Slashdot Mirror
Quack!
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.
From one Jon Katz 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.
No one seems to be seriously questioning the motivation of these people who are trying to censor media on television and the internet from children.
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...
You... you're using logic! And reason! And actually making sense!
/. too) a long long time ago?
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.
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
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.
I was watching MSNBC this morning and there was a story about the kids in CO going back to school today. Believe it or not, the following happened:
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.
First of all, it's the American Academy of Pediatrics. The problem I have is that the recommendations are not based on data. I doubt anyone would dispute that extreme degrees of media exposure are bad for development. However, it is the height of irresponsibility to infer that limited exposure to television is a least a little harmful. Certainly, the AAP has no business making such sweeping recommendations in the absence of data. As the father of a one-year-old daughter, I have become familiar with a lot of children's television and video, and I am very impressed at the quality of a lot of it (mostly the PBS stuff). The television is on for about 10% of the day, and watching "Baby Mozart" certainly doesn't stop her from having a lot of human interaction and good developmental play the other 90%. There are clearly some very conscientious people designing programming for children under two, and they have received a very unfair slap in the face from an organization that should be on their side.
Saying all TV is the same and harmful is ridiculous. While I completely agree that most TV is brain wasting garbage, there are lots of great programs on. I'm not just talking about well written fiction but channels like PBS, A&E, TLC, Discovery, etc, etc. I'll read a book over watch a show any day of the week but if I didn't even have a TV to take advantage of, I'd have missed out on a great deal of intellectual stimulation. Many people are visual learners and seeing a show like NOVA tackle a physics problem could be the key for a child who is having trouble with that subject. I'm just saying don't knock all television.
"I've written a book and too many stories to count on this subject"
s/to count / /
yeesh.
Well, if you weren't an Anonymous Coward, you could choose to filter out Jon Katz stories.
Since you are, i guess that's your problem.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
And I say that as a religious person.
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?)
Given the language in those posts that were moderated down, I can only say, "Thank you." If you can't argue a point without a liberal sprinkling of expletives, you aren't worth listening to. Ditto if you can't figure out how to use Slashdot to hide all Jon Katz articles from your sight forever.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Someone moderate that one up.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
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
(currently testing something about signatures here)
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
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Exhibit A: A stick
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?
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
(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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, you can't have 21 candles on your birthday cake. (Well, I supposed you -can-, but it'd look pretty stupid.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I mean, get real here!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
For the answer to that you want to ask people who work in TV or the movies. As in "I was inspired to write Star Wars from the Commando Cody shows I used to watch."
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.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I agree with limits, BUT...
;) I got science, English, culture, etc. I learned more Spanish from Sesame Street than I did from two years worth in high school, and that's what I still remember.
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
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.
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...
I honestly think these idiots mean well. I do. And I think there might be a kind of link between media violence and real-life violence. But this is not the way to fix it.
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)?
I honestly think these idiots mean well. I do. And I think there might be a linki between media violence and real-life violence. But this is not the way to fix it.
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)?
So take it up with Hasbro. And come to think of it, I grew up with Hasbro and so far I'm not in jail or the rubber room, even despite my Transformers collection. Then again I grew up with Big Bird before Hasbro, so maybe that makes a difference.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
This is just another sign of democracy gone horribly wrong. If you look around, democracy was intended to create 'choices' and 'freedom'. But, as I am rapidly coming to realize, it's not about that at all. When your 'loving' government attempts to replace common sense with a bunch of fucked-up laws, it's time to re-think the situation.
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
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
I hate to say it, but kids are impressionable. When I came to school and stopped watching as much TV, I stopped talking like the TV talks. It's not hard to tell when someone has absorbed the TV-mind.
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.
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?
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. ;) '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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No problem with anything you said, except:
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
Marques Johansson
Agreed. My girlfriend kicks my ass at reading speed and vocabulary, amazinig what a lifetime of reading can get you.. But she doesn't have the McDonalds menu of 1987 memorized :)
I thought it was sarcasm, I simply decided to take it literaly to sharpen my point.
--
Marques Johansson
displague@linuxfan.com
Marques Johansson
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.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Gee... televison rots the brain! What a concept! They've been saying that since they invented the dang thing. Granted, American Society has become one of the lamest in history. My favorite line from _Speed_ still applies "In 200 years we've gone from 'I regret that I have but one life to give for my country' to 'F*ck you'". Still, TV and the 'Net have their bad sides. (yes, I have spent 40+ hours a week on the net). And my life picked back up once I made a point of getting out of the house. Jon? Just because they used a questionable and scientifically shaky method to get to this conclusion doesn't mean I'm going to let my 2 kids watch the cartoon network anytime soon.
If you're not willing to take account for your opinions, then you deserved to be moderated to a pulp. :)
"...teachers and administrators -- they're the ones profiting from your hellish misery. "
(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.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Is it? The monkeys, er, "politicians," in our government tend to listen to the recommendations of these idiots.
Ignorant my ass. But hey, thanks for trying!
Read my stuff.
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."
--
Ok, flamemaster....take a pill.
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.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Should *NOT* be left in front of the TV. I agree with this, though I don't agree with a mandate. TV at an early age is one of the major factors causing the explosion of ADHD in children today. Their brains are flooded with pictures that flash and change ever 5-10 seconds and people wonder why they can't focus or sit still?
---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.
Indeed... Ignore them, and then slam them with ritalin later.
---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.
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.
Finding God in a Dog
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.
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.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I really don't understand how anyone can be so up at arms over a group of people dedicated to children's welfare suggesting that less tv might be a good thing. There is a great big world out there and the answers don't always come as easily as they do in sitcoms, so I hardly think that watching tv is adequate preparation for becoming an adult. Experience, knowledge and skills are needed that go beyond what can be absorbed passively sitting in front of a glowing box. Children (and even young adults) don't know enough about what's coming up later in their lives to be adequately able to judge what preparations they need to be making. No one can forsee the future, but there are some obvious situations and experiences that everyone deals with eventually, and there are methods for surviving even unforseen events that everyone needs to develop. That's part of the contract parents should be making with their children. To help prepare them as best they can for the world outside of their homes.
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.
Which comments were you thinking of? Most of the comments with negative score would appear to be nothing more constructive than random abuse.
Didn't read the entire post (too long, short attention span). My thoughts:
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
"I control the Mouse, the Mouse controls me."
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.
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. 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.
--
Rob Carlson
It was a few years ago that Patrick McGoohan created his series at Portmerion, Wales called "The Prisoner". It was an allegory of the invasive, mindnumbing influence of television.
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!
Buzz Lightyear
Actually, I'm 20. I just meant sons and daughters when I said children.
My favorite /. headline to date. :)
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.
So what? Cigarettes are for people who want lung
,reverse qq;):zrekcahzlrepzrehtonaztey; );"
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.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Uhm...What exactly can't you do at 18 that you can do at 21 (other than drink)? I can buy a gun, buy cigarettes, vote, automatically get tried as an adult, sign a contract, get drafted for a war I most likely will not believe in, dogde the draft, work 80 hours in a week if I choose to, and so on. And the constitution says nothing about age. It was written with the intent of applying only to white male land owners over the age of 18 (or whatever the accepted adult age was at the time), but it's not in writing anywhere.
-matt
Try going to a private school to see the 'disruption of class' issue very much abused. I know legally they can do any damned thing they want, it doesn't mean they should though. I went to school with a kid who got expelled for selling pot to another kid. Now that makes sense, *BUT* the transaction took place out side of school property (many miles away in fact), and outside of school hours. The kid who purchased the pot got caught smoking on school grounds during school, and got away with something along the lines of a week of detention, cuz his parents were financially well off enough to make a nice donation to the school.
-matt
Exactly, if you think little johnny is spending too much time infront of the TV, grab a ball and glove and offer to have a catch with him. And while you are having said catch, you might even, *gasp* talk to your child. He'll then get comfortable talking to you about things, so when he sees two people having sex on tv he'll ask you, instead of that kid down the block who knows everything. Oh and here's another great idea, if your kid gets in trouble, sit him down, explain why what he did was wrong, and that it upsets you when he does it. Don't ground him for it, he'll only get better at avoiding being caught, where if you instill some morals in your child, he just won't do it. Just a thought from someone who was (legally) a kid not that long ago.
-matt
Laws regarding medical records are the problem. Not what might be in them.
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.
There's nothing normal about it.
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.
Surfing the net is a lot different than TV (Maybe Katz will write a column about it), but that's not the point.
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"
School, work, whatever. Yeah, I'd rather be out running around.
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.
Yeah, that was an attempt at sarcasm.
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.
I don't disagree with your comments about school and (especially) homework. Still, for most kids they are a reality, and they take up a big chunk of the day.
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.
You seem to be reading a lot into my post that I hadn't intended. But you do raise an interesting question.
What TV shows do you think will help kids in tomorrow's job market?
Agreed.
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.
...because kids should be doing four things:
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:
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
I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going.
This reminds me a little bit of something I read today.
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
I don't care if I get a fucking -10 score for this. This country is so fucking "cencerned" with kids. Oops! Can't use the computer to program these hypocrites fucking programs because I'm under 18!!! Why is America so FUCKING BENT upon raising football players and cheerleaders? This is EXTREMELY evident in my school, where my friend an I tried to sart a Linux club. There are NO, repeat, NO extra-curricular activities in my school that require a fucking BRAIN to participate in. The Web club just talks about the physics of what www means! We tried to start the LUG, as I said, and we were FUCKING TURNED DOWN. We had EVERYTHING we needed to start one. They had NO GOOD REASON to turn us down, but we did. When we go to apply for college, hte section "extracurricular activites" will be mysteriously blank. Why? Because we'd rather LEARN or READ A FUCKING BOOK than grapple with other tightly and scantily - clad males. I geuss we better put that college programming book down -- it might WARP OUR FUCKING MINDS.
Sorry, I'm not usually like this, but this PISSES ME OFF.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
Oook now that I have calmed down a bit over initial pissed-off feeling, I would like to explain myself. I think computers should be censored appropriatly, that children should not be exposed to porno. But complete control is BAD. In that tone, I think television is a GOOD THING for kids when they are young - - under ONE OR TWO EXCEPTIONS: They should watch PBS - type shows (I mean the old stuff, the educational stuff aka Mr. Rojers or Sesame Street). I think Barney is a little too brainless for kids, and don't get me started on teletubbys. I grew up on Mr. Rojers and Sesame Street, and I can tell you I look at people raised on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are sometimes (SOMETIMES - some kids are less impressionable than others) screwed up. Take one kid, big TMNT fan. Now he pulls up a couple of trampolines and does a wrestling show on Public Access Televsion for my town. He is considered a "cool kid." Fake wrestling on trampolines with sweaty, pimply teenagers with names like Superfly. On the other side of the coin there is a good friend of mine who grew up on Ghostbusters (which I didn't see until I was eight - - right around the time I got my first Nintendo (nine or ten, I think)). He saw it in kindergarten. Now he is a great student and is in a good band, the non-hooligan Phish-type. So you can swing either way. I think people should let kids experience technology, and when they reach fourteen or fifteen stop censoring them so much and let them do (almost) whatever they want.
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.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
I don't think it's all pediatritions, my doc told me to watch Dragonslayer when I was about five or six. Some just have sticks up their asses.
I gotta stop talking now.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
>I doubt anyone would dispute that extreme degrees of media exposure are bad for development. However, it is the height of irresponsibility
>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.
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Just for shits and grins, I decided to run a search on Katz's article for the word "Columbine"..and found it. When will this guy give it up? Its like Katz can even manage to write an article without mentioning Columbine at *least* once. This sort of incessant cow-milking borders on the bizzare.
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
Uhm, I was raised on a farm, with very little TV, and almost no Computers. I learned a great deal about life, and when I went to college, learned a great deal about computers. I was a VERY successful programmer for 9 years, and am now a Senior UNIX Administrator. If you give kids the basics of life, computers are a trivial thing to learn. The problem is that somehow, we have decreed that computers are some mystical thing. They are calculators on steroids, not much more.
I have internet access at home, and have ditched the TV. I allow my kids quite a bit of time on the computer, which is at least somewhat interactive, TV has no redeeming qualities at all. Anything done via a TV can be done in a more interactive way on the Web, and I still control Web/Computer access, to insure they maintain active imaginations, and the ability to have common sense, which can really only be learned in RL, not in cyberspace.
Personally, once my children are old enough to be trusted with an interactive type game (Actually, it's the wackos I don't trust more then my kids), I hope that MUSH/MUD/MUCK/MAGEs are still around, since they foster imagination much more than any other type of game.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
One day, when I turned off the TV and my 2 year old son went into a screaming fit, I threw the TV into the basement, that was 1.5 years ago, it's still there. After about a week of hellish behavior, my son was able to sleep better, was less hyper-active, and was much better behaved in general, and I also began getting compliments for how well behaved my son was. I now have 2 children, 3 and 1. They have advance motor skills compared to their peers, because we actually allow them to practice those skills.
TV has no redeeming characteristics. Anything that can be "learned" from TV can be taught by the parents, if they are willing to try. The American Academy of Pediatrics made a suggestion, which I have found by my own experience to be a very good one. They are not law-makers. If they were, every child under 12months would be breast-fed (Mine were), and we would probably have a much lower infant mortality rate. (Oops, I might have upset someone by letting them know they were selfish).
I believe that child raising should be up to the parent, period. If you want to raise your child to be a satan-worshiping, sword-wielding, psychopath, that is your decision. However, I might mention my disagreement with you if I know you, as you will mention your disagreement with me. However, I also believe that it is my right to raise my children as "right wing zealots". So, you raise your children your way, I'll raise mine my way, and let the AAP make their recommendations. In the end, each person will have to live their own lives, and we will be held accountable (I know, this is a unpopular view in modern society) for how we raised our children.
BTW, While I agree with your post, the BR tag is a great tag
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
My rule is that my child does not watch TV in my house (Easily enforced, WE DON'T HAVE ONE). I do not force them to "look the other way" in another house, because that would be silly, rude, and unenforcable. It would be rude, because it would be one of those "holier then thou" things, which I detest.
I agree, unenforcable rules are stupid, and will erode your authority. However, you made a leap of logic, which I disagree with.
Actually, my parents moved us out to the middle of the country. To go to a party I would have had to walk about 15 miles, which definately controlled my ability to "sneak out". I was a cross-country runner, but it was still a "bit" too long a distance.
Your quote should be changed from "parents can't force them to do anything", to "parents who are unwilling to try hard enough can't force them to do anything". Also, if you raise them well enough in the first 10 years, the teen years can actually go on without rebellion, believe it or not.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
If I had a moderator point, I would declare that flamebait, but I don't
While your point-of-reference is a bit odd, I would make a few valid points-of-reference:
I can not cut a tree down in my own yard without a permit.
I can not build a shed in my own yard without a permit
I can not rebuild my own kitchen, inside my own house (which I own), without a permit. (no outside changes)
I can not change the oil in my own car on the street. (This is only a few towns, but is spreading quickly)
I can not shoot my own 3 year old child in the head. (Just repeating your point).
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
AAP is about the equivalent of the AMA (except that they don't sell out to formula companies), in that they have no legal control. They only make recommendations. So your point is quite ignorant.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
Your point validates his, since as a person who wants to affect personal behavior, he would know how to do it.
He should thank your for the support.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
What the heck does this thing have to do with violence? It has to do with brain-development, which many studies show is slowed by the 60hz boob-tube.
Just because the article is from Katz, doesn't mean it's an extension of the "Hellmouth" series.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
This caught my eye ...
While Katz is correct that there is a growing underclass in the USA, and that this is a serious problem, the "therefore" seems more than a little misplaced to me.
First of all, the AAP report was about television, not computers and internet access. Now, the underclass in America may be lacking many things, but TV is not among them. And I've never noticed any causal relationship between hours spent in front of the television and the ability to avoid McJob. If anything, the relationship seems inverse. But that's just my anecdotal experience; perhaps Katz can cite some studies which show television fostering creative intelligence in the viewer, or even some testimonials from engineers or CEOs who credit their watching Superfriends or Scooby Doo or The Flintstones with their later career success.
As for internet access being essential for burger-flipping avoidance in the future, don't count on it. The entire generation of us who grew up before the internet exploded onto the scene are an existance proof that it's not necessary to have a mouse in your hand at age 3 to prosper in the Internet Age(tm). What is important is the ability to read, to apply creative intelligence, and to work well with other people. If you have those things, you can learn to drive a web browser or a spreadsheet. If you don't have those things, no amount of videogames and "edutainment" software will give them to you.
But far be it from me to inject a little reality into Katz's quest to defend the inalienable rights of two-year-olds to have television sets in their rooms, or of teenagers to access unlimited porn. After all, not getting enough of Barney and www.hotxxxsluts.com at the right developmental stages will cripple them for life, right? Sheesh.
It's not the things against television that irk most people, it's the idea of a media history record. That I think is just plain evil.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
You'd think that the right to take your own life, to alter your own brain chemistry, and to sell your body for money couldn't be legislated either, but guess what?
I shouted Katz' praises on his earlier posts about the media hysteria over "killer geeks." I still think society at large is paying far too little attention to youth, and that attention does not mean the application of mind control, but active and interested involvement in the lives of children.
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.
Jon hit on something, right at the end there. Mixing Medicine and Politics. If the First Amendment protects so-called "medically harmful media" as free expression, then doesn't that imply the individual right to harm oneself ??? Which, in turn, leads to no tobacco, booze, or gun lawsuits: harming yourself would BE a protected activity. . .
Just throwing up a trial thought balloon. . .
as much as i hate to admit it, i frequently agree with katz, but this time i just plain find him dead wrong. I agree with the study that young children shouldn't be exposed to television, but not on the grounds that it will cause violent behavior. In fact, this is the first connection of that study with violence that i've found.
most of the time when children of that age group ( 2 y.o.) watch tv it's something along the lines of Barney or the Teletubbies, and quite frankly i'd rather not have them responsible for teaching the children of america about life.
from what i've seen about the study it said that young children shouldn't watch tv because it impedes the development of social skills, not because it causes kids to be violently antisocial. there's a big difference between a kid who doens't know how to deal with his peers and a kid who kills his peers. Maybe it's been shown that kids raised by the television are more likely to be violent, but that's because kids are more likely to be violent if they don't know how to deal with people thrugh other means. That's the problem we should be adressing, not blaming it on violence on tv, and censoring.
On the other hand though, there is the recomendation for a "media history." quite frankly that's a crock of shit. Maybe a child psychologist could use this information, but not a pediatrician. If i were asked to supply a media history i would refuse and i would recommend that others do too. I just don't see how it will do anything helpful to the children.
Thus ends my ranting...
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
but here in the USA, no one under 21 reall has any rights, except to vote at 18. The Constitution says so. Period. Child labor and similar vices are outlawed, but that's it. No one ever said (correctly) that a child has a right to free speech, or to watch TV, or to be free from oppression.
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.]
Ok, this is stupid. Kids shouldn't watch TV. That's plain old common sense, not people trying to oppress the kids. TV is not good. TV is not a right. SOMEONE needs to find out how media affects kids. Simple truth. Someone's doing that. Why are you bitching?
I mean, it just seems that you're trying to back the underdog here, regardless of whether or not the action is good. Your motto now seems to be "leave the kids alone." It's ok for kids not to watch TV. It's ok for kids not to watch movies. That's a good thing. If someone wanted to limit kid's access to books, the internet, etc., then you can get pissy. There is nothing educational about the ***VAST*** majority of TV and movies. There is no reason beyond entertainment, and the entertainment is unhealthy at that.
I really thought some of your articles were good, but shit... this is really pretty lame. DO NOT DEFEND TV. TV IS BAD. TV IS AN ATOMIZING FORCE IN SOCIETY. THERE IS NO REASON FOR TV.
Pick a new subject.
-- I can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
Making hay from straw men ("a ban"?...c'mon, Katz) still wins comments. Jeez, even I'm commenting...Doh!
By now somebody must have scanned in a copy of this report and posted it or something. Does anybody know where it can be found online?
First, let me state categorically that I will take my son to his pediatrician long before I take him to see, hear or read anything by Mr. Katz.
The issue for the Academy of Pediatrics had to do with parents using a television as a baby sitter. Quite simply, a child is being done a grave disservice by being parked in front of the boob tube for many hours a day. Why? because such passive activities don't help a child learn to function. After all, the television isn't going to teach a child the correct way to pronounce new words or improve his or her motor skills, make cookies or play with friends.
I suggest that everyone run out and read any of the books on Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. See, for example, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Children need to be engaged in tasks that are demanding and rewarding. Television is neither.
I think that there are some excellent children's shows, but the vast majority are simply advertisments. (As a side comment, if companies could, they'd put advertising on toilet paper. I'm surprised that no one has put advert's on those little hand dryers in the bathrooms!). Children don't need commercials, they need parents.
Finally, being "cutoff from new media technologies" isn't going to impede a child's growth. Children will still have television available to them, along with the web. But, I can state from personal experience that I didn't grow up with any "new media technologies" and I'm not hampered in any way. This is some of the worst FUD...and it's on /. too!
Media histories in medical files?! Please, take your medication, breathe slowly into a brown paper bag and relax a bit. Such breathless fear-mongering is really below /.
The Academy isn't focused solely on the violence on television; there concern is that many kids are simply abandonded in front of a tube. That parents abdicate their responsibilities to the mostly mindless shows and advertising is the real issue. Excessive television violence is only one small part of the whole picture.
This article from Katz is some of the most baseless FUD I've seen in a long time. I think it's really a shame that /.'ers rush to point out FUD from Microsoft, but then accept the same from one of its own. I expected better.
God, I mean Mr. Katz, forbid that a child demonstrate some personal creativity and initiative of their own. After all, Linux didn't get written because Torvald's was watching television.
slashdot.com All the news that isn't.
Which comments are those? I just looked through a number of the -1 comments, and I think all of them were (as another poster already mentioned) heavy on the use of four letter words, and really lacking in any point not already made by existing posts. I see plenty of anti-Katz messages moderated up every time he posts an article - remember that if YOU are a user you may get moderator access at some point and then moderate anti-Katz or pro-Katz messages as much as you like.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
what the hell is wrong witnh those quacks,i cxan't believe the would try and do something like this.banning television from little kids and restricting how much older kids it is crap,what about barney and seasme street kids watch those all the time and they don't show any violence.i mean i saw this news and i am 15 and i can't believe they try something like this if they start restricting then all those kids would just get more violent because of all those restrictions and i think teenagers deserve i voice in this crazy world
http://Lenny.com
so, who is *not* a sun or daugher....?
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Hey, didn't you already post this message on Freedom Fourm last week???
Should moderators really be encouraging posts like this by moderating them up? Let's try to be polite people. This sort of story is important to me and to many other slashdot readers. You have the ability to not push the "Read More" link. If you are tired of reading Katz's articlas, exercise that ability.
Have a nice day.
Books screw up your eyesight. The habitual focussing on a surface at about three feet from your face at a young age when your eyes are still growing makes it very likely that your eyes will adjust so that that is the optimal viewing distance for you. In other words, you will become short sighted.
I agree with the responsibility lying with the parents, entirely - and as far as I'm concerned this goes from such basic things as learning to look where they're going in a street (and maybe even learn to give way to others occasionally), table manners, and by school entry age, some elementary arithmetic.
In certain parts of the country here I've seen / heard of / encountered deficiences with all the above. The question is, how do we go about getting parents to *look after* their kids rather than expecting "The State" or "The Community" (even worse!) to do it all for them?
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
What's with /.? Just because Katz has a lot of his own opinions to share with us doesn't mean he shouldn't include a link to the actual policy statement. Is this, or is this not, a web-based news source?
If the above link has already been posted, please moderate the first post containing it upwards.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
Moderate this up. If anything on TV is designed to affect and change the psyche it would have to be the commercials. Before you flame quickly try to remember all the jingles you know. Did you *try* to learn them or were they forced into your subconcious. Who tells you that you aren't cool with a zipper vest? Who tells you how to act to be popular? Who f*cks with your head on a daily basis to get your money?
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.
+&x
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.
--The basis of all love is respect
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.
--The basis of all love is respect
When I was 10 and under, I used to run around a LOT outside. Being hyperactive helped a lot on that, though. Seriously, I don't know a kid under 6 who can't find something to do for 5 hours outside unless they're like my little cousin who just doesn't like the outdoors at all.
BTW, surfing is at least a little interactive. TV is nothing more than sitting down and turning off your higher brain for 30 minutes at a time, unless your watching educational or news channels. (And there's only so much Crocodile Hunter you can watch...)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I mean, there's an age for that, and there's an age when that's just unsettling to a small child. It's the violence that's the main problem.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
... i'm one of those parents who has a kid and can't spend all the time i wish with my little girl. her, mom thinks ( for reasons i dont grok ) thinks she needs another job. and because of this, who will watch and spend time with my little girl? Mr. TV thats who. Mr. TV as no moralz, values, ethics, life other then that crape that seems to me to be p0rn for little people... do i like this? no. can i change how things will become? not really, the courts willn't let me have my little girl. and nether will her mom. not that i have the time. cause for some reason that i dont grok i have to go and find a master to work for. ie find a job. i'm little better off then some slave. i must work to get food, a place to live and something to wear. but i must raise my kid too...
yea, government censorship isnt a solution, it seems to me to be government babysitting. or childraiseing. if the government really whats to help me with my kid. try lowering the cost of living. and or how meny hours i need to work. then i would have the time to spend. not that i dont spend my weekends with my little girl ( this is why i havent updated my website in an year ).
Amerikkkan society seems to try to keep our children innocent for as long as they can cause they dont what to have to say they bad parents that there lives are fucked up (we live in a SNAFU!) that there seems not to be the time to be, both a parent and work, so we work to live, and end up do a shity "job" of parenting, thus why there is a wish for govenment censorship.
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
I don't think this is fair.. I think the AAP should have *some* information on this if they are going to make such a sweeping generalization. After all there is an implicit understanding here when we are given a recommendation that the AAP have *studied* the matter, if they haven't where and why are they getting their information? The fact is what they are doing is appealing to our 'common sense'. There was an article on this (i believe in NYT specifically about the AAP rec.), Basically they had someone go around actually looking into where they got their number from. The author was basically given a lot of back pedaling and 'self evident' appeals. It is at best simplistic and at worst misleading to come up with a number such as 0 hours of television for children based on *nothing* and I think unfortunately will end up doing a disservice to parents who rely on such recommendations. (Or perhaps become less inclined to believe future AAP reports after reading the various scathing criticisms of this one by various scientists/doctors in the media). Btw just so you realize where I am coming from, I really think Katz is (and is generally) completely of base here parents should control their kidz behavior: I for one am probably *not* going to have a television and just stock up on a decent set of kidz books (or sit. myself near a good public library :)). I.E. it is my recommendation to myself and my kidz that there are just a ton of cooler, more fun things to do than watch teevee. However, I also believe that *some* amount of study should be done on the matter by ostensibly professional organizations like the AAP to lend recommendations some amount of credibility because as is they are setting themselves up for a print/general media equivalent of a massive flame :). You seem to be taking the stance that this is no longer necessary as politics/opinions taint much of medical data/info, which seems to me a bit fatalistic.
Note: The word impressionable gives me the creeps. Just like the ismising of everything to make it look important.
We are impressionable because it is an advantage.
We can learn without preparation at any time we need or want to.
That factoid Compaq is producing is precisely what we human beings are anyway. The difference is that we are born with simplistic abilities to process information. Education about media NOT BANNING is what children and adults need.
The fact is a sharp mind can learn everything there is to know studying a minimum of 100 unique objects.
Lego's are just the beginning.
If it weren't for 10 hr/day 11 month school years, 40 hr a week jobs, and 8 hrs/day sleeping you wouldn't see all this crap.
I can tell you I didn't learn what I know from classrooms, summer camps, sunday school, or "yes, sir/ma'am".
Recess, lunch periods, and the right group of people (libraries help) that's what these kids need.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Stop demonizing information.
Technology empowers impartially. Human beings have got to wake up and use it or someone else claims the territory.
Imagine if only a small percentage had cars and the rest all had to ride buses to work. You'd literally have bus robberies just like the western train robberies. The simple fact that people can drive their own vehicle keeps most dangers in check.
Or look at how tenants reclaim their neighborhoods by getting out of their damned rocking chairs and keeping the community clean.
The fact is this is a small dent in a larger problem. No there's no conspiracies. Big brother is the common man.
Leaving children in front of the TV is irresponsible but it's not the tv itself that is the problem.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Oh please swallow your pride in sweat and drop that USA's low is better than x country's high.
Our poor section is just as fucked as any other country's this isn't holy ground. It takes ideas, resources, and bright self-confident, self-sufficient people to make life comfortable.
We would have robots doing work for us allowing us to THINK, and be HUMAN.
I move my own boxes which will be AMD Athlons soon (something the majority has never heard of)
I've got Cx'es for the time being.
Of course, modern science today is built on the opposite goal.
Thanks to the net I can go from reading some source to starting a business with very little overhead.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
on.
a ls
Is Buffy valuable information? Is Baywatch valuable information? The majority of TV and movies are not informational, they are meant to entertain/distract/attract-viewers-to-see-comerci
Let's see...
1.Well I know I didn't elect you as a judge.
2. Because you have an imbecilic ignorance of symbolism.
Vampires suck blood. Oh never seen anything resembling that? Try your local slum lord. HMO's.
Werewolves, oh sure there's no such thing as a being that is aware of its problems but cannot control those problems and drives its victims to inherit its disease. Try DRUG addicts. Try irresponsible alcoholics married with children AND WITH MORE COMING.
As for Baywatch...
1. I can't believe you threw Baywatch in the same bag with Buffy.
2. You can throw Lassie, Flipper, and Barney in with Baywatch.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Reminds me of my dear mother who thinks I watch the TV Guide channel.
It never occured to her I put it there so that when, if ever, I watch TV I want to see what's on.
Same way you assume that when parents aren't home cuz they work 40hrs a week, kids are watching TV.
Nonexistant causes disproved by nonamer.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Hate to tell you, but I learned the english language from a TRS-80 programming book.
Of course, MS BASIC may have impaired my intellect.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I tend to be fearful of the overconfident cool voice of reason. Especially when it becomes pure reason, like Fascism and its constant push for progress.
I'm relatively indifferent about technology. If it empowers people impartially, except according to educated effort, hell yeah I like it.
I like Rand too. I hate her groupies. Marx would have loved Rand except she didn't buy into his brotherly love crap. It's odd considering they both hated the emotionalist garbage Hegel and his socialist friends were spewing.
And for the truly clueless, Rand was a Russian Immigrant. Let's see how long that takes to sink in.
No I think panic is ok. I'd rather see people slap themselves after they've panicked than those fools using their GPS-enabled car to drive off a bridge into the river. Or V-chipping our kids IQ's into oblivion.
My view:
Pure reason leads to fascism.
Pure emotionalism leads to communism.
Pure sensualism leads to anarchy.
So I personally do want to see people fight it out intellectually, emotionally, and sensually in slashdot.
It's called conscious learning which is quite difficult in the world we live in.
It's like Julia says in 1984: "All this flag waving, cheering, and marching is just sex gone sour. If you're happy on the inside what could you care about Two Minutes Hate, Big Brother, or the war? They can't bear to see that."
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
My university co-validictorians were twins that grew up in a house without a television or telephone.
Enouogh said.
This is a boring sig
I urge everyone to (gasp) read the policy recommendations for yourselves. As you can see, all their findings are backed by honest-to-goodness reasearch, and common sense.
Also, to all those people who whine about how this is an affront to the Holy First Amendment better check their medication, and by the way read the First Amendement and this report!
The recommendations made by the AAP are just that, and moreover are recommendations made primarily to parents and pediatricians. The only reference anywhere to involving the goverment was to encourage the goverment to expore and fund media education programs and further media research.
--Dave
These people are not a bunch of Luddites. The American Council of pediatrics doesn't want to ban TV from kids. The simple truth they are professing is that before the age of 2, it is far more important that children have HUMAN CONTACT than spend time in front of the television. Developmentally, these are critical times! If a child does not have enough human contact in these early years they will have developmental problems which CANNOT be solved in later years. What has Slashdot turned into? Is Technology the New Nation? Is anything "anti-Technology" now suddenly anti-American? Has all reason gone the way of technologicalistic dogma? --Dave
Its just in the US, schools tend to be so bad, they are trying to replace quality with quantity.
(Sept. 2 here, moved after an uproar when they planned Aug. 21)
But passing rules that are unenforcable, erodes(sp?) their respect for your authority. By forbidding TV, a resented and easily bypassed, they get used to ignoring your rules.
When teens, when you give a early curfew and they want to go out, they'll sneak out, at least more readily. It's impossible to stop your teens from doing what they want, except through mutual consent. I've heard parents say, "This isn't a democracy.". However, without the consent of the teens, the parents can't force them to do anything. (Legally)
Yawn
/. in weeks. It logs me in automatically. Even if it didn't, I would login to stand up for my opinions instead of ACs who don't put their 'name' up when they make arguments.
I haven't logged into
Or more commonly when they flame.
Scene: Rattaca, Inc.
suit #1: Larry, we've been looking at your profile, and it's quite good. We've heard a lot about your work and are interested in hiring you.
larry: DUDE! (shakes hands, exits)
suit #2: Suit #1, I took a close look at Larry's Extended Media Record. It seems he reads Slashdot a lot, and he still likes to watch dissenting shows like "World's Stupidest Politicians" and "Capitalist Pig Barbecue". I think we shouldn't hire him; this negative media could have influenced him to think for himself. He may not agree with our views.
suit #1: Gee, Suit #2, you're right! Actually, I've noticed that a lot of geeks and hackers are like that. Maybe we should hire more of those shirt-and-tie computer people from now on.
suit #2: You're right. Heck, most of those hacker types probably still think that 2+2=4.
Exeunt.
Annoy a politician today - THINK!
~ Give me 101 plastic soldiers, and I will conquer the world.
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
(darren)
"We have always been at war with east asia..."
"Rations will be increased 5%..."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I agree with what Katz is really saying. High profile groups epousing everyone to live life in a certain way is absurd and pointless.
.02
From a personal point of view....
When I was a kid, I lived overseas on a U.S. military post (as a dependent) and we had no TV. None, nada. Guess what, my reading skills zoomed, my capacity for critical thought improved. The whole community was always invloved in something, from sports, to outdoor activities, to school plays, to field trips to whatever.. The point? I didn't miss TV one bit, and when I got back to the USA, I read at a level far above my peers and my view of the world outside the US was much more sophisticated. I also aquired a love of ancient history (I lived in Turkey near Istanbul). With out TV to mollify us, we had a genuine sense of community (as Americans) and were better off for it. Seems we all communicated better, were concerned for each other more and actually participated in life.
We read various news papers from around the world to get our news, so we also aware of what was going on(vietnam.. Chicago riots..). It wasn't shangri la by any means, but it was worthwhile.
Just my
I mean, if it's OK to be gay and not OK to smoke, that sounds like right and wrong to me.
Not, perhaps, the exact ones you want, but if you study history, you notice that there have always been some differences of opinion.
Frankly, the idea that one should withhold moral judgement on another person's sexuality, considering that sexuality (as opposed to sexual behavior) is not a matter of choice, seems right to me.
And indulging a drug addiction in a way that exposes others to foul-smelling (not to mention unhealthy, and lets completely ignore the fire hazards) smoke is, by any ethics not funded by Phillip Morris, wrong.
I would certainly agree that we need to expose kids to hope and beauty, and the truth that the world is a pretty great place and life is likely to bring them delights they can't comprehend now. (And, no, sex is only one of many.) The currently fashionable level of hopelesness and cynicism is just not warranted by facts. Studying a bit of history helps.
Fear my wrath, please, fear my wrath?
Homer
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Knowing how your parents feel about something (ie. Television) is important even if "you can do it anyway without their permission."
It functions as sort of a 'moral guideline'.
Just my take on things.
...That's all it is. Because more and more households are headed by parents who both work, our governing bodies think they have to step in. I'm not certain of causality -- are our parenting skills really declining because both parents work outside the home? Or is that just a perception made into reality by the media, the religious right, the (insert favorite political interest here).
... oh never mind, too easy! But really, she is *just* a physician. She's not trained in sociolgy or psychology or even theology. Some MDs are hardly aware of up to date nutrition issues. Keep my kid healthy, give him or her the appropriate shots and look in their ears for the tell-tale signs of infection. But stay out of my computer.
... more like, "advise.") What are their standards? I have taught my son the correct terminology for various body parts. Is that okay with them? Or should I have told him he has a "wee-wee" and guided him away from any and all information pertaining to penises.
If I may make a comparison -- This is like regulating seat-belt usage or motorcycle helmet usage. I wear my seatbelt regularly, and when I rode, I suited up, including a DOT-approved helmet. But I don't necessarily think that should be something regulated.
I appreciate any and all input from my children's pediatrician. I have asked questions ranging from potty training help to discipline regarding temper tantrums. But what in god's name does my ped know about my family's technological "values." (Cool term, maybe -- techno-values.) She's a doctor, not a
For me, internet usage, television watching, game playing, is a sort of social skill that needs to be learned. Helping my kids use the 'net is like helping them ride a bike. There are big cars out there and grates on city streets and if you go too fast for your skill level, you'll get hurt. Wear your helmet, be careful.
Same for the 'net. There are sickos out there, but this is a wealth of information and opportunity. This is where mom and dad get news, this is how I communicate with friends, this is like going to the library to look up a research topic. If you're on the internet, here are the filters mom and dad have given you -- wear them, like a helmet, and be careful.
My computer is in my sun-room outside the kitchen--a well traveled area for mom, dad, and kids. It is now and will always be the only one with internet access. I don't have cable. I'm the parent, for crying out loud, and if I choose to live in Luddite-land with an antenna and no coax, then my children will have to "suffer." Although my oldest is not yet 4, we already discuss what we see on TV -- anyone who has a 4 year old should know that it's impossible NOT to discuss anything. ("Why, what, who's that, Why, again" It's exhausting.)
Who does the American Academy of Pediatrics want to "regulate?" (I'm sure they'd never use such a harsh term
Just who's in charge? What are their views on raising a daughter? I despise Barbie and don't want my daughter to have one. (I'm quite certain that's a battle I'll lose.) But maybe my pediatrician knows better.
As one of my college instructors once said regarding physicians; "Someone has to graduate in the bottom of the class."
Consigned to flames of woe.
Yo! AC! What you need to do is get a real login name and then maybe, someday, when you get big, you can moderate. Then you'll know that moderators CAN'T "SUPPRESS" POSTS.
They can be moderated down to levels past a certain threshold, but they're always *there*. No one can delete anything.
And it's "sight" in this case.
Consigned to flames of woe.
But you're here. You're reading this. And the original poster indicated that moderators could delete posts by using the word "suppress." I've heard that before from ACs. For the record, I've moderated. I read the guidelines. I could not delete posts.
/. anymore, huh. Are you a /. "old timer?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Do you like Usenet better?
You don't like
Didja know that I can post with my handle or...
Consigned to flames of woe.
Yawn.
Yup. All of society's ills would be cured if the women-folk just stayed at home. None of those two-income families *have* to work.
Yup, it's just greed making us all bad parents. Why, I'm so greedy that I use my dual income to purchase an old car with over 100,000 miles on it and I'm thinking of eating a dinner at McDonalds in a couple of weeks when I save up.
Oh anyway, I heard that if a woman studies math, her uterus falls out. Better get back home and do some dishes and laundry, girls! You *think* you're well educated, technical and contributing to the family. But you're really just raising a bunch of shootists.
Now *this* guy has a Y2K problem.
Consigned to flames of woe.
My son can count to 30, identify numbers at random, he knew his colors literally years ago and he's not yet 4. And maybe someday he'll know the difference between "your" and "you're." ;-)
Oh yeah, and he's an affectionate, creative little critter.
I'm as guilt ridden as the next. I also know I'm a good parent and I know what's good for my kids. I'm "consigned to flames of woe" for other reasons...
Consigned to flames of woe.
I don't care if it's "for the kids" or not... it's a good idea! without TV, people will have to do something unusual --- like READ and maybe even THINK. Who needs "Stone" Phiilips regurgitating government and corporate press releases at us? Or telling us how to put batteries on our smoke detectors? It's not like the mainstream press actually casts a critical eye at anything these days. The mainstream press we have may as well be government-controlled! They don't need the First Amendment, because they never confront any government anywhere with anything. But they do, arrogantly, consider themselves the Fourth Branch of Government. P.J. O'Rourke characterized the three branches of government as "Money, Television and Bullshit." Well, the press is all three of those.
... in the next frame was a television saying, "you haven't seen nothing yet!"
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!
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Background: I have a 16 month old
Past Situation: Worked at home
Current Situation: Bought a house and kept my
apartment to work at.
I had to work somewhere else because I kept on
wanting to go play with my kid. I truly do not
understand why people would rather have a TV babysit their kid when I find playing with a toddler to be highly entertaining. The TV is rarely on.... I don't get many channels and I always seem to forget to order cable. Maybe if they regulate something it should be who can create offspring.. I mean if you aren't willing to spend time with your kids why have them?
Realize that the recommendation is that kids under three not watch TV. It has nothing to say about school-aged or even preschool-aged kids (although these days, preschool starts at 2). The people saying that kids will become attracted to what they are intentionally kept away from are missing the point completely. A two year old doesn't care if he watches TV or not.
The last few years I've gotten out of the habit of watching TV. I used to only watch daily reruns of The Simpsons and Seinfeld, then only the latter, and now I'm down to one weekly British comedy on PBS ("Last of the Summer Wine") so I don't even see commercials any more.
When I do get exposed to mainstream commercials and magazine ads, I'm completely stunned at how dumb they are. The people in them are glaringly more perfect than anyone I ever see during the week. The attempts at coolness are so obviously forced and phony (I mean really, how did people ever get convinced that wearing comically oversized pants was sexy?). Pop culture advertising is scary.
I have to admit that this world is getting more screwed up by the minute. I grew up on television. I learned and still learn more from TV than I do at school. The problem with the kids of this world is not tv and technology it's these bone head teachers who only show up to get their paycheck. Though there are some good dedicate educators out there, my experience is that 90% of them could careless about the kids. Now on to the net issue. I admit I spend way too much time on the internet. The problem is that my city is so spreadout and there usually is no way for me to get to these places. I get my license in 7 days. After that I dont plan on being here that much =). Also this is summer! What are you suppose to do in summer? Relax. I have a summer job like most kids. But instead of flippin burgers or stocking pet supplies, I got a job doing websites. I make more per month than all of my friens make per year. And this is a steady income, not just a summer job. Technology is great. Because of it I can now afford to go to a nice college. To all parents/guardians out there. Let your kids watch tv. Let them use the net. Just as long as their grades don't suffer.
Have they told you yet that your kids should not stare into the sun? They told me that. Maybe that's just part of the post-Littleton paranoia that looking into the sun causes kids to become trenchcoat-wearing murderers. Or MAYBE it's because staring into the sun is JUST PLAIN BAD FOR YOU!
Why does Jon Katz have to turn everything that happens into more than it is? Somebody makes a horror film on a low budget, suddenly it's a revolution that is going to bring down the Hollywood establishment. This is the same. Physicians are saying that very small children should be kept away from TV. Has it occured to you that they might be acting in the best interests of health, and not as part of some right-wing conspiracy against original thought?
grep -ri 'should work'
Watch PBS, it's goodferya.
Oh, and keep in mind that your pastor's job directly depends on 'influencing your personal behavior' =)
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
TV, computers and digital media are just a fad. For optimal pediatric health we must return to the cave.
Marjo Wycam, Master of the Programming Arts
Typical. You're too lazy to exercise simple judgement over which articles you read. The answer isn't for you to choose what you read, no, everyone you don't like should shut up.
In case you haven't noticed this is exactly the reason we are fighting censorship in this society. People are too lazy to control their own viewing and instead want to silence those whose viewpoints anger or shock them.
Get a life, and next time - if its by Jon Katz, do us all a favor and don't click!
Jim
Oh, I see, its signal to noise. You'd want to define the difference for us? I'll decide whats signal and whats noise for me, I don't need or want your help (or the government's).
Just where do you get off telling CmdrTaco what to post? Some of us think attacks on civil liberty are worth knowing about -- whether they actually justify concern or not.
Gee, I'm sorry more people are using slashdot. Its a shame it couldn't have remained just the twenty people who knew about it the first day! Then it could be a nice insular community that agreed with itself all day, what fun!
Jim
REUTERS: The American Pediatric Association today warned all parents to keep their children away from a web site known as slashdot.org, which frequently allows the ravings of a madman known as Jon Katz. In a recent rebuttal to a post by Jon Katz, the APA pointed out that Katz didn't have a single URL or reference to any statements by it. "Katz makes his own soundbites. He has gotten to the point where he doesn't need any factual matter anymore...he makes his own stuff and people respond to it," said a prominent pediatrician Johnny D. "He writes really long and boring articles repeating the same phrases over and over. This can cause brain damage to anyone who reads it. Actually, most people read only the responses to his articles anyway. This way, the damage is minimized only to Katz, who keeps checking his own articles and getting brain-damaged every time. It's a viscious circle." "We protect our kids from Jon Katz!" said a prominent pediatrician in the Washington, DC, area, hugging her child in fear. "He writes about kids to foment fear and feedback for future articles, but he's also kinda dumb and egocentric, so it's easy to fake it". Prominent scientists pointed out that it's 45% easier to fake a Jon Katz article than a real article. "Well, you just throw in references to prominent scientists", said a prominent scientist. During repeated calls, Jon Katz denied he was stupid and said he was merely pretending to repeat the same themes over and over. "I make up themes. It's kinda like Taco Bell ads. They look the same, but they are different," said Jon Katz. --- this was not written by Jon Katz, unless he is really stupid enough to write this (umm....he isn't. OMG, I just said something good about him.) ---
She was a level-headed dance
On the road to alcohol
And I was just a soldier
On the way to Montreal
Well she pressed her chest against me
About the time the jukebox broke
Yeah, she gave a peck on the back of the neck
And these were the words she spoke:
Blow up your TV
Throw away your paper
Move to the country
Build you a home
Plant a little garden
Eat a lot of peaches
Try to find Jesus
On your own...
...John Prine, "Blow Up Your TV"
She was a level-headed dancer
On the road to alcohol
And I was just a soldier
On the way to Montreal
Well she pressed her chest against me
About the time the jukebox broke
Yeah, she gave a peck on the back of the neck
And these were the words she spoke:
Blow up your TV
Throw away your paper
Move to the country
Build you a home
Plant a little garden
Eat a lot of peaches
Try to find Jesus
On your own...
...John Prine, "Blow Up Your TV"
cheap shots 'r' us
Look folks, TV is a major part of our collective culture. This is not good or bad just true.
If you want your child to be able to live/interact in this culture they better have seen all the re-runs of damn near everything from 1955 to current era. Including the old Ad's, and old PSA's.
A list will help you get a handle on making sure they have gotten access to the full set available.
Do NOT let your child be the outcast for not having the tools to understand what every one else is talking about.
Not Joking this time.
If you tell your chioldren to not do something... that will turn into something they will despise you for, and do anyways. Especially with something as common as watching TV. We are not talking about "don't do drugs" for christ's sake.
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.
* "If it bleeds, it leads."
* Stories involving death can have a longer life. Reporters can focus the funerals, backgrounds, family histories, and whatnot of everyone involved. They can follow up by constantly pointing their cameras at the survivors. They can ask random people on the street for impressions. And so forth... it's probably a lot harder to be scouring for deep stories about, oh, the risks inherent with the current situation regarding Dagestan, or even the Mideast than it is to milk a human-interest/tragedy story 'bout some teens.
As for terrorism, it's easier to profile US teens, than, say, even an infamous figure like Abu Nidal, and it's probably far easier to milk as a story. How many people even remember what Hezbollah is, and what they did to the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or, the Tupac Amaru guerillas and the whole matter of the Japanese Embassy in Peru?
Stories about shootings allow further longevity through perpetual tie-ins w/ the gun-ban/control issue, where both sides can hurl ridiculous statements at each other and posture for the camera. The fact that there is a Presidential election coming next year only intensifies this.
Death stories have lots of "empathy" value. It's a lot harder to milk a report that consumer prices have behaved in a certain way, or that former Energy Sec'y O'Leary weakened security measures, compared to those of fatal accidents (especially those involving celebs) and so forth.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Last I checked, America was a free country. Freedom means responisbility. If parents are not are too busy to care for their own children then that is their problem. As a pernet, I monitor my childrens' activites. That is my job, my right, my resposibility. If they do something wrong, then I, as a parent answer for it until they turn 18.
We as a society should stop whining and start doing. Life is terminal - deal with it.
- We dream of the stars. Now let us return to them.
Hey, you're just saying that because it's popular!
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I think people's hatred of the one-eyed monster got the better of them.
This whole deal Katz writes about is just the next in a long series of steps that American society is taking to keep our children innocent as long as they can. Frankly, I don't understand it very well. Granted, not every child has two parents who can spend time with them and raise them well, but that doesn't mean regulations have to do the job. And what does mantaining their innocence longer achieve anyway? Blissful ignorant happiness until they are 9 years old where they learn on the school bus everything Andrew Dice Clay ever mentioned? 'Cause that's what happens. They learn it from other kids on the playground and have a much immature attitude about adult matters because they never learned it from their parents. In fact, their parents are ashamed to talk about these matters with them! What does that say to the child? So society says more regulations on TV, movies, video games - what's next? Regulating friends so you Jason from next door doesn't tell you what the Missionary Position is? Yes, I'm frustated (and I don't have kids) and I do understand how violent TV and movies can harm younger kids if they approach it the wrong way. But the solution is not censorship - not even to children!
-----------------
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
Sure, the pediatricians want kids to spend less time in front of the TV and more with their parents. This complements wonderfully their practice of doping up thousands of kids a year ritalin so their parents can ignore them.
Mark
"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."
Perhaps some of those young men in the military should consider carefully what Mr. Katz is saying.
Seastead this.
I'd like to emphazize that. if you let your kid watch too much TV you are damaging his cognitive abilities. This, BTW, has nearly no relation to the content presented.
Jon, you are in the writing profession, so give this a thought: none of your articles would be read by your TV-trained-at-age-of-2 kids. Hey, they would read the first two paragraphs, and that's it.
Schools already today have trouble dealing with kids with substantially smaller attention spans than we (yep, that's me and - even much more - you) have.
The Zapping Generation already can't concentrate on anything. Any you want make that worse ?
Sounds strange...
frost
I'd like to emphazize that. If you let your kid watch too much TV you are damaging his cognitive abilities. This, BTW, has nearly no relation to the content presented.
Jon, you are in the writing profession, so give this a thought: None of your articles would be read by your TV-trained-at-age-of-2 kids. Hey, they would read the first two paragraphs, and that's it.
Schools already today have trouble dealing with kids with substantially smaller attention spans than we (yep, that's me and - even much more - you) have.
The Zapping Generation already can't concentrate on anything. Any you want make that worse ?
Sounds strange...
frost