http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/unraveling.aspx
Above is a link from the American Psychological Association. The author, Rebecca Clay discusses the effects different media has on our children. Although society usually blames different forms of media for different forms of destruction, Clay brings up the point that there are still forms of media such as educational television for children that has a strong positive effect on our children. At such a young age, children are very impressionable.
The Baran and Davis Book touches upon how much time a day an average person spends consuming various sources of media. “These children, because the consume more than one medium at a time, are actually exposed to the equivalent of 8 and a half hours a day of media content, even though they pack that into less than 6 and a half hours of time” (193, Baran & Davis). Since there is such a significant amount of time spent consuming media each day, the media could very well change us. Baran and Davis discuss the idea of early window. This refers to “the idea that media allows children to see the world before they have the skill to successfully act in it” (Baran & Davis). At a young age, children are shown the problems in society before they actually know who they are as a person. What can be done about this? Is it even an issue? Joshua Meyrowitz explains, it “escorts children across the globe even before they have permission to cross the street”. Should parents have to restrict their children’s media intake to only beneficial forms, like educational television?
A part of the reading by Gerbner, discusses media and how it can mold you into a certain person. I completely agree with his idea. The media is a strong force in the world and can really make you change opinions, ideas and can effect even the simplest decisions in life. Knowledge from various media sources “gives individuals their awareness of collective strength (or weakness), and a feeling of social identification or alienation” (146, Gerbner). Do you agree with Gerbner’s view that the media can have that much control over your life? I think the media does have a very strong influence on our everyday lives. Children, especially, who don’t really know who they are, what they like and what they want to do in the world, are more susceptible to media and its overwhelming effects that morph you into who are today.
Meyrowitz brings up an interesting point in the Baran and Davis book. He says that there is no such thing as "children's television". It is an interesting theory because children's television is meant to educate children on what is right and wrong, but in reality all television is educating children.
ReplyDeleteMeyrowitz writes that "television is equivalent to a broad social decision to allow young children to be present at wars and funerals". I disagree a little bit with Meyrowitz here because it seems to me that just because they get to experience these things that doesn't mean they necessarily understand or are educated by it. While it does expose them to topics they have never seen before, I think that labeling that they are educated by it goes a little extreme.
I found Gerbner's claim that "publication is thus the basis of community consciousness", to be an interesting though, and I likened it to how I can let media opinions transform what I think. Especially related to sports, I like to listen to sports talk radio shows and if the majority of the hosts or callers have a general opinion, I tend to agree with them and I find myself going against the norm very rarely.
I think it is a parents obligation to be monitoring their children's intake of media on a daily basis, especially with the children at a very young age. There is no question of the power the media has on influencing young children, and if we combine that power with the amount of time children are spending in front of the television, then there is no wonder why we are discussing such problems. In the Baran and Davis book in chapter 7, they write, "A young television viewer sees animated Beavis and Butthead set fire to a cat. Soon after, he sets fire to his house, killing his baby sister" (Baran, Davis, 182). Now, the author also states that eventhough this is a true story, this type of story is typically rare, yet it still happens. This is just an example of how influential the television really is, however it is also an example of what should not be happening in a home. If a child is not old enough to recognize that animated Beavis and Butt-head are not real, then this child should have never been exposed to this type of show. Children at young ages, maybe up to age 5, should be granted an X amount of time during the day to watch television, and should be restricted to only shows that the parents are aware of.
ReplyDeleteIn the McQuail reading, the author gives a statistic about the exposure television gives to children throughout the country on a daily basis. He states, "By the time the average American child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have seen over 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence" (McQuail, 399). Im sure if you told this to any parent who has a child in elementary school, they would be shocked and disgusted. In the opening paragraphs of the chapter, the author gives a bunch of other statistics about the rise in violence throughout the country, especially the violence in young adults. Now I think it is very easy to point fingers at the media and blame television, but I don't think we have any other choice. When seeing such statistics, one is forced to ask themselves, what if our youth were exposed to something else, such as sharing or caring for others? Or learning about the importance of family and friendship, as opposed to hate and violence? Would adolescents still account for 24% of all violent crimes leading to arrest? (McQuail, 399). I think these statistics just further show just how powerful the media can be, and how the wrong messages can have the strongest effects on the people who will eventually run this country.
My thoughts do fall parallel to Tom’s post in that I do believe that children are especially impressionable and television is an avenue that does such a thing. His article refers to opposite aspects of television consumption such as violence and education. The juxtaposition of these two presented in the article is exactly what it is like when a child may be watching television. At one point they could be watching Sesame Street, then they may change the channel and Jerry Springer could be on, which, in my opinion, can confuse a child and hinder their focus and educational development.
ReplyDeleteIf I wanted to research the effects of youth television consumption further, I think that the experimental results from Daniel R. Anderson’s lab tests on infants and their parents with and without the television on (Clay, 2003) would be a great place to start. I think this test will bring more concrete results as to the effects of television and infants.
For further research, I would suggest that there would be tests similar to the one previously mentioned, but with participants of different ages up to 18. The reason I say this is because, as mentioned in Baran & Davis, “as they move from infancy through adolescence, [they] undergo qualitative changes in the level of cognitive and intellectual abilities available to them” (191). With this information, Baran and Davis have gathered that educational television can and should be tailored to specific groups of children (191).
In my opinion, as the media stands right now, there are not enough educational programs for all different age ranges. I think that the media may assume that children’s educational programs suit all youth, when really, it may not. I do not think that as youth decode television, that they are developed enough to follow the oppositional code which is stated as, “the position where a viewer perfectly understands both the literal and connotative inflection given to an event, but determines to decode the message ‘in a globally contrary way’ “ (McQuail, 328).
These points come together to bring focus to how media is actually effecting the development of society’s children, our future. I wonder what the next step will be in this process of the betterment of children’s programming in the media. Personally, I agree with Dr. Anderson from Clay’s article in that I feel that because children are so susceptible to influence, the media should provide more understandable content and less flashy, distracting programs.
I agree with Meyrowitz because media has become such a huge part of lives of children all over the world. I believe that media shapes the opinions and children may have in the future growing up. Meyrowitz asserts, “As such media has become an early window. That is, they allow children to see the world well before they are capable of completely interacting with it. (193Baron and Davis)” I also disagree because I do not believe children have the capabilities to understand certain topics that are presented to them in the media. For example during the 2008 presidential elections there were children feature on CNN giving their opinions on whether they preferred one candidate over the other. I personally think that these children did not clearly understand why their parents supported one candidate over the other.
ReplyDeleteThe Gerber reading I found it to be particularly interesting because I believe that the way a message is portrayed to the public will shape their views on many topics. Gerber states, “the terms of the culture shape the course of the response.” I find this to be true because when the media sends out a message or story targeting a specific group it completely changes the opinions of those viewers are being targeted and reinforces that of those who are critics. For example during the MLB steroid scandal of baseball players using steroids o enhance their performance, many including myself changed their opinions of certain players.