The SF Chronicle is running a front-page story in Sunday’s paper discussing whether children should be protected from the real and grisly images of war (or, based on similar past stories, anything “grisly” that are currently in the news). There have also been a few Letters to the Editor recently complaining about graphic pictures in the newspapers potentially traumatizing children. Some parents are afraid of “frightening” their children.
But these days, kids are exposed to all sorts of TV shows and movies with often gratuitous graphic violence. Also, many kids are attracted to video games featuring graphic violence, accumulating kill points, etc. I have to question if the root interest expressed by some parents and teachers here is some misguided attempt to insulate “THE KIDS” from the real world (as opposed to the fake world of TV, movies and video games), deluding themselves that their kids are more innocent that they really are or instead, a more subtle attempt to censor the news.
What do you think? Should TV, newspapers and magazines NOT run graphic photos, war related OR local? The contention by some, as this article shows, appears to be that society will be better off by insulating “THE KIDS” from the world around them as long as possible.
I dunno. I remember being in 4th grade and sitting in the library reading books about WWI, books which included rather grim photos of partially decayed corpses and piles of bones strewn across a battlefield. I can’t say that it did much more than to make me think that war sucks. But then again, most kids don’t sit around in 4th grade reading about WWI, so they may react differently. Personally, I don’t see what the fuss is.
I should note that I frequently play violent video games and I have yet to take an uzi and carjack someone.
Absolutely not. The onus is on the parents to not show their kids these things if they consider it a problem. While the media can be over-sensationalistic and all that, there are situations where you are simply denying the reality of the situation if you refuse to run graphic pictures.
Some selected excerpts from the article and my related thoughts.
This teacher felt too sick to respond? Isn’t part of her job to help children understand the world they live in? One can’t always count on parents to do this job effectively or at all.
The same teacher! Whew! We wouldn’t want any divisive POLITICAL discussion in school now, do we? Only safe, non-contentious subjects allowed.
Huh??? 16 and 17 year olds who don’t understand the difference between liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat or the structure of government? When are they supposed to learn these basic components of government in our country? In college (if they go)? I know the standards in many public high schools have declined in recent years, but this example is scary indeed.
Yes, protect kids and they will magically become informed adults. Sure thing!
Sounds to me like a case of “won’t someone pleeeeaaaaase think about the chilllllllldreeeeeen…” a-la Ms Lovejoy.
Would I keep a 6 year old from seeing the grim pictures that are really REALLY graphic? Probably. Would I just ignore the fact there’s a nasty war going on? No. We’d talk about it. And it wouldn’t be all roses and puppies and freedom.
This being said - I think it may be a GOOD thing for children to be exposed to the horrors that human beings do, in real life (not just in cartoons and tv shows) inflict upon each other. I’d do it from the perspective of a child his or her age. What would it be like to be 12 and living in Iraq during the war? There would be no “but war is going to be for their salvation and their own good” talk - just the facts of every day life and survival. And death. And accidents. Wherever the responsibility lies.
I remember having a talk with an 8 year old cousin about war once - she thought what it was about were grownups going to a field and killing each other. No notion that kids her age could be hurt or killed in the middle of it all. She hadn’t even made the connection that those grownups are mommies and daddies and uncles and aunts to other kids. That hadn’t registered. Just faceless “heroes” like in the movies. Red shirts off of the Enterprise. They take one for the team, Kirk gets the girl.
So I got her parents’ permission, and we took a trip to the library. We read about Anne Frank. We read about Croatia. We read about many african nations. We looked at photographs. We went to my piano teacher’s house and talked to her and her daughter (who survived the concentration camps - her daughter was little when it all happened - in fact, she was about my cousin’s age).
Suddenly, she could relate to it. It wasn’t faceless. It was happening to kids, like her, to families like hers, and so forth.
Now she’s much older, and quite the little social activist (children’s rights stuff is her thing). She’s got a good grasp and understanding of politics, warfare, and collateral damage - and I hope she will grow up to be an informed adult who doesn’t think war just “happens on TV” and “to other people”.
I think it’s important for kids to get to debate politics, and war, and all that jazz. I can see how an american teacher could get his nuts roasted for doing so - all it takes is one yahoo parent in the class to have him declared unpatriotic and fired.
I am less worried about my kids being scared by the images as becoming inured to them.
This is the flip side of the Janet Jackson debacle, but the same points: my right as a parent to decide how much “mature viewing” my children are exposed to and when (except that this really is mature viewing); and what constitutes a public venue that is reasonably expected to be viewed by my children, and thus protected from such material without my being reasonably informed ahead of time.
Inside with warning of graphic pictures enclosed … sure … and that teaser might even sell more copy.
And of course that is why they are promoted so much, not to inform (does it need to be rebroadcast that many times to just inform?) but to tittilate and sell.
Whilst it is really difficult to rigorously define the actual watershed, I think it is at least possible to describe hypothetical instances that would be either acceptable or not, for example:
Unacceptable: A Saturday morning TV cartoon show is interrupted to show full and graphic recorded footage of a man being executed.
Probably because the instant she DID try to address a political or social issue, or to realistically try to help the children understand the world they live in, THEN she’ll hear from some parents, boy will she hear from some parents, who’ll be at the Principal’s office or the School Board meeting furiously asking for her head for daring to contaminate their innocent little minds with something mommy and daddy do not approve.
(Sometimes I get the feeling that we should grant educators some form of immunity so they can broach necessary-but-unpleasant topics. But then I think of how “raising my children as I see fit” is non-negotiable by almost every parent I’ve ever heard speak on the subject.)
I only have very young children myself, and so of course wouldn’t dream of letting them see any violent news programs or pictures. Neither would I let them watch scary or violent movies or video games. As they get older, we will naturally be discussing these types of things, but I’m not a fan of violence in entertainment, and I do feel that it contributes to a desensitization or blunting of feeling.
