tv

[Guest guest]

Watch This

Liberals need to tune in and help parents reshape children's

relationship with TV.

By Greg Anrig

Web Exclusive: 04.21.05

 

Print Friendly | Email Article

 

A Wall Street Journal op-ed last week headlined "Why The Democrats

Are Losing The Culture Wars" by Dan Gerstein, the former communications

director for Senator Joe Lieberman, set the progressive blogosphere abuzz over

the extent to which liberals should express concern about the impact on

children of the entertainment industry's output. Ed Kilgore, Amy Sullivan, and

Matthew Yglesias seemed to reach something of a consensus in agreeing that kids

are indeed exposed to lots of media garbage that can't be good for them, and

may be bad in a variety of ways. Kilgore laid out the most specific plan of

action, arguing that progressive leaders should voice their displeasure with

the nature of much media content, push for more research into how children are

affected, and explore mechanisms like ratings systems that would help to guide

concerned parents.

 

All of that will probably be useful in improving the favorability

ratings of liberals, though it's hard to say how much. But going beyond earning

brownie points to making actual progress in addressing this genuine problem in

American society will require grappling with a politically precarious reality:

Most parents are enablers for the entertainment industry and advertisers in

serving mind-altering electronic cocktails to their children.

 

Across the income spectrum, parents and caregivers use television

as a cheap babysitter. Kaiser Family Foundation surveys show that 68 percent of

children 8 and older have a TV in their bedroom, as do 36 percent of children 6

and under. Presumably, that privacy enables those kids to surf, without

supervision, from soaps to MTV to Jerry Springer to the FOX prime-time lineup

to whatever else they find to be stimulating enough to stop and soak in. The

average American child between 8 and 18 spends more than three hours a day

watching TV -- more than twice that after adding other electronic media like CD

players, videos, computers, etc. -- compared with 43 minutes reading.

 

The same Kaiser surveys show that parents worry about what their

kids are absorbing. Sixty-three percent say they are "very concerned" that

children are being exposed to too much inappropriate content in entertainment

media, and another 26 percent are "somewhat concerned." Television is

decisively considered to be the media source of greatest concern, and sexual

content runs slightly ahead of violence as a cause of worry. Yet the latest

Kaiser report states, "Despite concerns that parents often express about the

impact of media on their children, as well as about the sheer number of hours

kids seem to spend with media, the kids themselves do not report much parental

effort to monitor or curb their media consumption."

 

So why the huge gulf between what the majority of parents think

about the media, particularly TV, and the extent to which many of those same

parents readily allow their kids to watch the stuff? It's not a hard question

to answer. Every hour that a child sits transfixed in front of a television,

GameBoy, movie screen, or computer makes the challenging workday of a parent or

caregiver more manageable and less demanding. Without those reliably low-stress

ways of occupying kids, depending on their age and demeanor, adults in charge

end up having to do a lot more planning, reading, physical activities,

cajoling, refereeing, cleaning, organizing, arguing, schlepping, and so on.

Throw in the pressure that children apply when they are deprived of amenities

and privileges that their peers enjoy and it's no wonder that most parents do

little to stand in the way of the entertainment and advertising industries'

access to their children. (In my own home, our 9-year-old twins and 4-year-old

son know that I am much easier to manipulate into flicking on the tube --

usually to watch the Food Channel -- than my resolute wife.)

 

For all kinds of reasons, new and improved ratings systems wouldn't

make much of a difference. Parents who try to limit or at least supervise what

their children watch can already pretty easily distinguish programming that

they consider to be inappropriate for their children from what they deem to be

relatively harmless. But more fundamentally, just about anything a child does

short of hanging out on a street corner with a gang is going to be better for

his or her development than squatting for hours a day in front of the TV. The

kinds of shows I watched regularly during my childhood in the 1970s -- Three

Stooges shorts, The Match Game (in which the most popular response to roughly

every other question was "boobs"), professional wrestling -- would undoubtedly

receive the seal of approval from any new system of standards and practices.

But today I really wish I could recover the brain cells that the tube vaporized

during that era. The harm isn't just in the content of particular shows, or

even the more insidious ads; it's in the vast quantity of time squandered on a

passive, unproductive ritual over the course of a child's formative years.

 

A lot of research has been conducted that associates higher levels

of television viewing by children with outcomes like poorer performance in

school, lower literacy skills, higher rates of obesity, increased levels of

aggressiveness, and so on. That research is alarming, and a lot more is needed

to more fully understand how TV and other media affect kids. But so far, the

abundant evidence shows pretty decisively that parents are right to be

concerned about what their children are watching. Still, that knowledge hasn't

made any discernable dent in the extent to which kids have ready access at home

to TV, often unsupervised. Smoking causes cancer, seat belts save lives, and

too much TV is bad for kids -- we know those things already, and more research

will only reinforce what most people understand intellectually and viscerally.

The challenge is to change deeply ingrained behavior, and orating on the stump

about Hollywood without saying anything constructive about household habits

won't make much of a difference.

 

The only strategy with a real prayer of working would be to emulate

as much as possible the public-education campaigns that, over an extended

period of time, helped to reduce smoking and increase seat-belt use. The task

is even harder in this case: Television viewing isn't a matter of life and

death, public-policy tools like cigarette taxes and mandatory seat-belt

requirements aren't in the realm of possibility, and TV networks could be

expected to resist advertising suggesting that it's not a good idea to help

children become hooked on their product.

 

Politics is another big problem. If progressive leaders say

anything that can be remotely interpreted as critical of parents, it would

reinforce a stereotype that Howard Dean recently warned against: that of

liberals as know-it-alls who talk down to average citizens. That would be

especially hypocritical for politicians of any stripe, whose jobs by their

nature tend to relegate them to absentee relationships with their children.

 

But therein may lie the beginning of a response that will resonate

with the public. Parenting is a job that, perhaps more than any other, nurtures

a sense of inadequacy. Maybe it would be constructive for more politicians with

kids to talk in specific ways about how they, their spouses, and -- no use

pretending -- their paid caregivers find raising children to be difficult. And

maybe they could spend some of that time talking about how seductive the

television is in making that challenge a little easier day in and day out.

Further, if appropriate, they could talk about anything they may have done in

their own household to reduce their dependence on that crutch -- paying closer

attention to what their children are watching, rejecting pleas for a television

in the bedroom, muting advertisements, initiating other activities to fill time

once devoted to the tube, and so on.

 

Sharing such stories would convey a sense of empathy that parents

could relate to; get them to at least think twice about the access to TV that

they provide at home; and maybe, over time, fundamentally transform the nature

of the debate from one in which the entertainment and advertising industries

are to blame to one in which parents reassert greater control in nurturing the

development of their own children. Dean himself got a lot of mileage from the

phrase, "You have the power," and parents really do have the power to reduce

the extent to which the media influence their children (even if they have to do

so through their instructions to caregivers). Support for other progressive

causes, like better child care and after-school programs, could be integrated

with a new message about how they help promote values by enabling parents to

keep their kids away from the TV. Progressive leaders can create momentum,

which really should be bipartisan, in creating institutions akin to the

Partnership for a Drug-Free America and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which

would help convey to parents that their kids will do better in school -- and in

life -- if they don't get hooked on television. We can do better than Dan

Quayle.

 

Greg Anrig Jr. is vice president of The Century Foundation and

co-editor of Social Security: Beyond the Basics.

 

2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation:

Greg Anrig, "Watch This", The American Prospect Online, Apr 21, 2005. This

article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any

kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about

permissions to permissions (AT) prospect (DOT) org.