massive amount of TV as a kid, but it boils down to 1/2 hour after I got home from school, an hour or two after dinner/homework, a couple hours Saturday morning, and a couple hours Saturday and Sunday afternoon each, most of that with my dad and the old Westerns. In between, I was at school, doing homework, or expected to be outside if the weather was nice. Guess what? I normally took a book outside and climbed the apple tree where no one could bother me! Exercise *and* expanding my mind. And when I watched TV, most things my mom at least also watched with me, or I watched what my parents were watching - only one TV in the house. *gasp* Other than that, I had free reign on PBS. I can't ever find anything good on there now, but I used to watch everything. Evening at Pops, Matinee at the Bijou, Sesame Street, Nova, 3-2-1 Contact, Electric Company... You wonder why I'm an eclectic?
I never had, and still don't have, a TV in my bedroom. My sister never had one until she changed colleges and moved back home, she still had the one from her dorm room. But even now, she generally watches the TV in the family room, sharing it with the rest of the family.
My daughter is not quite 2, and she loves Elmo and Bear in the Big Blue House (more from Henson), and has since she was just a few months old. I watch them with her, and she doesn't watch much else, other than Blue's Clues and her Veggie Tales tapes. The rest of the time (and sometimes during) she's running herself ragged, or playing with books. So what if she can't read yet? She's getting used to them being around. If she'll sit still long enough, I'll read them to her, or she'll pretend to read them to me. Her younger brother could care less about TV - he likes music, mostly classical, and would listen to it all day. Why not indulge him?
I will *not* have put in my children's personal records what they watch, anymore than I would want listed what I and my husband watch. That's our business and no one else's. If nothing else, public schools discriminate against religions of all kinds, so why would I put the odds against my daughter before she even starts?
Yes, this annoys me, though I see the point. TV makes a pretty poor babysitter, but as a teaching tool, used correctly, it can be a wonderful thing.
Les McBride
One Question... (Score:1)
If TV has so little impact on the young (or anyone else for that matter) why do corporations spend billions yearly on TV commercials?
Just something to think about...
Hmmm.... (Score:2)
Look back to the 50's and 60's. Many of the TV shows were westerns. In most of those, at least one person was shot and killed in every episode; that is violence on a scale if not a level of realism that you rarely see in today's television; it was certainly far more common then. Yet somehow, you didn't have all of these shootings and such. Yes, there were one or two isolated incidents, but it was never like it is now.
What's the difference, then? TV has, more or less, become less violent, yet violence is on the rise. In fact, take a look at the numbers; some of the least violent communities are out in the midwest, communities where kids have access to guns pretty easily and many hunt as a hobby (geez, how much more violent of a hobby can you get?) But even though they hunt, they don't lose control in schools. Hell, for a more extreme example, there's a high school in Montana I know of where kids used to bring pocketknives to school every day and were encouraged to bring chainsaws to the football games (their mascot is a logger).
Why? I think it's because of something which used to be taught in schools and homes which by and large isn't anymore. No, it's not religion. No, it's not morals.
It's respect.
Simply put, kids aren't taught to respect people very much anymore. That's why we now see ultra-exclusive cliques as far back as middle and in some cases even elementary school. It's why the teasing of geeks has gone from the relatively good-natured horsing around of the past (which really wasn't for the most part any different from what people did to their own friends; it was simply taken a different way) to the vicious, sometimes even violent, ostracism of today. And in most cosmopolitan environments, the idea of respect is gone. There's a pervasive "everyone for himself" attitude, which is causing the previous generation's title of "the 'Me' generation" to start to transfer out to ours.
Why is it still present in rural areas? I don't know. It's certainly no thanks to the religious right, the biggest bunch of hypocrites I've ever seen. Perhaps religion has a bit to do with it, but the idea of respecting all people doesn't contradict with any religion I know of, and I've studied many. Teaching respect doesn't conflict with religious freedom, and it needs to go back nto the schools. And not as the pretentious crap of uniforms or posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms (though if you cut out the four religion-specific ones then posting the remaining six wouldn't be that bad of an idea) or holding huge assemblies about it. It's something whic has to start in kindergarten or even preschool, and constantly applied until each and every child has a heartfelt belief that one should respect all people, if only for no other reason than that it is the right thing to do. Because if a child believes in respecting people, no amount of violence the kid sees is going to change that belief (unless there are other underlying psychological problems which will make themselves evident to anyone who looks long before the kid gets violent).
Still, I admit I wouldn't mind seeing Teletubbies or Barney banned. Perhaps we should also ban Microsoft software while we're at it (unreliability leads to frustration which leads to violent behavior)?
Hmmm.... (Score:3)
Look back to the 50's and 60's. Many of the TV shows were westerns. In most of those, at least one person was shot and killed in every episode; that is violence on a scale if not a level of realism) that you rarely see in today's television; it was certainly far more commmon then. Yet somehow, you didn't have all of these shootings and such. Yes, there were one or two isolated incidents, but it was never like it is now.
What's the difference, then? TV has, more or less, become less violent, yet violence is on the rise. In fact, take a look at the numbers; some of the least violent communities are out in the midwest, communities where kids have access to guns pretty easily and many hunt as a hobby (geez, how much more violent of a hobby can you get?) But even though they hunt, they don't lose control in schools. Hell, for a more extreme example, there's a high school in Montana I know of where kids used to bring pocketknives to school every day and were encouraged to bring chainsaws to the football games (their mascot is a logger).
Why? I think it's because of something which used to be taught in schools and homes which by and large isn't anymore. No, it's not religion. No, it's not morals.
It's respect.
Simply put, kids aren't taught to respect people very much anymore. That's why we now see ultra-exclusive cliques as far back as middle and in some cases even elementary school. It's why the teasing of geeks has gone from the relatively good-natured horsing around of the past (which really wasn't for the most part any different from what people did to their own friends; it was simply taken a different way) to the vicious, sometimes even violent, ostracism of today. And in most cosmopolitan environments, the idea of respect is gone. There's a pervasive "everyone for himself" attitude, which is causing the previous generation's title of "the 'Me' generation" to start to transfer out to ours.
Why is it still present in rural areas? I don't know. It's certainly no thanks to the religious right, the biggest bunch of hypocrites I've ever seen. Perhaps religion has a bit to do with it, but the idea of respecting all people doesn't contradict with any religion I know of, and I've studied many. Teaching respect doesn't conflict with religious freedom, and it needs to go back nto the schools. And not as the pretentious crap of uniforms or posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms (though if you cut out the four religion-specific ones then posting the remaining six wouldn't be that bad of an idea) or holding huge assemblies about it. It's something whic has to start in kindergarten or even preschool, and constantly applied until each and every child has a heartfelt belief that one should respect all people, if only for no other reason than that it is the right thing to do.
Still, I admit I wouldn't mind seeing Teletubbies or Barney banned. Perhaps we should also ban Microsoft software while we're at it (unreliability leads to frustration which leads to violent behavior)?
Re:Here is the problem… (Score:1)
At least, that's what CNN said
Re:They might have a point, you know. (Score:1)
Bullshit American Fascists (Score:1)
I read in another post that it is O.K. to be gay at 13, yet not O.K. to drink. That is bullshit. From a 'Biblical' standpoint, being gay is far, far worse.
I think that in an ideal democracy, you'd have a bunch of intellegent people making intellegent decisions, and regulating things where they need to be regulated. But, the fact of the matter is, the world is lacking intellegent people, so this form of 'true democracy' can never exist.
All of the democrats think that we are so far above all the Fascist dictators of the past. We're doing the same thing now, except more subtly. If you can't see through all the bullshit the government puts out, you deserve to be subjugated like the rest of the stupid follow-the-leader people around here.
Just because Uncle Sam says it's 'OK' or 'WRONG' doesn't mean you have to.
Just a stupid rant.
--Vaxgeek
They might have a point, you know. (Score:3)
When I have kids, I'm not going to stop them from accessing media they find interesting...but I'd rather they didn't memorize all of the catchy jingles along the way.
Press that hot-topic button! (Score:3)
Sigh.
I don't think it's bad to have a "features columnist" for Slashdot, and one who writes about the intersection between society and technology is a good choice. People of the True Engineering Mindset often ignore that intersection, and that can lead to the "all problems will be solved by technology" mindset which ignores the fact that the problems technology creates often aren't technological problems.
But--okay. Maybe it's just me. What I've seen since Jon was writing for Slashdot, though, has roughly followed this path:
I don't like to accuse Jon of being an opportunist, but it's difficult not to start drawing that conclusion. Sounding shrill alarms about movie theatres actually stopping people who are under 17 from attending R-rated movies is honestly a little dubious; you may not like the rating system, but it's not exactly new. And it's not even a government agency--the power of the MPAA is a creation of market forces. (Nobody forces studios to have movies rated, and nobody forces theatres that play unrated movies to police the age of attendees. You just won't make any money if you're limited to showing at the few theatres that play unrated movies.)
But now we're going beyond that, and sounding the alarm about the new great force for fascism in the country: pediatricians. Yes. You thought Dr. Spock was well-intentioned, but no, he was Mussolini with a lollipop!
Come on. Recommending that parents not put TVs in the bedrooms of their preteens and not show any children under the age of two television shows is an assault on free speech?
Really?
Jon, I understand the desire to be popular, but couldn't we get back to the pithy insights about technology sometime?
The Downside to Success [long, semi-off topic] (Score:3)
He's pretty clearly against censorship, but I think that some of the details of this bear a little more looking into. The way I see it (and to his credit, Katz does touch on this), there are basically two forms of censorship. A general form, and a specific form.
The general form simply censors objectionable material from everybody. The CDA, while claiming to have been specific censorship (since that's less objectionable in this day and age), was actually general censorship. The Hays office (the persecuor to the MPAA) censored movies for everyone. Various governments and religions have done the same, all throughout history.
General censorship doesn't work so well here and now, though, mostly because of various benefits acquired by the people who'd like not to be censored, or have things which interest them censored. Of late, the courts have ruled that while some material may not be appropriate for some, or even most people, no one is forcing that material down everyone's throat. If you have to make an effort to get this month's copy of Ass Freaks, then there's no particular reason to prevent it from being kept out of the hands of those people that want it, and who can (presumably) handle it. (Don't start thinking dirty just yet)
The sucessful cases of general censorship tend to occur at a fine level, I think, rather than a broad one. I'd blame that on peer pressure. A small bunch of moral zealots can usually get large indifferent groups of people to follow them, by implying that to do otherwise would be immoral. There's a good example here. [snpp.com] ;) 'Course, a Supreme Court justice really couldn't care less about what someone in East Fooville thinks about him, so a more objective, and I'd say rational mindset tends to prevail.
Specific censorship, which Katz gets oh so riled up about, is more along the lines of censoring material from some specific group who just can't handle it. This could be an ethnic minority, it could be based on gender, or religion, or income, and lately is based on age. The age basis is more difficult to fight because there really are good reasons for minors to minors in a lot of cases. This isn't necessarily fair, but let's assume that we're all okay with that for now.
Anyway, what's happening is that our pals the moral zealots (it may be a different bunch of moral zealots, but for purposes of this argument moral zealotry is a black box) cannot prevent American Pie (for example) from reaching a broad audience. Nor can people who wish that it wasn't associated with Don McLean, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and the Big Bopper. What can be done is to prevent it from reaching a specific audience. Minors are an easy target as they don't have complete freedom and it's easy to claim that you're doing things 'to protect the children.'
This is a pretty weak excuse of course, and should carry as little weight as the also oft-abused 'in God's name.' Both could be accurate and fair, but so many people claim to do so many contradictory things for the same reasons that it's difficult not to find them distasteful now.
This could all be okay, potentially. But it's not, because censorship is usually a lousy practice. In most cases it's just a grab for power by some group. Should it succeed, further censorings will be more likely to be accepted. Failure is generally ignored, making it a very easy game if you're patient. Worse yet, by censoring things based on the agenda of one or more groups of zealots, they can manipulate how people think in order to propigate their particular meme.
To limit the number of voices, the individual freedoms and the number of ideas in a society has much the same effect as standing on a garden hose. It cripples society as a whole, even if the one segment of it that's standing on the hose attains a higher position than it had before. Although I run the risk of Godwin's law being invoked, Germany had a really thriving culture for some time. WW1 and the penalties imposed upon Germany had deleterious effects, and of course Nazi Germany had a pretty wretched culture, even before WW2.
However wrongheaded the zealots usually are though, they may have stumbled upon an interesting idea. What if there is a problem with morals in today's society?
In the case of America, a lot of the specific censorship aimed at minors can be traced back to the failure of the prohibition effort in '33 and the rise of the baby boomers (as a generation x'er it's almost too easy for me to blame everything on my parents, but that's not my goal here). The former was a resounding defeat to the general censorship movement - even though in this case it was a prohibition against a tangible good and not on information. The latter was like seeing a hunted animal stand in front of a brick wall and hold up a sign that said 'Shoot here'; a generation known for rebelliousness made an easy target.
But a significant part of this wave of censorship, which I think we're still in*, is that there are some valid causes behind it. That's not to endorse censorship, but merely to say that the reasons that are being invoked to censor people may be symptoms of an actual problem, and that it's not _entirely_ an exertion of power.
* Although now it's often conducted by people who didn't like being censored themselves, yet can act hypocritically without blinking.**
** So I'm not perfect.
So the question comes up, are we less moral now than we used to be? Honestly, I think that we are, or at least, that it's changed from being an unspoken thing to something that's at the forefront of our society. Certainly things have, and continue to change a lot. Perhaps this churn is being mistaken for an overall lapse in morals.
My personal hypothesis is that around, and for quite a while after WW2, America was at the top of the heap as far as the world goes. However, in that fairly complacent environment, sprung up the rebellious baby boomer generation, who presented themselves as an easy target, as already pointed out. More importantly though, what we had was a situation in which the people who would, just as a side-effect of the passage of time, end up running things and raising their successors actively pushing away from the zenith of their society. And a good number of the people at that zenith were helping, by attempting to cause a sort of counter-reformation. So if we hit a peak for society as a whole during the reign of our (assuming /. readers are approx. my age) grandparents, we're dropping now.
Now, this doesn't mean that we'll all end up like rejects from some Gibson novel in twenty years. But if you're familiar with the confucian concept of the mandate of heaven, we are probably in the process of losing it in a general sense, even though we're doing great in some specific areas (e.g. computing). This is okay in a general sense, since there is something of a cycle in which various cultures are really on top of things for a while, with each successor usually improving upon the last like something out of Asimov.
We took over from the British. They took over from, I'd say, France (and to an extent, China, which was having dynastic problems anyway, which is pretty crappy timing). France, from Italy. Italy from the Arab world. Arabs from the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire from the cohesive Roman Empire, from the Hellenistic Greeks, from Egyptians & Mesopotamians, at which point things get a bit murky. Am I too focused on western civilization? Probably, but feel free to add data to this idea, or tear it down entirely if you've got something better. This is still quite a chain, and we're not done being the king of the hill for some time, I'd say.
Unfortunately, this is not so hot for those of us who do have a good sense of morals and all the other junk that I've been lumping in with it which combine to make a really badass culture. Our solutions are limited.
Give up, let each succeeding generation be worse off and give someone else a chance to be the best culture around. We ourselves will still have a good time of it, since it takes a while for the decay process to work, and as a part of it much of our culture will get assimilated into others, so there's no great loss.
There's the option of attempting to revitalize our culture, but I don't think that this has worked in the past, nor do I think it's especially healthy. It would represent a longing for a culture that's died naturally instead of trying to just go the hell forward with whatever you've got (the Japanese did have a good run at this in many ways from the Meiji restoration through WW2, although they still had plenty of problems that screwed them later on).
For long-term planners, there's the pilgrimesque option of migrating in order to hitch up with a rising culture (consider it first round VC) or starting your own. Insofar as the puritans (not the same group of people, as pilgrims, btw) go, this was really unsuccessful as seen from their point of view. Their descendants were did not adhere to the morality they grew up in, probably because it was sterile, as well as a hard act to follow. They, along with a wide assortment of other immigrants to the new world (convicts, traders, etc.) managed to put something really badass together, but it took over a hundred years just to get the basics down, and another hundred and fifty or so to begin aiming for the top of the hill. So this approach may work well as a seed for a totally different, successful culture, but it is unlikely to work on it's own. (based on a very small sample group ;)
I'm afraid that I can't see any especially good way to get out of this and still have a functioning, good society which outlives the people that want a functioning, good society (good morally, not good as in okay; a lot of this presupposes that a moral, yet flexible society will automagically do well as opposed to a moral, rigid one or an immoral one of any kind). Certainly it would involve a major shift in the way that people think and act.
Getting back to this specific article (what a hike that is), I think that yes, it's very important for parents to personally raise their kids. TV is not only a poor substitute for parenting, but the culture distributed across TV is pretty poor as well. Myself, I watch some of the better cartoons (Simpsons, Reboot, Family Guy) and sometimes the Weather Channel. But banning TV is probably not a good solution.
What I'd like to see (and this probably is unrealistic, but I'm no expert on the subject) is for businesses et al to arrange either for their workers to work half days, or for a shorter part of the week so that two parents working 20 hours can support a family OR to pay one parent enough to support his family (in exchange for a full work week) so that the other parent can stay at home. Unfortunately, many businesses are short sighted and ignore the effects that they have on society. Ultimately we get treated as the 'commons' (as in the tragedy of) and everyone, even businesses, suffer.
Re:TV is unhealthy (Score:1)
If there's time in the evening let them read a book. That's what Mom and Dad do at night, right?
I don't know whose parents you had, but mine, alike most of the others where I grew up, wouldn't pick up a book unless they wanted to dust it off.
Sad but true, TV played their entertainer and tryed its hand at educator too. I was raised that way, (look at me! morally sound and all!) but have since come to only require Star Trek Voyager, WWF, X-Files, and Simpsons. Some of those are waiting for the new season; I won't watch reruns, except Simpsons. Four hours in the week is not too much, is it?
I still don't touch books for recreation, unless it is technical, scientific, or instructional (text books). Consider the amount of text that is consumed in "web surfing" (no pr0n surfing here). I can have more data available to me on any subject with a single search than I could have by walking to the city library. Paper is old technology anyway.
--
Marques Johansson
displague@linuxfan.com
Re:TV is unhealthy (Score:1)
I thought it was sarcasm, I simply decided to take it literaly to sharpen my point.
--
Marques Johansson
displague@linuxfan.com
Cry Me a River for the Repressed 8-Year-Old Vidiot (Score:1)
Children who have no political or other representation are thus subjected to wider restrictions and censorship than would ever be considered for adults ...
This is news to you? There's a word for subjecting a child to more restrictions and censorship than an adult, and it's called parenting.
The "media history" recommendation of this pediatricians' group is odious, but there are a lot more pressing concerns than pediatricians stopping kids from watching TV. One is the lack of pediatricians who care enough about my child to know his name, much less his TV habits. (Needless to say, we're in an HMO.)
Besides, television is more than 50 years old. It's no more "new-media technology" than an electric typewriter.
Well Duh! (Score:1)
Re:Moderators - TAKE A PILL (Score:1)
Re:Sorry to say it... (Score:1)
(I have my own theory about into whose pocket my eighth grade ice cream money went, but by and large,) I don't think being a teacher is the first step on the road to being a billionaire.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1)
Re:Doh! (Score:1)
Ignorant my ass. But hey, thanks for trying!
Hrrrm. (Score:3)
The "moral majority" is at it again, so it would seem. Now, ask yourself how they're going to keep track of this. I can tell you right now there's only one way that's even moderately reliable - honesty. If the parents want to sacrifice their kids' privacy, they're welcome to do it. I can tell you right now how most parents will react to this. "Not my child!"
so what's left? Peer pressure (so and so didn't disclose xyzzy so they must be hiding something!), voluntarily disclosing the information, legislation requiring you to disclose it.
No doubt, the latter of the three will be tried in congress under some "Children's we-want-to-save-the-world Act of 2000", because we know what's best for you - even if you disagree! And it sounds good politically to "save the children" by profiling them and monitoring them. And when school shootings from depressed and distraught kids reach record numbers, we'll put more metal detectors, and armed security guards.. and .. and...
Obviously, if you're a child rights' activist, you need to stop this right now. But for the rest of us, take comfort in the fact that this style of legislation will kill itself. After they get done finger-pointing, of course.
I am reminded of a quote - "To judge a country, look at how they treat their children."
--
Anonymous moron (Score:1)
He never said that television should be used to raise one's child. In fact, the POINT of the article is that physicians are considering banning and/or moderating children's television habits INSTEAD of making sure the parents actually spend time with their children.
Katz's endorsement of technology here is irrelevant to the argument. It's half-assed inferences from previous studies that are being made by the AMA and various other medical groups, trying once again to blame media and culture instead of irresponsible parenting for the problems with violence among children.
Children will never be protected by restricting them. What needs to happen is a little bit of responsiblity on the part of the parents to raise that child with a lot of attention and love. Don't let the television be a babysitter...let it be a tool for entertainment and learning sure, but but not unsupervised at younger ages.
THAT was his point. A little reading comprehension and some conscious thought before hitting the "reply" button might have been in order, there, slappy.
Children Under 2... (Score:1)
---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.
Re:One Reality (Score:1)
---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.
Re:Kill your television! (Score:1)
Biafra used to say, "MTV Get Off The Air." We should take the whole thing off the air and start communicating with each other again. Who knows, maybe we'll learn something.
What is this man thinking? (Score:2)
I think Katz should be sentenced to watching so-called children's television every day for a month-- and I don't mean the stuff on PBS. The intensity of mass marketing in what is otherwise a creative wasteland is truly awesome, and crushingly mind-numbing: non-stop, aimless excitment filled with every product tie-in imaginable.
Pediatricians are saying that this stuff isn't healthy, and I for one agree with 'em. Parents have the right--and a duty--to set limits for their kids. It's no more outrageous to suggest they limit kid's watching of television than to suggest they limit kid's consumption of candy.
Re:Sorry to say it... (Score:1)
Legally, the only restrictions on minors are in the laws, not the constitution. (Except for the 'running for office' thing.)
And laws, as you should know, cannot restrict the constitution.
People under 18 still have complete freedom of speech. Granted, they can't 'disrupt' school with it, but, neither can you urge people to vote for one person or another at a voting site. The government can make some restrictions on free speech on its property, as long as it does it to stop people who have to be there from getting harrassed.
You can't walk into the DMV, set up a pulpit, and start preaching either.
Granted, a lot of schools don't apparently understand this. And the 'disruption of class' arguement is completely overused. Technically, it can't apply to anything you do while not in class.
Children's viewing habits (Score:1)
The pediatricians' plea of restraint is such a small voice compared to the barage of inducements to watch more television, that I find it hard to believe it's a threat to freedom. They are suggesting a course of action for concerned parents, not trying to outlaw or ban television. If you are truly a proponent of intelligent viewing practices, I think you would appreciate someone reminding parents that there is such a thing as too much television. You can't reach the golden mean if you don't remember that there are two sides to the argument.
Re:Moderators - TAKE A PILL (Score:1)
tv, parenting, and everything else (rant) (Score:1)
1 -- tv is bad for ANY age (Lowest Common Denominator crap with propaganda-commercials that help fuel our consumer-driven economy). tv not only demoralizes women, but men as well AND children.
2 -- this is yet another case outlining a disturbing trend in this country. NO ONE WANTS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR KIDS' ACTIONS. With the increasing use of Day Care, parents do not raise their own young. Also, parents do not want to take the blame for their kids performance in schools--it's ALWAYS the school's fault! If the school/teacher tries to defend themselves they can get SUED. It seems to me that the government (or whatever you choose to call it) is slowly taking the role of a Parent. So-called parents these days are nothing but sperm-donors and gestators. These "parents" will PAY to have ANYONE else raise their kids, spend time with them, and take all other responsibilities. The idea of a family unit continues to disintegrate; and future generations of people will be stranger and stranger yet as the young will start by reared entirely by INSTITUTIONS only. Who knows what this will do to our current concept of humanity?
--Coffee Inside
Free information will find a conduit (Score:1)
If you don't give your kids the media and information they need at home, they will go elsewhere to find it. Parents who feel the need to keep budding geeks from exploring the world of information around them--whether inspired their own decision or from the influence of government, community or their family physician--will simply cut themselves out of an inevitable loop that will form with or without their help.
Please consider this is coming from a nineteen year old college student. I don't claim to know how to raise small children (or even relate to them, sometimes), but I know what it's like to have grown up in the early stages of the information age, and how important it was to me to be connected into the world.
About five years ago, my father decided that all the time I spent talking on BBSs, Usenet and email was affecting my schoolwork. Perhaps it was, although I prefer to think of it as not letting my education get in the way of my learning. As punishment for my poor grades, he locked up all the telecommunication devices in the house, including a Practical Peripherals 2400 that was serving as my life line to the digital world.
At this point in my life I was regularly logging into 8 local BBSs, and particpating in FidoNet and and the Fido-esque nets out there, and also running a small UUCP leaf node from the computers to communicate via e-mail and receive an early Usenet feed from a benevolent sysop at a local COCOT company [westmark.com].
Did the removal of my ability to communicate make any difference in the degree that I was actually getting this information? No. I didn't spend as much time at home because I'd be over at friends houses clandestine QWK packets onto disks and sneaking them back into the house in my Chemistry textbook, or pulling out my secret 300 baud acoustic modem once a week when the house was empty to keep my UUCP feed from overflowing my provider's spool.
Did it keep me from telling my father about all the neat things that I was reading and doing in the BBS community and on the Internet? Hell, yeah. Usually I would tell him all about the neat things I was reading on comp.dcom.telecom or the programming or politics newsgroups and we could talk about it, but it was impossible to discuss the latest tech news without letting him know that I was logging in without his permission.
Thankfully, he realized this, and not long afterwards we discussed the situation and worked out an agreement so that he could feel like my studies were coming first, and I could still get access to the information and to discussions with my online peers.
The free flow of information and ideas is now, and will probably always be integral part of my life [umbc.edu]. I'm glad I had the opportunity to expand my horizons and understanding through interacting with others over the Internet so early on, and I would hate to see that chance denied to other young people.
--
Here's Looking at You, Jon... (Score:2)
For whatever reason the American Pediatric association have for suggesting young children do not watch T.V. (or for that matter, get involved with computers) I am sure they will be ineffective with most of the great unwashed in our great country.
Jon's outrage is neither necessary, nor thought out enough. It will probably curry some favor with the punk digerati that lurk in Slashdot and the immature who haven't the life experience to make a reasoned judgement.
Toddlers and young children need a real world with which to interact in order to create meaning. That means they work better with paints, clay and real life experience than interacting with a flat screen or worse...passively allowing someone else's interpretation of reality to impose upon their consciousness.
Meaning, and then wisdom, is created by repeated interaction with a real world, not with some conceptual fascimile. Modelling is conceptual and is a sophisticated process, games even more so as they are models which manipulate emotion.
So...throw out you TV...please...and ignore poor Jon...at least on this one...
Who does he think he is? Number two?
Here's looking at you, Jon.
I am not a number!
Re:College age *CHILDREN*?.... uhm.... (Score:1)
Quack! (Score:4)
Beyond that article, it needs noting that violence and hatred are nothing new. History repeats itself people, let's not fool ourselves here. It's pretty amazing that we only get a random school shooting, few and far between, when you consider that a little over 50 years ago the mass genocide of an entire group of people, the Holocaust, was rather acceptable to many people (until the Germans wanted more......). We can't expect change overnight, and hatred can't be stomped out in one day. Hatred is passed on to Children through those most filled with hate. I'd hate to take a poll to see how many college age childen are possessed by hatred for the veitnamese because of experiences their fathers went through.
Change takes time, but the problem we are seeing are people with too much time on their hands trying to spoon-feed children to develop as some type of morally-righteous robot. Children need freedom to learn, to explore. Sure, innoccence may be lost, but it is necessary for them to interpret messages for themselves and for the PARENTS to guide them trough.
Scaring the masses (Score:1)
cancer, do we have any right to say who can and
can't smoke? NO!
Whats horrible about reports like this is that
it scares the sheep-like flock of TrendyMoms
and other TrendyFolk who buy into the latest
health fads to restrict their children, and be
SOOoooOOo smug about how well they are raising
their children, despite the fact they still
ignore them.
Just like with the colorado incedent, when
are we going to say, "Hey! It's the fault
of the parents!"
It's not always, but people are so loathe to say
"well duh, you did a shitty job parenting!"
I think a lot of problems are caused by children
who, seeking attention, do outrageous things. If
a child doesn't feel unattended, they won't
vy for more attention in the first place!
There is nothing wrong with TV. Just like the
internet, there is a LOT of educational stuff
out there, mixed in with the crap.
The trick is helping your children find it.
- Paradox
Man of the C!!!
perl -e "print join q( ), split(q.z.
Re:Sorry to say it... (Score:1)
Re:Sorry to say it... (Score:1)
Re:Here is the problem… (Score:1)
imho the faculty should have called the police and had all of the reporters removed from school property and charged them with trespassing. 99.9% of them deserve it.
Re:What is their motiviation? (Score:1)
Spying on your children just teaches them how to hide things better. "Hrm, mommy found the pot in my sock drawer, maybe if I hide it in the heating duct. The porn under my bed got found, maybe if I hide it behind that large dresser over there." Parents need to trust their children more.
Don't forbid your children to drink, let them get piss drunk (under your supervison of course) and let them see just how bad a hangover really is. Even better, video tape them in this state so they can see exactly how much of an ass they were the next day.
If you find out your kids smokes, or is thinking about starting, tell them how hard it was for you to quit when you used to smoke, and how much healthier you felt after you finally kicked the addiction.
Punishments don't work. They just send the message that it's only bad if you get caught. Which do you think will be more effective in the long run? "Johny you're grounded for the next month for having porn!!!" or "Johny I am disapointed with your choising to watch pornography. I feel that porn is deragatory not only to women but also to men and that it's not appropriate for anyone to own. I hope you make the right descission in the future."
Re:When will people learn? (Score:2)
Don't confuse the issues (Score:1)
You typical TV-in-the-room kids today will have plenty of unsavory junk in their medical files by the time they are adults anyway.
Re:TV is unhealthy (Score:1)
Half the kids in America already have TVs in their rooms. The rest presumably would but can't afford it.
I'm advocating being different, not for the sake of being different, but because it works.
If you did, you'd need more than 8 hours sleep (Score:1)
If you can fit in the TV, then great. I'm saying that in most cases TV time takes precedence over other activities that might contribute a lot more to a child's intellectual and emotional well-being.
Nobody lies on their deathbed and says "Gee I wish I'd watched more TV"
Work = Step 1 (Score:1)
And I'd much rather my kid spend time on the computer than having to do hours of homework each night, but that's another topic of discussion.
Re:TV is unhealthy (Score:1)
Seriously, though if you can convince a kid to find their escapism in books (which is rare), it does wonders for their vocabulary, comprehension, writing, etc.
Personally, I love to read (fiction). Most of what I read is junk, but a third-rate spy novel is much more entertaining than a third-rate tv show.
Re:TV is unhealthy (Score:1)
I certainly didn't mean to under emphasize the importance of family. Any kid that gets to spend more family time than homework time is really lucky, but the exception.
Nonetheless, I stand by my statements about "running around". Your body wants physical activity whether you realize it or not. There's no need to conform to any societal physical ideal. Just get out and get your heart rate up for a while and see if your intellectual development isn't increased when you get back at the computer.
Re:Don't confuse the issues (Score:1)
(i.e., it was revealed that one of the killers at Columbine was taking medication for depression)?
Why shouldn't information like that be more confidential than media history, not less?
TV is not new media (Score:1)
What TV shows do you think will help kids in tomorrow's job market?
Re:TV is unhealthy (Score:1)
But do kids really need a TV in their own room to watch "a Discovery channel program".
I was thinking that having their own television implied heavy, unsupervised viewing. Maybe that's not the case.
When I was a teen, if I'd been watching the Discovery channel, I would have wanted to make sure everyone in the house knew it.
Re:TV is not new media (Score:1)
That is not a good thing.
TV is unhealthy (Score:2)
1. Going to school
2. Running around outside like mad
3. Doing homework
and if there's any time left:
4. Seeing the rest of the family
If there's time in the evening let them read a book. That's what Mom and Dad do at night, right?
And if kids (between 4 and 18) aren't ready to drop from exhaustion by 9 PM, then they haven't followed steps 1-4.
Save the TV for when you have the flu. Live life a little.
History and morals. (Score:1)
I remember hearing about Rev Jim Jones in the 70s (i believe).
Secondly, Morals:
Morals. The reason kids do these bad things is a lack of morals. There is no right or wrong anymore. I'm not saying that we should necc. bring religeon into classrooms or have some sort of cornball 50s approach to raising kids. But, especially for anyone who has seen that movie "kids", todays youth are pretty much told that saying no to anything or anybody is being intolerant. That being gay at age 13 is fine, but smoking a cigerette isn't. And if this total lack of right and wrong isn't bad enough, we keep telling our kids how sh*tty their future is going to be. How Social Security is in the crapper, their president is a player, the ozone is going. Turn on the news if you ever want to feel like the world is in a hopeless situation. So what happens: You get kids who live for the moment and really dont give a sh*t about the future.
Without church, of any kind, the afterlife is non existant or not worth striving for. Its just play now, who cares about later.
-Z
Television and beer (Score:1)
There was a campaign by beer brewers in the 50ies in Germany, because they feared, that sitting too much in front of the tv could affect their sales.
Today they have ads on TV and sponsor sport events on TV, because they know, that a lot of people drink beer in front of the TV.
Maybe that is, what it's all about: we have a problem, but don't know where it comes from, so just get something and blame it on this. No more thinking about it, it's not me, who's responsible for it and so on....that's one way to 'solve' the problem....
Keef
This is BULLSHIT (Score:1)
Sorry, I'm not usually like this, but this PISSES ME OFF.
This is BULLSHIT: The NON-RANT version (Score:1)
Don't think I'm trying to tell you how to raise your kids, I'm not -- I'm only 16. But I DO work at a camp and see all sorts of kids go through my fishing s[pecialist area during the summer. Some are depressed, some are happy. The depressed ones are usually the ones whose parents are taking good care of them, they like to read and enjoy intelligent things. The happy ones are the ones making fun of the smart kids and talking about alcohol and pretending that they drink it all the time. These kids are only 12 or so, so I definitly think those are the ones who needed to be loved more, not to be allowed to look at porn.
Damn, I have so much more to say but this is fucking LONG so I'll just stop now. I'm still pissed that the LUG I tried to start was turned down. I think schools should have more tolerence for those who are actually there to LEARN, but that's just me.
:P that was LONG.
Just a little more... (Score:1)
I gotta stop talking now.
Re:They might have a point, you know. (Score:2)
It ain't just kids...I decided I would have to give up _Beavis & Butthead_ when I realized that mine and my roommate's available supply of adjectives had dwindled to "cool" and "sucks". And this was my sophomore year of college...
(Don't get me wrong. _B&B_ was, at its best, hilarious. It's just
This article is taking a subtly different stance than the one about movies: Then, the parent was actively approving her kids watching _South Park_. Here, Katz is saying that a kid not allowed to have his own TV is being repressed, even though that sort of thing tends to discourage active parenting.
Okay. Maybe it's not so subtle. I'm siding with active parenting on this one.
Re:As a physician, I'm embarrased by the AAP repor (Score:1)
>to infer that limited exposure to television is a least a little harmful.
Looks like the "linear non-threshold" model of harm is making it's way into everything these days. It always was bullshit, for the most part.
Re:They might have a point, you know. (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with freedom of anything,
this has to do with the obvious fact that two
year olds shouldn't be watching TV.
(In case it *isn't* obvious to you, I'll cite one
reason: kids shouldn't be raised by Hasbro.)
Firmly on both sides (Score:2)
That said, I think this is an overreaction to an unfortunate publication.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is just issuing recommendations to Pediatricians. This is not some sort of censorship. I don't think there's anything here over which to get one's knickers in a twist.
My problem with it is that the conclusion that TV be limited is not based on any research. It is little more than a "feeling." A feeling I happen to agree with. I think TV sucks out your brains and leaves you an addled idiot, addicted to constant but bland stimulation, easy laughs obtained without wit, and a constant desire to fill that vague human angst with an endless stream of brightly packaged products.
I think television is Soma.
Sometimes I think that Katz forgets that children are not little adults; that children do need the guidance of parents; that parents should be censors. My own parents never ever told me there was anything I couldn't read. That way I had no fear to walk into the home with any book I chose. When they saw me with something that troubled them, they would express their concerns and ask to talk to me after I read the book. We would discuss the book and what was in it. We would talk about violence, cruelty, tratment of women, minorities, what was good and what was bad. From this, I became very aware of my parent's morals, and I knew their reasons for them. This did not result in me being a little parrot of my parents, because I was also thinking for myself. I was deciding what out of these books and what they believed I would take into myself and make a part of my code for living.
TV was a slightly different story. We simply did not watch much of it until we were about 10 years old. Then we watched a lot (my dad was a classic TV junkie -- he'd watch anything). I found, however, that I had little time for most of the junk. Now, I'm not some ivory tower who eschews "The Simpsons" because I have to get back to my copy of "Le Rechereche du Temps Perdus." I am now a bit of a TV junkie myself, but I formed an aesthetic and moral sense early, and I decide what goes through the glass teat (nod to Harlan Ellison) into my brain.
So, the pedes wrote a good thing as bad science. I think that's a shame and they shouldn't have done it, but I think any parent who doesn't know what his or her child is watching is a lousy parent.
Sorry to say it... (Score:2)
Sorry, kids.
[Actually giving 18 year-olds the vote was a brilliant political move. People got mad because you could be drafted and killed for your country 3 years before you could vote about the issue, so it was decided to give these people a vote in the matter. And 18-21 year-olds vote in such abyssmally small numbers to have had almost no effect whatsoever on politics in this country at all.]
Attn: Moderators (Score:2)
Have a nice day.
Re:Its the COMMERCIALS that are most damaging (Score:2)
The trick (the one that most young kids don't know) is to realize what they are trying to do and step above it. Kids figure it our eventually (they are sentient after all), but do a lot better with a coupla' helpful hints from parents or older siblings. Don't count on this being taught in school. I was never formally introduced to it until I was paying $20,000/yr to learn how to do it.
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
Gee, can I live in your America?
Don't confuse the Constitution with reality. This won't be a free country until the Powers That Be have the Constitution rammed down their collective throats and they submit to it.
"Igon, Tell him about the Twinkie." (Score:3)
We have made a lot of hubbub in this country about the problems caused by these media twinkies. Whenever a teenager goes off the deep end (often with a hail of bullets), somebody can point the cause back to these media twinkies. The witch hunts then recycle.
This is not the problem.
There is a place for junk food. There is a place for mental junk food. Used properly, they are mostly (if not entirely) harmless. Used improperly, they sicken minds and bodies.
That place is simple. Junk food is an amusing diversion away from a sane, steady diet. Try to use it as a steady diet, and the results are predictable.
Imagine if somebody found a teenager who lived on nothing but 20-30 Twinkies a day, became obese, and developed diabetes. Imagine the news stories. Where would the blame be thrown? Possibly at the teenager, probably at the parents, maybe at the school. Where would blame likely not be thrown? At the guys who make Twinkies. It is obvious that Twinkies are not to be used to replace three squares a day. If somebody tried to blame the Twinkie people, the response would be a coast to coast "Duh!".
But we do the exact same thing with media twinkies. Time after time, we see kids who are growing up on action flicks, television, and Id games. So people blame the movies, the shows, and the games.
Clue phone: these are the media twinkies. In moderation, they make a steady diet of healthy idea exchange more interesting. In bulk, they do nothing but make your mind sick.
Shall we blame the media? Hollywood, TV, and Id? Only when they try to fool us and pass their stuff off as healthy media. If they sell their wares as distractions, they are being as responsible as an ice cream stand.
Unfortunately, while parents have the clue regarding food (three squares a day), they often don't get or don't want a clue on media. They let their kids grow up on this stuff. And then they wonder why the kids are insane.
Let me reiterate. Playing Quake does not turn you into a homicidal maniac. Playing Quake for five hours a day may well do so.
A huge part of parenting, perhaps the biggest part, is keeping one's children well-fed in the head. Children learn like adults wish they could. It's a survival trait, one of the few we humans have. Let them learn guns, and they learn guns. Teach them right from wrong, and they learn right from wrong. Let them learn guns then, and still reinforce right and wrong, and the kids can handle it properly.
There is a big push among some people to solve the problems of juvinile delinquency and school shootings (IMHO, two seperate problems) by keeping kids away from these media twinkies. That should be done--by the parents. But that's only half the problem.
Eliminate the media twinkies, and a lot of kids have nothing left. That is the evil. It is better to eat the junk food, for body or mind, than to simply not eat--but not by much. The only sane alternative is healthy food--three squares a day.
This is called parenting. And this is why nothing the government does will solve this problem. Until we make it unacceptable to feed our kids steady diets of media twinkies, we will continue raising generations of media twinkies--with predictable results.
Re:History and morals. (Score:3)
This is an awfully frightening statement. You seem to be suggesting that the only thing that keeps religious people from going on (for example) violent rampages is because they're afraid of what will happen to them in the afterlife if they do! In other words, they don't refrain from going on the violent rampage because they know what it will do to the victims and their families, because of the suffering that it will cause -- no, they refrain from it because of their belief that God has a metaphorical shotgun pressed against their head.
Don't you find this a little bit scary?
When fear is the primary motivation for living a good life, something is horribly, horribly wrong. We should be past all that by now. People should want to be good to each other by choice, because it's how they would like to be treated. When I hold the door at the grocery store open for an elderly woman, it's not because I think it's what God wants me to do
The "only religious people have any motivation for being good to people" argument is complete bunk.
Chill out (Score:4)
Re:They might have a point, you know. (Score:2)
Capt. Kangaroo?
Howdy Dowdy?
These shows are perfectly fine for children. Sesame St helps children learn! Yes kids shouldn't be raised by Hasbro, watching TV doesn't mean sitting them in front of it all day.
Moderate television viewing is good for a kid. Watching Muppet Babbies won't scar your kid, but it will entertain them and often programs like The Magic School Bus help them learn.
(It *isn't* obvious to me why children shouldn't watch TV, as long as the TV doesn't become the parent.)
What about the parents? (Score:3)
I can't help but feel that this is an extension of the typical American refusal to take responsibility for their actions. The media is not to blame--if anyone is to blame, it is the parents. A child that has been taught the difference between what is appropriate and what is not appropriate--or at least given the proper intellectual tools to make the distinction--should not have these problems.
In the last three months since the birth of my nephew, and as the birth of my own son comes nearer, I have realized something very important--children come out knowing nothing. They learn exactly what you teach them. Yes, children are extremely impressionable. Heck, most adults are very impressionable. But if you teach them early on how to make responsible judgements and to take responsibility for their actions, they can be taught the difference between fantasy (what they see on television) and reality (how they should treat people, what is appropriate).
Of course a two year old cannot make informed decisions about what to watch on television--but then again, a two year old should not be making the important decisions about her life on her own, now should she?
It is about time that people stop complaining about the Evil Internet and Terrible Televison and start teaching their children to make responsible choices. More censorship is not the answer--less censorship is the answer. Informed decisions can only be made when the decider has all the available information. If you think pornography is wrong, teach your children why you think that, don't blindly deny access to it. If you have strong political beliefs, explain them to your children, and make them understand, rather than just ranting and raving (Dad, are you listening?). Children are young, but they are people, and can be reasoned with--if you've taught them how.
Sorry about the semi-rant--I've been having this discussion with friends and family for a few months.
There is no such thing as a dirty word. Nor is there a word so powerful, that it's going to send the listener to the lake of fire upon hearing it. -- Frank Zappa
Kill your television! (Score:3)
There was once a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon of the pair reading Karl Marx. Calvin remarks, "says here that religion is the opiate of the masses. Wonder what that means?"
Kill your television!
When will people learn? (Score:2)
As a kid, I enjoyed TV as much as anyone, but my parents got me involved in numerous outside activities that I had a lot more to do than sit around and watch TV. But if I was told that I could not watch it, and I saw other people enjoying TV wherever I went... you bet that I would be over at a friend's house whose parents were more leniant, and lying to may parents about what I was doing.
Egads, how long have we known that positive reinforcement is the way to handle these type of things? Given choices and opportunities, your children will come to realize TV is merely an empty way to pass time when you have nothing else to do... Take it away, and it becomes something they think about constantly.
Re:When will people learn? (Score:2)
I knew kids growing up that were not allowed to watch TV. I thought the majority of them (well, 2 out of 3) were pretty fucked up and caused a lot of trouble in school. I would argue that a majority of their problems came from over-domineering parents. If you are not allowed some freedom at home, you have to exercise it when you are away from your parents... just to vent. And if this is happening at school, it perpetuates itself in not getting an education.
All I was saying, was to let your children know how you feel by offering and encouraging other ways of spending their time... and not simply barring them from what can be considered a meaningless medium. If given ample positive opportunities, children will do the right thing... without you forcing them to your will.
Freedom (Score:2)
We as a society should stop whining and start doing. Life is terminal - deal with it.
Re:Trying to keep kids innocent... (Score:2)
-----------------------
Trying to keep kids innocent... (Score:2)
-----------------
Re:They might have a point, you know. (Score:2)