In "The Loss of Innocence" by James P. Steyer, the argument is made that children are corrupted by television.
In the article "Good news, bad news for tube-watching tots:
When it comes to screen time, experts say content is key" by The Associated Press, the AP claims that there are two primary schools of thought: 1. "The claims vary widely, from proponents who say TV and baby software can help kids learn to criticisms that they steal crucial time once spent playing and reading, or even causes attention disorders." And 2. "The reality: There is little clear data on how TV affects child development at any age, much less before age 2 — and even less research on computers for tots, video games and other now-pervasive electronic media."
Which side does Steyer fall on? What is his point of view? How does he support it? Which side do you fall on? Why?
Remember in this post to make specific references to the Steyer essay. Points will be deducted for those who fail to do so.
The entire "Good News, bad news" article can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12806594/
51 comments:
James Steyer writes from a parent’s POV (advice opinion) and falls into the Associated Press’ claim 1 listed above. His POV states parents must act as the first line of defense regarding what their children should watch and have the government and media acknowledge how TV shows can have a long time effect on children. He supports his POV by referencing a recent two-week survey completed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation where in appropriate screens were aired in the TV shows during the family hour.
I agree with James Steyer that TV executives will do anything to boost their network rating. Violence, sex and reality TV shows result in high consumer participation/polls. Parents must take responsibility and regulate what children are exposed to. A child’s innocence needs to be protected from all the bad (inappropriate) things. We must nurture them so they can enjoy the simple things in life and grow up to become respectable, compassionate adults. Otherwise, the end results could affect the child’s future.
I found a couple sites regarding this subject: Media and its affects on children. The first article expresses a general public sentiment.
•Parents have an eye on kids' media usage: study
http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN2021277820070621
•Media and Child Health
www.cmch.tv
In Steyer's essay: "The Loss Of Innocence", his point of view resides with the first claim noted by the Associated Press. He claims that children are exposed to an overwhelming amount of unhealthy media daily. In his opinion, children are being fed messages that have an impact on their development.
In order to bolster his position, he points to a recent survey conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser foundation. The survey reflected that a large percentage of televised broadcasting is sexually explicit, and therefore not appropriate for children.
As one who partakes in the media's presentation of culture daily, I agree with Steyer's position whole-heartedly. In my opinion, the level to which we are all exposed to the sexually suggestive material in the media is ridiculous and offensive. I can barely make sense of it myself. How can children be expected to decipher these types of messages, and incorporate them effectively into their learning each day?
How is it that even a roll of paper towels, or a tube of toothpaste can be advertised with sexual overtones? I monitor my intake of the media on a daily basis because I too am affected by what is presented out there each day. My development and understanding of the world around me is shaped by what I see and hear to a large extent.
If I was a parent, my children would be watched closely regarding the issues mentioned above. As an adult, I feel that too much of anything is not good; this includes mass media.
Hi Alestri,
What I found interesting about the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation reference, was that it is very familiar and would seem to be reputable source, but the information they were trying to validate seemed outside of the realm of verifibility. Yet all of the stats in the article seemed impossible to prove. Great response.
How relevant is Steyers comments today? This article was written a while ago, in what ways have his assertions been actualized? Or have they been?
The essay “Loss of Innocence” by James P. Steyer, starts out with the author, informing the audience that he has three children and thereby building credibility for himself as a parent. This is an effort to have the audience believe that he is an expert on children and therefore we, the audience, should accept his opinion on this subject.
I believe Steyer’s when he states that the parents have the major responsibility in this problem, which should be strictly watched. If the parents are monitoring what the children are watching and not allowing the children to watch what is clearly adult material, much of this problem would be solved as stated by Steyers. Even though there are great sources cited in the “Loss of Innocence”, i.e. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Neil Postman of New York University, I think that this essay and the article, “Good News, Bad News for Tube-Watching Tots”, making the that television damages and infants and youth cannot be substantiated for children under 2 years of age, and the story is presented as proven facts, by using the University of Massachusetts psychologist Daniel Anderson stating that, “Sesame Street and “Blue Clues does enhance cognitive development”, but “other kinds of TV or too much TV may interfere with cognitive development,” he warned. This statement is his expert opinion and based on what, we do not know and he further states “most immediately, we need to know the effects of very early media exposure.” Here it shows that when parents choose proper television for their children and monitor the amount of time spent the results usually are positive.
Even though there are some credible sources listed in the articles, I feel that this article and essay had several fallacies working within them. I believe both appealed with fear to persuade the audience, I also believe since it is a “buzz” topic that it has a bandwagon appeal to get those who are on the fence to come over to their side.
I believe in general that all things should be done in moderation including the watching of television and for parents it is totally their responsibility to control what is being watched and how much. What I found interesting a few years ago was that Prime Time disappeared. This was a time between 7pm and 9pm when all shows were “G” rated and the parent would have no fear of letting even the little ones sit and watch. Now it has taken the low road and I do not believe children should be exposed to so much sex and violence, it could essentially make them numb to it and in the society we live in we do not want that behavior to become the norm.
One more thing, when I was coming up, attention disorders were handled by my mother and a belt and strict discipline.
http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/may04/npr_may04_excessiveTV.html
I forgot my website. Here as in many of the sites I have visited use terms like "watching too much television is IMPLICATED in increased violent behavior, it seems that the experts here are using loaded language to make their point.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
This page on fallacies is super interesting because the search information is on atheism and when you get to the beginning of the page it looks very official and inconspicious, when really they are trying to persuade you to accept their atheism. Very interesting.
I enjoyed reading Loss of Innocence by John Steyers and Good News, Bad News by the AP website. Steyers wrote about the negative effects on children being exposed to television programs that had negative content. Good News, Bad News unveiled the positive and negative effects from watching television. After reading both articles I believe that Steyers falls on the side that television steals crucial time and creates disorders.
Steyers viewpoint is that the media is exposing children under pre-school age to mature adult theme shows that include violence and sex. The possible outcome is children can grow up with a limited education or a violent temper. Steyers is also advising parents to become responsible and monitor there children’s television programs
There are several situations that Steyers uses to support his viewpoint. The first is comparing the 1960’s television programming from when he grew up to the present times programming. In the 1960’s, television did not use different languages, messages or images like the ones seen in today’s everyday programs (188). An example of this is children exposed to television programs and commercials featuring sexual themes. This can be seen in various commercials for condoms and male enhancement medications which are geared towards adults. The commercials are shown all hours of the day on television. A Kaiser survey concluded that sexual adult content was able to be seen by viewers in more than two-thirds of the shows during what was once called family hour (188). I can remember when I was a child around 7:00-9:00pm watching family oriented shows like The Muppets, The Carol Burnett Show, and The Mandrel Sisters Show with my family and it was a nice atmosphere. Today, I notice that children watch shows like 24, Family Guy, and Alias which have adult themes such as violence and sexual humor. Some kids do not have adult supervision during these and any other televised shows and they should. These shows are very different from the shows I grew up watching. The Good news, Bad news article also has some points to backup Steyers viewpoint as well. Rachel Barr states, ” no adult TV when youngsters are in the room” (Good News, Bad News website). This is a good point. Just shut the TV off when adult content shows come on.
I personally fall on the side that television should be monitored when children watch. The reason is that my children are exposed to the television at various locations. They are not always supervised, it just depends if they are home or are at one of the grandparent’s house. It does not help that my in-law does not understand English, nor can she see well. The solution is to make sure children only watch appropriate, and age related programs. There should be no sexual content, explicit language, and/or violence. Everyone involved in a child’s care (parent and caregivers) should come to a mutual agreement as to who, what, when, and where a child may watch television. Setting a time limit to watch television is also important as it will help children to know that once TV tine is over it is time to move on to another activity. This keeps them from being glued to the TV for hours. It will also help with their “telling time” skills.
Steyers comments are still relevant today. His assertions have been actualized because when I was young the images I seen on TV was not as gruesome as there are today. Today everything is exhibited with detailed photographic images of soldiers getting shot, bombs exploding, car wrecks, bloody wrestling fights, and the list goes on and on. In these days, if the images are not eye catching no will watch. Images need to almost be controversial and this can have a bad effect on a young child.
Hi L.Sayson
I really agree with what you said about the media adding sex to boost there ratings. The shows now on cable like Hugh Heffner’s Girls are a ratings booster. The show is lame with three girls battling for the attention of Hugh. However it gets a lot of ratings due to the sexual content of the show. I do have to monitor and make sure my son doesn’t watch this by mistake. Who knows what this show can do to him mentally.
Ms. Wanzo,
In my view, Steyer's assertions have come to pass. For instance, there are so many ways in which children are exposed to the whims of media representation. In the article "Good News, Bad News" the comments run the gamut between those arguing that some television viewing is fine, while others believe it may pose a problem with a child's development.
From where I sit, I feel that any kind of violence should be eliminated from children's TV viewing. I believe it could easily affect a child's developement; overtly and covertly. The affects may show up immediately or they may manifest years later. I also know there is only so much that can be done as violence is around all of us a lot of the time.
Today, the amount of media technology one can purchase is off the charts. For instance, television has only been around for the last fifty years or so, and it was once a piece of equipment that families could utilize and enjoy together. Now, in some cases, it has become a way to avoid contact with one another and offer distraction from other kinds of activity.
Having said that, I do know that parents (at times) have no other refuge but to turn on a program for their kids to watch. At the same time, I feel it is essential that there be a construct of supervision happening simultaneously. There is so much out of our control, but this is an area that one could attempt to monitor with some regularity.
Since we are talking about media; over the years there has been news coverage regarding violence and various hate crimes. There has been speculation in some of these stories that perhaps the idea initially came from a video game or program on television. I believe there could be validity in the speculation mentioned above, and that some of what is available to the youth today may be harmful and even dangerous. I will do some related research on this to see if I can find the exact news coverage I am referencing.
In the opening of "Loss of Innocence", the writer Marie Winn in reference to the topic of TV, used the terms: "The Plug-in Drug." This resonates with me because I do believe TV has an anaesthetic quality about it overall. One can sit in front of the television and simply tune out every detail around them, almost as though nothing else exists.
I believe there is great potential for active participation in what children consume, and what they are exposed to is a part of their daily nutrition.
When I walk out into the street, and I observe what is around me, I know some of what I see is a replication of what is presented throughout the myriad of media.
Yes, in my opinion, Steyer's words are relevant. Everything has changed dramatically since the 1970s, and I think his focus on this subject matter is one of importance. I was a teen during that time period, and I was not exposed to the level of violent or sexual imagery there is today.
Perhaps what it took 30 years ago for a parent to safeguard their children in this area of media exposure was not nearly as challenging as it is now? I will talk with an elderly friend of mine and see if she can give me her thoughts on the last five decades regarding these specific issues.
Thank you,
Lisa
Steyer falls on the side that says that television steals crucial time that was once spent playing and reading. Steyers point of view is that children are becoming corrupted by the media and television. That parents can no longer control what their children learn about and when. He supports his claim by stating that more than 2/3 of the shows aired during family hour contain sexual content inappropriate for kids. He also supports his claim by stating that children are exposed to thousands of references to sex in movies, ads, magazines, music and radio shows. Also, he states that media interests put our children at risk, and that the end result is raising generations desensitized to violence, reckless sex, and are exploited from their early years. Steyeris right. On television, everything has become sexual. They sell sex in almost every ad a person sees, and portray women in a down grading manner. Children soak up things like a sponge. Their minds are vulnerable. Children's time is being taken away from and they are not learning as much as they use to. They spend more time watching television than playing or educating themselves.
Shawn,
I can relate to you what you wrote where the television was used as a tool to bring the family together to enjoy family shows. When I was young, TV shows were forbidden to show two people sharing a bed. An example is the TV show ‘I Love Lucy’.
In college, I took a course where we found that sex was a subliminal message in ads in magazines and posters. The advertisement showed that Ritz crackers had the word ‘sex’ printed on them and the Disney Movie ‘The Little Mermaid’ had a picture of a penis hidden as part of the castle. Today, advertisers are very direct. No hidden messages.
I monitored the TV shows my son watched and tried to protect him from all the inappropriate viewing. There was a time where I felt he was watching too much cartoons and I stopped cable. We spent a lot of time playing board games especially word games. In fact, when the entire family gets together, we play family games or we go for a walk together. This was the things we did when I was growing up with my siblings.
I believe that you can now place parental controls on the TV programs to avoid children from watching shows you feel are inappropriate.
Hi Shawn,
Your post resonated with me because I remember the days when I watched The Carol Burnett Show, and Andy Griffith with my family. All we needed on a Friday night was a bag of penny candy and a TV with good reception; we were happy.
Now it seems to me that life has become so much more complicated. Of course, this has a lot to do with how I perceive it at any given time. I miss the days when a dollar, an afghan across our laps, and a warm house brought comfort and laughter.
Since I am older and hopefully a little wiser, I can still see joy in the simple things. I pray that I do not worry myself into corners. I pray that I remember how beautiful life is each day. I know that the difficult issues we are discussing in this blog have their purpose, and they are truly worth our examination.
Thanks,
Lisa
James P.Steyer in his journal tittled "Loss of Innocence" illustrates how "tube watching" nagetively affect kids under 2 years of age.He suport his argument by citing University of Massachusetts Psychologist,Daniel Anderson as saying, "Television is designed to enhance cognitive development,but other kinds of Tv or too much TV may interfere with cognitive development".Secondly, his argument gained support as he stated that,American Academy of Pediatric conclude that, "children under 2 shouldn't watch Tv at all,and that older kids should watch no more than two hours a day." Again, his reference to Kiaser family foundation is another plus to his argument, which discovered in 2003 that, "two-thirds of children under 2 were watching TV an hour a day plus spending almost another hour on computer or video".In effect,all the corelation on Kids and TV suggests that it has long term effect on Kids if the amount of time spent on programs are not controled .Actually, references in his work are opinions or recomendations from experts who must have studied cases related to kids and Tv programs before reaching to similar conclusion like that of Steyer.
It's anoying, that the issue has become more problematic now the media system is promoting sex,violence,and crime in other to market their products to our young generation.In fact,Steyer's article stands as a future testimony.Because a lot of people still don't reason with him ,though is just of recent some parents realized that Steyer's claim is valid.
Ms.Wanzo,I think Steyer's comment is now obvious to the parents.Nowadays, we see changes in the trend.At least parents are conscious about the of programs their Kids chose. They determine what to watch on the screen, and when to watch these TV programs.Unlike before, the whole idea about Kids and Tv is that TV is educative as a great tool for cognitive learning.
I think the author fall on thought 1, which is "The claims vary widely, from proponents who say TV and baby software can help kids learn to criticisms that they steal crucial time once spent playing and reading, or even causes attention disorders." It's based on the article about from the languages, messages, and images the exceed of the most outrageous forms of pop culture we experienced. And kids were routinely protected from information that they wew not yet ready to understand, which mean is Kids can learn anything from the television, including voilence, behavior, attitudes or languages...... One day Kids that didn't approached those information, and they still protected.
The author point of view is pretty obvious, which is from now on to protected our kids. First, parents should take the responsibility to their childs to get away from the television in certain programs and times. Second, the government officals should regulate the behalf of public interest, including the commercial because commercial is beyond reproach.
I agree with James Steyer that about the responsilbility. In our next generation, we should desensitized to violence, overexposed to reckless sex, and commercially exploited to our childs in their earliest years. Because in our society now, we have so many examples that about the kids. For examples, the eleven years old girls arrested for drunk driving. In my age of eleven, I am still learning Algebra, and don't know what Alcohol taste like and don't even know how to start the car engine up. And those things where this girl learn from, Media? So, the loss of innocence at too early an age is perhaps the highest price that American kids pay in this new media environment.
Hello - L. Sayson
I agree with you when you agree with the author, so we have the same agreement, which is "TV executives will do anything to boost their network rating. Violence, sex and reality TV shows result in high consumer participation/polls. Parents must take responsibility and regulate what children are exposed to. A child’s innocence needs to be protected from all the bad (inappropriate) things." It's definitely right for about the responsibility, since we decided to give birth to our childs then we should the the whole responsibility to them, including their future, behavior, attitudes, languages, anything that we can control but they can feel understand and they must accept our lesson.
Obviously, James P. Steyer falls on the side that “ The claim vary widely, from proponents who say TV and baby software can help kids learn to criticisms that they steal crucial time one spent playing and reading, or even causes attention disorders.”(Good New, bad news for tube –watching tots.” He points out the argument about the kids are affected by mass-media oppositely.
As a father of three children, he gets years experience about how to raise a child, so he has a creditable supporter for him argument. He compares the difference of media from pass to nowadays, as he says that “I’m hardly a prude, having grown up in the “free love” era of the late 1960s and 1970s, but I am deeply troubled by this aspect of today’s media culture. (188)” When he was a child, parents could control what their child learn. But the situation is over-control now. Moreover, he uses survey that from “Kaiser Family Foundation” to support his viewpoint that “Kids were routinely protected from information that they were not yet ready to understand (188)”. In nowadays, there are too much messages, language and images that contained sexual and violence contents combine in the media for child to understand, also too early.
Indeed, looking over all the media, including TV, computers, video games and movies, there are a lot of programs and products which contain sexual and violence messages that impact on the children negatively.According to Steyer says, that “the loss of innocence at too early an age is perhaps the highest price that American kids pay in this new media environment.” The kids can observe and learn everything easy and quick without thinking. Their behavior and consciousness are always affected by the environment that closes to them everyday. The children will loss the significant element in childhood by influencing of media days by days.
Although the “Loss of Innocence” was written long times ago, Steyer’s comments are still relevant today. When we look at the children behavior now, we would how “knowledgeable” they are. They know anything about drug, sexual and violence that we don’t know in same age. Furthermore, as parents and adults, we need to take responsibility to protect next generation away from media’s affection. “That innocence is priceless. (188)” I hope that we will have pure and clear environment for our innocent children.
Hi Alestri,
As similar with you, if I was a parent I would select and control the media for my child very carefully and closely. After reading those articles and blogs, I realize that we can do something for our next generation. Educating to ourselves; being aware about all the media, especially some particular for kid; using more time to company with kids when they watch TV. We could find the ways to defense the mass media even thought that is so much need to do.
Shawn Hughes, I agree with you that parents should monitor what their children watch. However, even childrens programs make sexual references and play it off as a joke. There is no real way to totally protect children. We can only talk to our children and make them aware of sexuality so that they are not oblivious to it. The internet is a big threat to children because there is no limit to what can be posted there. So, the children need to be informed so that they will be prepared to deal with what ever they encounter.
James Steyer’s view point is that the current content of television is detrimental to the mental and behavioral growth of children.
Steyer supports his claim by including in his message the results of a survey conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which indicates that over 2/3s of the T.V. shows aired exposed young children to inappropriate sexual content during peek viewing hours for families. (188). Although, the survey wasn’t much support, Steyer makes an interesting argument about the sexual content in all media outlets today, especially cable television.
In the short excerpt from Steyer’s book, we don’t see much of a fair argument as far as what the media has done that is good and how it can do better by children and their patents. However, I’m glad he does place some of the blame on parents; “Should parents be the first line of defense? Absolutely.” Sharing the responsibility with the parents and not only the media helped his argument to be more plausible. (188).
According to Mayfield’s footnote on page 188 Steyer’s copyright date was in 2002. I am not sure how much has changed in the content of television since 2002 if there has been any at all. I know that Steyer mentioned that the survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation was based on broadcast TV not cable. When I was growing up we didn’t have cable, I didn’t get cable until about 2003/2004. I don’t have children so I really don’t pay very close attention to what is inappropriate for children as much as I probably would if I had children; but there is a huge difference between what’s shown on cable and what shown on regular TV.
I must agree with Steyer when he stated “…the media has some serious responsibility…when they are using publicly owned airwaves to make billions of dollars.” (188) There aren’t many other reasons to have so much sexual content in music videos, commercials, situation comedies, some cartoons, and other things than to make money. However, there are some legitimate reasons to have some sexual content during certain time periods and situations where it could be acceptable.
Sometimes it seems as though the Federal Communications Commission doesn’t make enough of an effort to monitor what times are appropriate for adult content and when not or they just don’t care. For instance, about a year ago I was watching TV with a friend and her three children. It was either late afternoon or early evening, I believe it was a movie or something on a cable channel; not a premium channel like HBO or Showtime. The movie went off for a commercial break. The commercial began with a young couple in bar/nightclub walking into the restroom. They both entered the stall together and shortly after the female began to make moaning sounds; it appeared as though they were having major mad crazy sex. My friend and I looked at each other in disbelief of course we turned from it immediately, but the damage was done. Her thirteen year old son was laughing hysterically, her seven year old daughter’s mouth dropped open in shock and her sixteen year old daughter shook her head and walked out of the room. My friend and I were like, what the heck was that? Although we didn’t see anything the implication was enough to ruin the peaceful mood. I felt bad for the seven year old she didn’t know how react, the sixteen year old was so uncomfortable she left the room. Talk about disequilibrium.
Later I saw the commercial in its entirety and it was a commercial about safe sex awareness and not to drink and do stupid things. The Shock effect can help in some instances but during late afternoon or early evening was not the appropriate time.
I.sayson- you mentioned the use of subliminal messages, I heard about that a long time ago about using subliminal messages in movies as advertisement of beverages and snacks. But I had not idea they were putting sexual subliminal messages in Disney movies, now that's just a bit much. I also agree that when the family gets involved and move their children from the television to quality family time; nothing but good can come from it. I used to watch tv growing up; but the majority of the time I was too busy getting in trouble and being adventurous, outside playing, breaking things, wrestling with my cousins, playing baseball. We give tv too much power.
Shawn- Reading your blog brought me back to the good old days too. When I did watch tv I loved watching Laverne and Shirley, Happy Days, Sha Na Na, Creature Feature. Even though the sexual content wasn't nearly as much as we see now; I can recall some. I guess as time goes on and things are more accepted the "industry" must supply parents with more options of safeguarding their children from inappropriate content.
Things are changing all the time, just think in early 1990’s a bisexual character on LA Law was mind blowing for America. The made for TV movie Women of Brewster’s place had an all star cast and pushed the envelope by having a lesbian couple in the late 80’s. Recently a soap opera viewed a kiss between two women; it was all over the news and entertainment magazines. So, things are going to be hard to swallow at first but as a society we’ll get in the right place, we can’t shut everything down that is uncomfortable. So, the little grading system and the cable password locks are available, parents really should use what they have available to keep their children safe.
Ms. Wanzo,
Mr. Steyer's comments are very relevant today where television providers such as Dish have implemented the 'Parental control' as an option on their devices. Parents can block programs and channels on their TV. The assertions are realized based on the surveys and websites such as www.cmch.tv (Center on Media and Child Health).
Thank you.
L.Sayson
Steyer falls into school one. His point of view is that what was once proteted is no unprotected which is our children bing able to remain in a child's state of mind. As you can see in his essay he blames the media and other airways for this. He supports his claim by showing how from the 1920's up to present time there has been a decline in monitoring what children are able to see. I personally agree with Steyer because being a single mother with a full time job and trying to get through school I see how hard it is to monitor what my daughter watches on TV or the type of music she listens too.
Jonathon I can truely agree with you when you say that what children today watch is hard to monitor completely because I thought that my daughter didn't watch videos for years because I don't allow her to watch video channels only to later find out that videos are shown on cartoon channels.
Steyer's article is written from a first person point of view. He establishes his credibility and level of interest immediately by stating he is a father of three and a longtime teacher. His introduction leads me to believe he is well researched in the area of child progression and behavior. His book is also not the first in this field therefore he has some previous material to build from and to support his claim. His point of view is that basically the T.V. is raising the children due to absent parents whether they are working or otherwise. Due to unsupervised T.V. watching for hours on end children are exposed to messages they are too young to fully comprehend and it's very easily accessed. The following quote supports this claim; " more than two thirds of the shows that aired in what used to be "family hour"- from 7:00 to 9:00pm- contained sexual content inappropriate for kids" (steyer) As a mother I totally agree with Steyer. If we as parents don't monitor what our children are watching they will be desensitized to many adult subject matters they are not ready to process yet. Some of the kids in my daughters class look and act so old , and to hear their conversations it's like talking little adults, they have no childlike innocence left. I've seen some of the things Steyer describes first hand and it's very unsettling.
I think that most of the research that is done on the behavior influenced by tv seems to be inconclusive. So, having said that, I think that Steyer falls on the second point "the reality"). In the article, it says that one study directly contradicted the other when dealing with attention disorders and I think it will always be that way without focusing on other factors during the tests. I think that Steyer's point of view is that there needs to be strict moderation when dealing with any kind of content on tv. It doesn't seem like there is a heavy "anti-tv" theme in the article, but there is definitely a tone that implies the use of strict moderation. "The American academy of Pediactrics says that children under 2 shouldn't watch tv at all, and that older kids should watch no more than 2 hours a day". That doesn't exactly sound like a no tolerance approach to television, it just sounds like an ideal limitation that is practical for today's society.
I fall on the same side as Steyer. I think that there are other factors that need to be looked at when dealing with the potential effects of television on kids. Other factors like parental supervision. I think that kids are very suggestible, and perceptions mixed with point of view can be very fragile during such a young age. Parental supervision seems like it would be the key to guiding a message in the right direction to a kid's mind. I just think that other factors can be used more effectively during the studies of these effects.
Hello Alestri and L. Sayson, I agree with what you both are saying as a combination. Alestri, I agree with what you say about the sexual undertones that are incorporated into most products today. L. Sayson, I agree with what you are saying about TV executives doing anything to boost ratings. So the combination of the two would be the general strategy of “sex sells” as a way to make things more appealing. As Alestri pointed out, it can be incorporated in to the most innocent of products. As the target demographic, young male, I know that this strategy is very effective in getting my attention. However, there seems to be little effort put into this type of programming to restrict young viewers from being exposed to it. It’s not like a sexy ad can be borderline porno or anything, it’s just that it can warp perceptions of viewers at a younger age by constantly being exposed to it.
In the essay “The Loss of Innocence” by James P. Steyer, he falls into the Associated Press claim 1.Steyers point of view is that parents should beware, limit and monitor the television programs that their children watch due to the high volume of negative and sexual behavior in the media.
He supports his point of view with strong evidence because he uses a survey the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation the results were “more than two-thirds of the shows that aired in what used to be “family hour”-from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M.- contained sexual content inappropriate for kids”(188). I agree with this because my little siblings watch the so-called children and family shows on Nickelodeon and The Disney channel such as sponge bob and Drake and Josh these shows have explicate messages and language that the targeted age group can not identify.
I also fall into the Associated Press claim 1 because as a early childhood teacher it’s difficult to find educational videos to help with the lesson plan. Many of the videos claim to be educational but as a critical thinker I have to use this skill when I chose any video for my students or for my younger siblings.
i agree with james steyer that the T.V people will do anything in thier ability to get their rating higher even if it has to invlove violence,sex ect.
in addition, if sex,violence and profanity sells and everybody nows it does that is what's going to continue to be on everybodys T.V including ur kids cartoons. so really it's up to the parents about what the children watch because the parents know whats on T.V these days and the children don't. so its up to the parents in the end.
Hello, Ms. Wanzo
I believe that Steymers comments are relevant today because the new generations are exposed to the negative and high sexual media. this is why we a have babies having babies and they think that it's cute to have a baby at a young age.
i agree with Jonathan,i also think T.V has stolen crucial time that was once spent on playing and reading and it's so true how he points that parents cant really do anything no more about what their kids watch because T.V is every where they go.
oppps sorry. im the anonymous
The thesis of “The Loss of Innocence” by James P. Steyer was clearly stated at the last paragraph: “If we don’t star taking responsibility—as parents first, but also by demanding it from the huge media interests as well as the government officials who are supposed to regulate them on behalf of the public interest—then we put our children at continued risk.” Basically, James’ point of view is that most of the TV’s contents are sexual, violent, bad and too early for kids to watch, therefore, not only parents, but also the media, the government and the society have the responsibility to provide protection and consultation for our future generations. One very detail support James clamed in the text, “In the course of a single year, the average American child is exposed to about ten thousand episodes of sexual intercourse or references to sex on television alone.”
I strongly agree with James’ opinion. I think we all know the influence of TV or other media for kids. Kids will first watch it, learn it then imitate. I once experience this: “Power ranger” is one of the most famous TV series designed for kids. However, one day when I went to my cousin’s house for visit, his son used a toy gun shooting at me and said, “Die! Monster!” he was imitating one of the heroes in that TV series. I was shocked by the violent words he said to me.
As the AP said, most parents don’t know how exactly do to protect their children from bad influence of the TV. To be honest, I didn’t know what “Y7 FV” means until I read the article.
Hi, Sandye
I agree when you said, “all things should be done in moderation including the watching of television and for parents it is totally their responsibility to control what is being watched and how much.” Mostly likely, if parents get to know what kinds of TV shows and programs are good for kids, they should just let them watch those. Otherwise, kids will learn so many bad things instead of good things from TV. I also think that all TV shows and programs should be rated and clearly states on the screen so that parents know what exactly it is.
Hi ,Lukwana
In “The Loss of Innocence” James P. Steyer viewpoint is that he think television is bad for children at any age .Also he think T.V expose the kids to much violence and sex at a young age. James supports his claim by using data from the 1920s when Hays was in office and the New York University Department of Culture. To show differences and how the media was back in the day; to what going no now.”…….New York University Department of Culture and Communication and a respected media observer call a “sequence of revealed secrets.” Kid were routinely protected from information that they were not yet ready to understand” (pg188).Today they are not. Children can turn on television right now and see sex and violence.
I personally think too much of T.V is bad for children, because of health .Also, I know it interfere with children learning ability. I mention health because when a children’s is in spell while watching T.V: They can devour food really fast; like potato chips or what every else unhealthy snacks just to get back to the television.
I know that T.V can interfere with children learning ability. From an experience that, I had while I was volunteering at my children’s school. I remember, A young man sat at his desk looking out the window: While his teachers explaining an in class assignment. When I ask why he wasn’t paying attention to the teacher instruction. He said,” that his favor show was on and want to see it instead of being in school: Also he stated school was boring. I was blow a w ay, because school didn't offer elected. All there was the basic stuff like math, reading and writing. For example he could have learned: Accounting so when he gets, out school he could have a good paying job.
Joy Forte
I like your writing response on “The loss of Innocence” .Your work is well written you make excellent points. Just because it says kids friendly doesn’t mean that it is. I wish that I had remembered to think outside the box. When I was proving my points on; how I think too much television is bad for children’s.
James P. Steyer falls on the side which believes that too much exposure to television is harmful for children. His point of view is that if parents, the media, and the government officials don’t do anything about censoring some of these programs, then the children’s innocence will be lost forever. Steyer makes this clear by saying, “If we don’t start taking responsibility-as parents first, but also by demanding it from the huge media interests as well as the government officials who are supposed to regulate them on behalf of the public interest-then we put our children at continued risk.” Parents in particular, should be taught how to have control of the remote control to monitor exactly what their children are watching on TV.
I have to be honest and say that I completely agree with Steyer in that children’s innocence is being lost due to television. It is amazing what kids now know about sex and violence at such a young age. I remember when I was younger I would get so shy and would cover my eyes when I saw some explicit content on television, but now I see my little nephews doing the opposite. When I tell them to change the channel or cover their eyes at such explicit images, they look at me and say “oh please, you act like we haven’t seen this before.” That can’t stop to amaze me, or when they say “we’ve seen worst things on TV.” As Steyer stated, “We will raise generations of kids desensitized to violence, overexposed to reckless sex, and commercially exploited from their earliest years.” This matter is one that should take priority because there has been an increase in sex and violence amongst younger and younger generations and I blame, just like Steyer, both the parents and the media.
I truly agree with L.Sayson, it is the responsibility of the parents to monitor and censor what their children watch. Television is one of the biggest influences on growing children; and I can attest to this. When I was a young child much of my cognitive and social development was aided by what I saw on television. I remember watching Sesame Street and singing along, and learning how to pronounce words. Now can you imagine what would have happened to me, if my parents had allowed me to watch a sexual explicit television show/movie instead? My mind would be corrupted.
Richard, I think you're right. It would be unrealistic to try and rely on the media or the government to censor what our children are watching. It would be nice, of course, but I believe impossible. So, I too think it's all up to the parents to censor what their children are watching on TV. Parents need to get more involved in their children's free time and sit with them while they watch TV so they can get a feel of what they're watching. After doing that, they should begin censoring all inappropriate programs for their children.
In "The Loss of Innocence"
by James Steyer, he talks about how he feels that the material that is on television now is only harming children rather than helping them.
The Associated Press claims that there are two schools of thought and I believe that James Steyer falls under the first school, which talks about exposing children to massive amounts of television, which is only harming them. I agree with this because children are watching more and more television and they believe that everything they see on television is real, so they start to do what they see.
It seems like more and more parents today are even busier with work, so they use the television as a babysitter for the kids. Steyer states, "their children become raised by a machine that completely corrupts their tastes and morals,"(pg. 187) which I feel is very true because when children are young, they do not know any better and they believe everything they see is the right thing.
I remember when I was younger and we all watched educational television that gave off positive learning messages, like 'Barney' and 'Sesame Street', but nowadays it's even hard to find programs like that. Now, as stated by Steyer from a two-week survey of TV shows by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "more than two-thirds of the shows that aired in what used to be 'family hour' contain sexual content inappropriate for kids."(pg. 188) It just seems like the media no longer cares about protecting children from inappropriate television, but they would rather push sex and sell their shows. I mean now there are programs where they tell people 'don't try this at home' but I don't think that excuses them for having programs like that, which are accessible to kids.
I fall on the same side as Steyer because I feel that televsision is corrupting kids the more and more they watch it. I feel that parents should monitor what their children are able to watch by watching the programs with them, or even using things like parental control to sensor what they can and cannot see.
I spelled censor wrong. Sorry.
I agree with L.sayson as well, much of the content on television today is sexually driven. It seems that sex sells, and television production companies have taken notice and they are beginning to show more and more sexually explicit content. Today more that ever parental influence is needed, to protect children from losing their innocence. The end result of having excessive amounts of sex on television have yet to be seen, but I have noticed new trends in clothing,language and the way kids today reason.
In "The Loss of Innocence," James Steyer expresses his point of view in first person and writes as a parent concerned for the children today. Being a father of three young children, he feels that "the loss of innocence at an early age is perhaps the highest price that American kids pay."(pg. 187) Kids are being exposed to so many things like sex and violence, which had been censored and hidden from young children in the past.
The Associated Press has created two primary schools of thought and I believe James Steyer agrees with one side. He believes that TV is harming kids because the innocence is lost and the first school agrees with this point. Kids are constantly bombarded with information that in the past was hidden from them because "they were not ready to understand."(pg. 188) Things like sex were previously censored and not allowed on television during "family hour, which was from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.,"(pg. 188) but as media became money-hungry and wanted to make big profits, they no longer cared.
Like in the movie, "Pleasantville," which took two modern teenagers back in time to the 1950s, the people were not used to things that the teenagers did. They were used to the mother and father sleeping on separate beds and sex was not talked about. Everything was in black and white until the teenage girl started introducing sex to her high school, which caused the characters in the movie to turn into color. The whole point of me bringing up the movie was to show that sex was never brought up or discussed in the past, but now you can't even turn to one station without them not having some type of reference to sex.
The only way for children not to be so affected by Television is for parents to start taking responsibility and make changes. If this isn't done, parents will be raising "kids desensitized to violence, overexposed to reckless sex, and commercially exploited to violence."(pg. 188) When parents watch programs with their kids, they are able to see what is going on and are also able to do something like change the channel if it starts to get inappropriate.
In the beginning of the first paragraph in “The Loss of Innocence” the author James Steyer relates to his audience by informing them that his is a parent of three young children and a longtime teacher. By informing his readers that information it gives credibility to his point of view of the effects of media on children.
Steyer’s point of view is relevant to today because children no longer play outdoors like they used too. The are now focused on electronic devices such as computers, television, ipods, playstations, etc. Children are now glued to screens that have a lot of violence, and sexual content. This is one the big problems of our society for becoming less social with one another.
I agree with Steyer when he says that “…before large media companies began to realize huge profits by pushing sex and sensationalism, things were different” (188). I believe the large companies do not care at all of the damages they are creating. In reality the only thing the companies are worried about is the ratings and how much money they are making from it. Even though, the family hour is in place, however it is actually no longer exist because the shows that are shown during that time are now unappropiate for children.
Even though, I agree with what Steyer talks about he is not an expert in that field. However, you can find people and articles whom also agree about the effects of media.
In addition, I agree that parents and society as a whole should monitor what children are watching. However, it is difficult to do, since parents are away from home because they are at work. The childcare and/or family member may not care so much to monitor the amount of television the children are watching because it makes the job easier. It occupies the child for long periods at a time.
In the beginning of the first paragraph in “The Loss of Innocence” the author James Steyer relates to his audience by informing them that his is a parent of three young children and a longtime teacher. By informing his readers that information it gives credibility to his point of view of the effects of media on children.
Steyer’s point of view is relevant to today because children no longer play outdoors like they used too. The are now focused on electronic devices such as computers, television, ipods, playstations, etc. Children are now glued to screens that have a lot of violence, and sexual content. This is one the big problems of our society for becoming less social with one another.
I agree with Steyer when he says that “…before large media companies began to realize huge profits by pushing sex and sensationalism, things were different” (188). I believe the large companies do not care at all of the damages they are creating. In reality the only thing the companies are worried about is the ratings and how much money they are making from it. Even though, the family hour is in place, however it is actually no longer exist because the shows that are shown during that time are now unappropiate for children.
Even though, I agree with what Steyer talks about he is not an expert in that field. However, you can find people and articles whom also agree about the effects of media.
In addition, I agree that parents and society as a whole should monitor what children are watching. However, it is difficult to do, since parents are away from home because they are at work. The childcare and/or family member may not care so much to monitor the amount of television the children are watching because it makes the job easier. It occupies the child for long periods at a time.
James Steyer falls under the first School of thought under expert classification. Mr. Steyer would believe that TV and baby software would steal crucial time once spent playing and reading, or even cause attention disorders." Mr. Steyer’s point of view is that “The loss of innocence at too early an age is perhaps the highest price that American kids pay in this new media environment.” He supports this by giving statistics such as in the course of a single year, the average American Child is exposed to about ten thousand episodes of sexual intercourse, or reference to sex on television alone (188). He also uses manipulation through language by using prejudicial language by saying “The media has some serious responsibility too, especially when they are using publicly owned airwaves to make billions of dollars” (188).
I believe that parents should regulate their children usage of the television as well as on the computer. I believe they both are harmful and that they both substitute as parents. A lot of time is spent I front of the T.V. and the computer that is why I believe children aren’t learning as much.
James Steyer falls under the first School of thought under expert classification. Mr. Steyer would believe that TV and baby software would steal crucial time once spent playing and reading, or even cause attention disorders." Mr. Steyer’s point of view is that “The loss of innocence at too early an age is perhaps the highest price that American kids pay in this new media environment.” He supports this by giving statistics such as in the course of a single year, the average American Child is exposed to about ten thousand episodes of sexual intercourse, or reference to sex on television alone (188). He also uses manipulation through language by using prejudicial language by saying “The media has some serious responsibility too, especially when they are using publicly owned airwaves to make billions of dollars” (188).
I believe that parents should regulate their children usage of the television as well as on the computer. I believe they both are harmful and that they both substitute as parents. A lot of time is spent I front of the T.V. and the computer that is why I believe children aren’t learning as much.
I agree with Joy when she says, “The new generations are exposed to the negative and high sexual media. This is why we a have babies having babies and they think that it's cute to have a baby at a young age.” I also believe that a lot of violence is can be attributed to rap and rap videos. A lot of time and effort is wasted in “trying to shine.”
James P. Steyer “loss of innocence” the author asserted that television violence is a contributing factor to aggressive behavior in children by his recently focus has been placed on this issue, since his proposal fall on claim 1. However, his point of view was to inform parents. Since the rating system does not allow parents to identify the true content of the program. Many shows are labeled as informative and educational, yet are full of sophisticated themes, sexual content, strong language, and more intense violence. As his recently survey conducted by Henry J. Kaiser Foundation indicated that TV’s affects children in several ways explicitly.
I agree with Steyer claims as result of, children today have more outlets to view television through their favorite channel such as cartoon and home movies. Although the children’s Television act, required several hours each day devoted to educational programs for children, now a day little of this is seen from the networks in which most programming continues to be full of violence and sexual innuendoes so that children learn most of their behavior and become unable to determine right from wrong. Many imitate the actions they see believing this is acceptable behavior.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12806594/
Richard, i agree that Television takes away from what 'life' used to be, including reading and going out side. I think we must also look at the fact that people work many more hours than they did 50 years ago, and seclusion seems to be becoming more and more apparant amongst people. With all these hours being worked, and babysitting being expensive, sometimes television makes for the easiest and cheapest babysitter, sad on many levels, not just the parental.
With the ability to just go online or to your television for all the information you need for anything, people tend to take it for granted and use it in excess.
sandy i agree with you because between 7-9p m most chidren were exposed to tv as unique Entertainment rather that foucing on their home work.
Post a Comment