Posts tagged as:

television

Screens are Not a Substitute for Parental Involvement

by mark on March 23, 2010

Attempting to buy children’s affection with TVs and computer games… not a good idea.

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said increasing numbers of children failed to respect authority or consider the needs of other pupils after leading “isolated lives” at home.

…

“Often it’s the well-off middle classes that buy off their children through the computer and the TV,” she said. “That then isolates them within the home, and then they’re surprised when their child isn’t coming to school ready to learn.”

Last year, Dr Bousted raised concerns that families were leading separate lives under one roof instead of sitting down to dinner together, with youngsters spending hours watching TV alone in their rooms.

The Whole Story.

{ 0 comments }

Post image for The Seven Words Television Uses to Lure Viewers

The Seven Words Television Uses to Lure Viewers

by mark on November 15, 2009

It’s getting harder to find clean television programming that doesn’t contain offensive language, according to the New York Times in the article More Than Ever, You Can Say That on Television.

Ever since George Carlin laid out the “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” in 1972, television writers and broadcasters have been digging more deeply into the thesaurus, seizing on new ways to titillate, if not offend. And while the word “douche” is neither obscene nor profane — although this usage is certainly offensive to many people — it seems to represent the latest of broadcast television’s continuing efforts to expand the boundaries of taste, in part to stem the tide of defections by its audience to largely unregulated cable television.

I added the emphasis on that last sentence.

Rather than striving for better quality entertainment, the broadcast networks are striving to keep up with their cable counterparts by competing in the art of pushing the boundaries of bad taste. They are actively trying to offend, in order to garner more attention.

I’m all for freedom of expression — in the right context, and in the company of adults, movies and television programs can be raw and realistic.

The 10:00pm boundary should be respected so that parents can make a choice. If you don’t want your kids being subjected to offensive language and suggestive or explicit images, knowing that television is safe before 10:00 would be comforting. A firm boundary lets parents set limits. If you don’t want your kids soaking up that stuff, then you have an “off by 10:00pm” rule.

Music and radio isn’t really much better. I’ve filed complaints with the FCC in the past over local pop radio stations that my kids in middle school had been listening to. Songs with offensive lyrics and morning DJs that talked openly and joked about celebrities and sexual themes. Yeesh! I was driving my pre-teens to school for Christ’s sake!

What are your strategies for combating these offensive onslaughts?

{ 1 comment }

Post image for Report: 90% Of Waking Hours Spent Staring At Glowing Rectangles

Report: 90% Of Waking Hours Spent Staring At Glowing Rectangles

by mark on June 17, 2009

Report: 90% Of Waking Hours Spent Staring At Glowing Rectangles

The rectangles even help Americans to successfully emote, often by using a combination of visual and aural signals to indicate when laughter or tears should be produced.

“Life would be very different if it weren’t for these magical squares of light,” cultural studies professor and social critic David Ostroff typed to reporters using one of his wireless messaging rectangles. “Sry. Have 2 go. Movie about 2 strt.”

On average, Americans interact with anywhere from 53 to 107 pulsating rectangles every week. For many, however, this is simply not enough. Despite having a leisure rectangle in every bedroom, along with multiple work rectangles, a rectangle just for the children, and one or two rectangles that can do the work of several rectangles in one, many citizens admit to being dissatisfied.

If Apple really wanted to be different, they would avoid building another rectangular device and do something insanely great, like give us a glowing nonagon, or a let’s get all retro and go back to the 1950′s style glowing squircles.

Have you ever measured how much time your kids are in front of all glowing rectangles? It would be an interesting experiment. I wonder if we actually did measure all of that time with TV, computers, iPods, and video games, if it would make us more likely to impose limits.

If you do come up with measurements, post them in the comments.

For my two kids, my son exceeds my daughter by a large margin. My daughter is mostly in front of her computer, while my son does a considerable amount of TV and iPod Touch staring in addition to the time he spends on the computer and it can consume an unhealthy amount of time.

{ 3 comments }

The Only Thing We Have to Fear…

by mark on February 24, 2009

“Your kids may be in danger!” says the news media. They know fear gets people’s attention; attention let’s them sell advertising. The truth may just be less attention-grabbing.

Is the Internet a dangerous place where evil lurks and kids are at risk? Do we need to worry?

No. Probably not. Recent findings from a task force created by 49 state attorneys general suggests that parents can relax.

Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown. There is no significant problem after all according to the report.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal criticizes the report and insists that “Children are solicited every day online. Some fall prey and the results are tragic. That harsh reality defies the statistical academic research underlying the report.”

Actually, most of the children are being solicited online by other children, and most children that get involved with adults online are actively pursuing such activity. Statistics don’t always tell the whole story and the fear mongers will withhold details if it doesn’t serve their purpose.

The whole report can be found here: Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies.

Porn and violence have become more prevelent in various media, yet teens are having less sex and there is less real violence. Is there a relationship there? Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds asks, are porn and violence good for America’s children? Then he says:

Maybe the porn, and the videogames, provided catharsis, serving as substitutes for the real thing. Maybe. And maybe there’s no connection at all. (Or maybe it’s a different one — research indicates that teenagers, though safer and healthier, are also fatter — so perhaps the other improvements are the result of teens sitting around looking at porn and videogames until they’re too out-of-shape and unattractive for the real thing…) Most likely, the lesson is that — once again — correlation isn’t causation, despite policy entrepreneurs’ efforts to claim otherwise.

In another report, video games do not lead to violence.

If we can trust these reports, then kids are not at increased risk of physical harm. Good! How about other detrimental psychological effects? Does it affect their brains? They’re social skills? Will it give them ADD?

Psychologist Dr. Helen Smith asks, Do social websites harm children’s brains? Helen points to the news about a neuroscientist, Susan Greenfield, who refers to sites like Facebook, Twitter and the like and says, “My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment…”

Wait a minute… haven’t kids of all ages, over the past century, been attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights? Don’t all teenagers have small attention spans and live for the moment? That’s a safe bet.

But let us not be so quick to be entirely dismissive. Parents are witnesses to their kids growing up around 24/7 cartoon cable channels, Internet access, Facebook, YouTube, cell phones, and instant messaging. Many have seen that when they don’t impose limits, hell breaks loose. Raising teenagers regardless of technology is one big exercise in imposing limits.

So what’s a parent to do in the absense of a definitive study that gives us clear results on if technology is beneficial or detrimental? Set limits, of course. Make sure the kids are finding time to do all of the other things that kids should be doing. Everything in moderation. Take everything the media tells you with a grain of salt and trust your parental instincts.

Here is a smattering of additional links that I’ve collected over the past few months that I want to share, but don’t feel like addressing individually right now. Enjoy.

Digital Overload Is Frying Our Brains

More ‘Screen Time’ Linked to Poor Fitness in Girls

How the Internet Damages Our Culture

Culture Makes the Internet Cruder, Not the Other Way Around

Study links TV and depression

What are your thoughts on all of this?

{ 1 comment }

Tech Makes Us Dumber… Smarter… Dumber… Smarter…

by Mark on September 23, 2008

…or technology makes our lives better… worse… better… worse…

The recent post on television made a point that people will disagree until the cows come home about if television is good or bad. Or if it makes us smarter or dumber. But it’s not about the technology. It’s about how the technology is used. Television can bring educational material to you that you just can’t get in your local schools. That’s fantastic. But you can also get 24/7, inane Disney channel programming that can sap the life out of your family and reduce the kids to zombies who come back alive and freak out when you yank the plug. That’s horrible.

People continue to argue for one side or the other of that debate as if devices can change you, and as if there is one right answer.

Perhaps it’s not the devices (TV, computers, video games, cell phones) that actually change people. Maybe those devices merely accentuate or exacerbate a person’s preexisting tendencies to be distracted, waste time, and avoid doing other important and more productive things. If the person’s tendencies are towards being responsible and being focused on the right things, then they will make good use of the device.

A laptop, in the hands of an intelligent, motivated, focused person will allow the person to do wonders as they work towards goals. The same laptop in the hands of an unmotivated slacker that suffers from ADD will probably only get used playing online games, watching YouTube videos, and IMing their friends all day long.

In the end, they’re just tools to be used, and then can be used positively or negatively. Does it make sense to blame the tool for the outcome?

{ 2 comments }

Like You Really Need More Evidence

by Mark on September 20, 2008

Godfrey Reggio’s, Evidence.

The blank, comatose look. I’ve seen it myself. You can easily witness it too. Just watch your kids watching TV. Give them a few minutes to settle into it. It’s like watching a person go under hypnosis. I know that feeling too. I used to watch more TV myself years ago, even as an adult.

The debate always seems to be raging if television is good or bad for you and your family. What is it that people are looking for as proof? Dead brain cells? Some measure in the drop in intelligence that can be correlated with television watching? Given the number of variables that influences a persons cognitive ability, I don’t know that we could ever isolate television as an influence.

I certainly don’t want to subject my kids to being part of that study at any rate.

Stephen Dubner (Freakonomics co-author) blogged yesterday about What TV Does to You, with an image of a kid silhouetted against a glowing TV.

I am inclined to agree with him that educational TV has benefits. I like the technology. But the average American isn’t watching over 4.5 hours of educational TV daily. Most of them are watching crap. And most kids who spend hours in front of the TV are watching Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and Cartoon Network.

The highlight of Dubner’s post is this excerpt which he took from a friends book:

That last year in New Haven, I could go out to friends’ houses more or less when I wanted to and watch television as often as I liked, only to find that now I agreed with my mother about TV. I had begun not to like what happened to me when I watched.

Given the chance, I stared like a guppy, immobilized for hours in somebody’s den on an increasingly itchy wall-to-wall carpet, intent on things I didn’t even enjoy, passive and yet also anxious, too aware of how soon the hour would be up when the little world in front of me would evaporate and I’d have nothing left but an uneasy regret and another new show beginning that I couldn’t get up and walk away from.

It was so easy not to resist because television was doing all the work for me, making all the decisions. That was especially true, I noticed, when I watched baseball. The field became reduced to the fragment that fit on the screen, minimizing the game into a fraction of itself, implying that everything happening off-camera was irrelevant. The players were minimized as well, because they did not exist unless the ball came their way. Then the lens swooped into their faces and there was too much of them — which weirdly created distance.

This nails it. I’ve had the same feelings. After turning off the TV after being sucked into a few hours of aimless channel surfing, I would think to myself, “Wow. I just wasted a few hours.” Things seemed interesting at first, and I would land on a channel, watch for a bit, move on to another channel. Maybe I did get sucked into something for a full hour. But when it was over, I thought, “That was lame.” I would recognize that I felt a bit drained. I bit disappointed that I wasted that time. I finally realized this and just about gave up TV. I still maintain a Netflix account and will watch the occasional movie. I still watch educational shows with my kids. But I still have to limit and sometimes pry my son off of Nickelodeon, Disney and Cartoon Network.

I still tell him that it’s going to shrink his brain. I don’t care what the researchers say on this one. I know it in my gut. I know what TV can do to a person in the short term if they watch low quality programming, so-called entertainment, or sit in front of it for too long even watching the better programming.

Instead of debating good or bad, maybe all we really need to do is ask ourselves, “Is there something my kid can be doing for these one or two hours that would be much better for them than watching TV?”

{ 2 comments }