See “Is Elmo Bush’s Secret Weapon?”
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/magazine/3200699.stm
Is anyone bothered by the idea of cramming ideological messages down the throats of preschool-age children? Or does the potential end justify the means? Who gets to decide what the acceptable potential ends and means are? Who should get to decide?
Sometimes words fail, and it becomes necessary to say it with kittens. Note: link contains bad words.
That said, unless Sesame Street has changed a lot since I watched it, the values it tries to instill are pretty cross-cultural. I’d have an issue if the interim government created a mandatory “Sesame Street Time”, forcing all parents to make their kids watch it or face jail or something, but that’s not what’s going on here.
I think that all TV “crams ideological messages down the throats of preschool children.”
Doesn’t Mr. Rogers have an agenda? He talks about the importance of imagination, sharing, and creativity. I’m sure there are people who disagree with these values.
All shows end up with a moral. It might be fairness. Or keeping your word. But they all have a message.
If you don’t like the message of a particular show, don’t let your kids watch it. I’m not crazy about “Aurthur” so my kids don’t watch it.
SO, who gets to decide? The parents of course.
autz, I apologize for being bold, but what’s wrong with “Arthur”?
Oh, I have no moral objections to “Arthur” really. For some reason it just bugs me.
It seems like they say a lot of negative things about school, and all the smart characters are really annoying and snobby.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with “Arthur” but I just prefer “Clifford” personally. Or “Zaboomafoo”. Or just go play outside.
I think it’s time to face up to the fact that almost all televison shows aimed at young audiences have some sort of message.
Shows for very young children may extoll the virtues of sharing or playing fair, wheras shows aimed at older children often have more sophisticated lessons.
Teenagers see scenarios played out before them in drama shows. They see the results of the behavior of the characters, and, good or bad, take lessons from them. It’s my opinion that kids are being largely socialized by TV because of lack of parental involvement. (But that’s another thread.)
A character may be praised in the show for being a “good friend” for reporting a friend’s drinking, for example. “Issue” shows have been a staple of teen drama for years, addressing current social ills in a neat, smoothly resolved package. The consequences to the characters for drinking, using drugs and pre-marital sex are often drastic, unless supportive friends intervene.
There also appears to be some effort to instill positive values. Usually, around Christmas, shows laud generosity to the disadvantaged, and anti-predjudice messages are common year-round.
The flip side of the coin is the materialistic values that these shows can instill. One learns that a nerdy, unpopular girl can be transformed into a prom princess by the right clothes and cosmetics. Another problem, of course, is the negative body image that kids can get from comparing themselves to eternally zit-free, waif-thin stars who have perfect hair and teeth.
It’s my opinion that a few good lessons are being ignored by teen shows. Characters are rarely portrayed as serious about their studies, unless they’re a nerd who will be rapidly changed into a social butterfly. Rarely is a character seen reading a book-- if anything, characters rapidly flick through magazines. School is merely the backdrop for the more compelling issue of the kids’ social lives.
Nor are they encouraged to be respectful. Authority figures are mocked, or challenged with witty comebacks, usually with no repercussions. (My mom would have killed me if I had spoken to her the way that some mother characters are spoken to by their children.) While there’s nothing dark or insiduous about sassiness, it’s something for which our kids don’t need further encouragement.
