"If you watch too much TV you'll get square eyes! (&ADHD&obese&morally corrupt....)"

Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children – Response to article by Lumby and Fine and the divisive opinions that surround children’s television viewing.

Debates have raged for years as to the alleged effects of television viewing on impressionable young minds, almost as long as television has been in existence. They still continue to rage today, only now television is joined in this ongoing debate by other new media forms such as computer games, mobile media and the internet. Catharine Lumby and Duncan Fine’s (2006) chapter Why TV is good for Kids: raising 21st century children discusses some of the research into these issues.

Just like the debates about the effects of television have been around almost as long as television itself, it was not the only mass medium to fall under this sort of debate.  Potential detrimental effects of popular texts and mediums have been around for centuries. Anything that could be produced and supplied to the masses, such as novel, was a target. Lumby and Fine (2006) cite the 1792 publication The Evils of Adultery and Prostitution that suggested that engaging in the acts of reading novels was a wicked and deviant act. Similarly, an article by Arnett, Larson and Offer (1995) cites a situation, where in 1774, Goethe’s The Sorrow of Young Werther was banned in some parts of Germany, as it may encourage impressionable adolescents to take their lives, much like the character in the story. Death and promiscuity may result if a young person reads a book?! Music Halls in Victorian Britain were said to produce immortality, unlawfulness and violence. Even bicycles, another mass produced item of a bygone era, were said to bring about a chaos and moral decay! (Pearson 1983 in Gauntlett 2005 p. 125-126) It seems absurd.

Although, where children and adolescents are involved, Lumby and Fine (2006) suggest, it is natural to be concerned about the effect that different media may have on them. They are vulnerable. They of course need love and adult guidance, but, they state; “rational concern is one thing, blind fear and unthinking prejudice is another. And, unfortunately it’s the latter which too often dominates debates about children’s media consumption” (2006, p. 56). These are called “Moral Panics”, a term coined by Stanley Cohen (ibid. 2006 & Gauntlett 2005) in response to media reaction of gang clashes between Mods and Rockers, in the UK in the 1960s. This real life event was blown out of all proportion when it was amplified by the media coverage. Basically, as Lumby and Fine (2006) comment “moral panic” refers to “hyperbolic fears, not to real life moral dilemmas” (p.56). Furthermore, they suggest that these moral panics distract people from the real issues and real problems. (ibid. p. 57). “Moral Panics” relates to an area of research or theory called “media effects”, where, quite simply, researchers have tried to find direct links between media (like television) to audience behaviour i.e.: violent television shows make for violent aggressive children.

However, many prominent media education scholars such as David Buckingham and David Gauntlett believe that such issues, like violence in society for example, are much more complex than simply a result of watching television. They assert that viewers are actually active and not passive and compliant as previously thought.  Such problems are usually a result of far more complex societal issues and as Lumby and Fine (2006 p.57) point out, “the root causes of social ills are complex – they don’t fit into a headline or 15 second news grab. And they certainly will not be solved by simplistic blame shifting”. Professor Buckingham asserts “that there has been a massive shift away from seeing children as passive television viewers. In both the psychological and humanities based areas of media and cultural studies, more detailed and refined studies of children watching and interacting with television, have shown, without a doubt that children do not sit for hours on end in front of the box and take in everything they see without processing and thinking about it” (in Lumby and Fine, p. 73). However, media effects and the related moral panics, still maintain popularity in some circles through organisations such as Young Media Australia and the Parents Television Council in the United States. Television, Lumby and Fine (2006) suggest, has been blamed for obesity, ADHD, and for corrupting our children.  

Someone who asserts that television does in fact cause great concern, and author of the book Remotely Controlled: How television is damaging our lives and various papers including Visual Voodoo: the biological impact of watching television, is well known UK Psychologist Dr Aric Sigman. Sigman (2006) suggests that television does indeed have links to obesity, bullying, ADHD, children’s brain development and is a leading cause of half of all violence related crime (Remotely Controlled- blurb). Targeting the primary audience of “Generation X” parents (the parents of today’s children), who Michael Grose (2005, p. 222) says “will continue to be the most anxious cohort ever to have raised children outside of wartime. They will continue to make safety and their children’s education their main priorities”, Sigman has a wide audience for his books and Remotely Controlled was a best seller. Guilt and anxiety are rife within this parenting age group who, as Lumby and Fine (2006) suggest have been told that “television is an unnatural intruder into family life. It’s the electronic babysitter” (p.68). So what better than to feed parents anxieties on this issue and create a panic where children’s health and development is concerned?

Sigman has his views on children’s television, and not surprisingly, has looked into the preschool program Teletubbies. This innocent preschool show had caused quite a degree of moral panic in its day, as being “potentially more dangerous to the psyche than crack” (Howard and Roberts 1999 in Lumby and Fine, 2006, p. 64) as it allegedly promotes drugs, obesity and gay lifestyles through apparent hidden subtexts. Although subtexts are not the issue for Sigman (2006 p. 41) but children’s brain development and he states that the Teletubbies is “..entertaining yes, but there’s no reason to assume that it confers any benefits whatsoever. It may cause attentional damage, as well as displacing vital behaviour for children’s development”. However, as Lumby and Fine argue (2006) a research study by early childhood education and literacy expert Jackie Marsh found that the Teletubbies had a positive effect on learning in early childhood settings and her study produced frequent examples where children who were previously unwilling to interact with adults and other children joined in with activities because of their fascination with the Tubbies (Marsh 2000, in Lumby and Fine 2006, p. 62).  Additionally the word ‘may’ in Sigman’s point, does not clearly indicate anything but speculation. As for obesity, ADHD and television being addictive Sigman cites numerous studies that he believes is indicative of television viewing habits of children and young people. In particular, Sigman (2006) agreed with the 1999 study by the American Academy of Pediatrics, that there was in fact a correlation between children’s television viewing and ADHD. However, Lumby and Fine (2006) are quick to point out that this study ignored the many other cultural aspects, that the children involved in the survey, might encounter in their everyday lives. And the approach that was undertaken in the survey could be applied to any other activity, including soccer.

Gauntlett (1998) says that the main problem with most of these studies into the apparent direct effects of media like television, is that they tackle the problem backwards and states that "the 'media effects' approach, in this sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than the other way around”. And, Sigman’s opinion on the effects of television is not indicative of all psychologists. United States Psychologist and academic in adolescent development, Jeffrey Arnett and colleagues Larson and Offer (1995) have researched the alleged effects on behaviour in young people and media like television, and assert “...it is problematic simply to draw a direct cause and effect relationship between media stimulus and the subsequent behaviour of the media consumer” (p.512). Arnett et al.  (1995 p.513), like Buckingham agrees, that “adolescents are active media consumers”.

It is clear, that the debates about the alleged behavioural and health effects of television is quite divisive and it is no surprise that debates still continue, and with it moral and media panics. Particularly when it concerns adolescents and children and their well being. Lumby and Fine’s chapter Why TV is Good for Kids: raising 21st century children is effective in reminding parents and educators about the need for a common sense approach with children, adolescents and television viewing.

Elizabeth

REFERENCES:

Arnett, J., Larson, R., Offer, D. (1995) Beyond Effects: Adolescents as Active Media Users. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 24 (5) pp. 511-518. 

Buckingham, David. (2000) After the death of childhood: Growing up in the age of electronic media. Polity Press. UK.

Gauntlett, D. (2005) Moving Experiences: Media effects and beyond (2nd edition). UK: John Libbey Publishing.

Gauntlett, D. (1998) Ten Things Wrong with the Media Effects Model. Retrieved October 5th 2010 http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm

Grose, M. (2005) X,Y,Z: The New Rules of Generational Warfare. Random House Australia: Sydney.

Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006). TV villains: media panics. In C. Lumby & D. Fine (Eds.), Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children (pp. 55-96). Sydney: MacMillan

Sigman, A. (2005) Remotely Controlled: How television is damaging our lives. Ebury Publishing: London.

Sigman, A (2007) Visual Voodoo:  The biological impact of watching TV. Biologist. 54 (1) pp. 12-17.