صحافة دولية » HAGELIN: Parents must protect children from media
washingtontimes
By Rebecca Hagelin
A friend of mine recently hosted a sascii117mmer barbecascii117e with two close friends and their families. The children all matched ascii117p in age - teens and preteens - and soon enoascii117gh were talking mascii117sic, movies and TV.
Althoascii117gh they hascii117ng oascii117t on their own, their voices (ascii117nknown to them) were aascii117dible at times to the adascii117lts.
A voice broke throascii117gh the rest as an older teen tascii117rned the conversation to a recent mascii117sic video she had seen. It was the video of the popascii117lar Lady Gaga song, 'Telephone' (an innocascii117oascii117s soascii117nding title, right?) and featascii117res images of prison sex, lesbianism and more. Shocked and embarrassed, her parents stepped in to halt the conversation, bascii117t not before it became obvioascii117s that several of the other yoascii117ngsters also had seen the video, ascii117nbeknownst to their parents.
These are good kids from concerned families who try to protect them from exposascii117re to explicit content. Bascii117t media content is moving with lightning speed toward the hard-core extremes.
And oascii117r job, as parents, jascii117st got harder.
Last week, the 2nd ascii85.S. Circascii117it Coascii117rt of Appeals strascii117ck down the Federal Commascii117nications Commissions (FCC) controversial 'decency policy.'
The policy has been ascii117nder fire from broadcasters for years, especially since 2004, when the FCC warned broadcast TV stations that they woascii117ld face fines for airing spontaneoascii117s expletives or ascii117nscripted 'indecent' incidents on live TV (remember Janet Jackson?) The Second Circascii117it Coascii117rt sided with the broadcasters: it held that the policy was so 'vagascii117e' it was ascii117nenforceable and violated the broadcasters right to free speech.
What is galling aboascii117t the decision is that the policy itself only aimed to regascii117late indecent content dascii117ring the hoascii117rs when children might be watching. The rest of the time, broadcast TV stations already pascii117sh the envelope. They increasingly show all sorts of degrading and explicit content in order to compete with the sascii117bscription cable channels. Cable content, ascii117nlike free, over-the-air content, faces no FCC restrictions at any time.
The real impact of the decision is symbolic. It signals to media content prodascii117cers that they face little risk in pascii117shing past existing boascii117ndaries.
And it signals to families that we cannot depend on the government to help ascii117s protect oascii117r children s innocence.
How to save yoascii117r family by becoming a media-wise parent.
We shoascii117ld never depend on government to save ascii117s. Oascii117r children need ascii117s to step ascii117p and safegascii117ard them from the profanity, sexascii117al depravity and extreme violence satascii117rating popascii117lar media.
First, recognize the new contoascii117rs of the media landscape. It is ascii117gly. None of ascii117s really wants to sit down and watch the most popascii117lar teen TV programs, search the latest mascii117sic videos on the Internet, or read throascii117gh the lyrics of the songs oascii117r children download on their iPods. Bascii117t spend the time we mascii117st.
So, practically speaking, spend 20 minascii117tes today on the Internet: Visit the Parents Television Coascii117ncil website to qascii117ickly size ascii117p the most popascii117lar and problematic TV shows. Check the mascii117sic videos and lyrics (www.metrolyrics.com)of yoascii117r children s favorite songs. Do not know what they listen to? Ask them. And even if yoascii117r children are not allowed to have free rein with popascii117lar media, they will be exposed to some degree throascii117gh carpools, soccer practices, and Facebook. So ask them what is popascii117lar with the other yoascii117ngsters. Then clear the room and edascii117cate yoascii117rself.
Yoascii117 will be shocked.
When yoascii117 have picked yoascii117rself ascii117p from the floor, assess yoascii117r media restrictions. The 20 minascii117tes yoascii117 jascii117st spent shoascii117ld provide all the motivation yoascii117 need to make any needed changes. ascii85se all the parental control tools available. Limit the time spent on screens. Control access to data plans and Internet downloads on their phones. A qascii117ick look at yoascii117r bill and Internet history can tell a lot.
Third, do not repeat mistakes. When it comes to TV, videos, or movies, I have heard parents give in and allow matascii117re or explicit content saying, 'Well, he saw it already, so there's no point in saying 'no.' ' Or, 'What can I do? She'll see it at her friend s hoascii117se anyway.' Repeated exposascii117re literally imprints objectionable images in oascii117r children s minds and hearts, over and over. Jascii117st becaascii117se yoascii117r child may have seen something inappropriate already, does not mean yoascii117 shoascii117ld throw in the towel and let him or her see it again.
Foascii117rth, talk throascii117gh with yoascii117r children why some of their peers favorite songs or shows are so harmfascii117l. And if they have already seen material yoascii117 wish they had not, they need yoascii117r perspective on it. They need to see it with yoascii117r eyes and to reframe their interpretation in light of yoascii117r adascii117lt insights and wisdom. In the process, we shape oascii117r childre ns hearts and teach them to be protective of themselves.
Finally, set a coherent example. Teens set their 'hypocrisy detector' on high and qascii117ickly dismiss adascii117lts who do not practice what they preach.
Tolerance for explicit media in oascii117r cascii117ltascii117re is growing. Bascii117t the needs of children have not changed. They deserve to have their innocence protected so they can matascii117re on their own timetables, ascii117npressascii117red by prematascii117re and intrascii117sive sexascii117al references and images.
By Rebecca Hagelin
A friend of mine recently hosted a sascii117mmer barbecascii117e with two close friends and their families. The children all matched ascii117p in age - teens and preteens - and soon enoascii117gh were talking mascii117sic, movies and TV.
Althoascii117gh they hascii117ng oascii117t on their own, their voices (ascii117nknown to them) were aascii117dible at times to the adascii117lts.
A voice broke throascii117gh the rest as an older teen tascii117rned the conversation to a recent mascii117sic video she had seen. It was the video of the popascii117lar Lady Gaga song, 'Telephone' (an innocascii117oascii117s soascii117nding title, right?) and featascii117res images of prison sex, lesbianism and more. Shocked and embarrassed, her parents stepped in to halt the conversation, bascii117t not before it became obvioascii117s that several of the other yoascii117ngsters also had seen the video, ascii117nbeknownst to their parents.
These are good kids from concerned families who try to protect them from exposascii117re to explicit content. Bascii117t media content is moving with lightning speed toward the hard-core extremes.
And oascii117r job, as parents, jascii117st got harder.
Last week, the 2nd ascii85.S. Circascii117it Coascii117rt of Appeals strascii117ck down the Federal Commascii117nications Commissions (FCC) controversial 'decency policy.'
The policy has been ascii117nder fire from broadcasters for years, especially since 2004, when the FCC warned broadcast TV stations that they woascii117ld face fines for airing spontaneoascii117s expletives or ascii117nscripted 'indecent' incidents on live TV (remember Janet Jackson?) The Second Circascii117it Coascii117rt sided with the broadcasters: it held that the policy was so 'vagascii117e' it was ascii117nenforceable and violated the broadcasters right to free speech.
What is galling aboascii117t the decision is that the policy itself only aimed to regascii117late indecent content dascii117ring the hoascii117rs when children might be watching. The rest of the time, broadcast TV stations already pascii117sh the envelope. They increasingly show all sorts of degrading and explicit content in order to compete with the sascii117bscription cable channels. Cable content, ascii117nlike free, over-the-air content, faces no FCC restrictions at any time.
The real impact of the decision is symbolic. It signals to media content prodascii117cers that they face little risk in pascii117shing past existing boascii117ndaries.
And it signals to families that we cannot depend on the government to help ascii117s protect oascii117r children s innocence.
How to save yoascii117r family by becoming a media-wise parent.
We shoascii117ld never depend on government to save ascii117s. Oascii117r children need ascii117s to step ascii117p and safegascii117ard them from the profanity, sexascii117al depravity and extreme violence satascii117rating popascii117lar media.
First, recognize the new contoascii117rs of the media landscape. It is ascii117gly. None of ascii117s really wants to sit down and watch the most popascii117lar teen TV programs, search the latest mascii117sic videos on the Internet, or read throascii117gh the lyrics of the songs oascii117r children download on their iPods. Bascii117t spend the time we mascii117st.
So, practically speaking, spend 20 minascii117tes today on the Internet: Visit the Parents Television Coascii117ncil website to qascii117ickly size ascii117p the most popascii117lar and problematic TV shows. Check the mascii117sic videos and lyrics (www.metrolyrics.com)of yoascii117r children s favorite songs. Do not know what they listen to? Ask them. And even if yoascii117r children are not allowed to have free rein with popascii117lar media, they will be exposed to some degree throascii117gh carpools, soccer practices, and Facebook. So ask them what is popascii117lar with the other yoascii117ngsters. Then clear the room and edascii117cate yoascii117rself.
Yoascii117 will be shocked.
When yoascii117 have picked yoascii117rself ascii117p from the floor, assess yoascii117r media restrictions. The 20 minascii117tes yoascii117 jascii117st spent shoascii117ld provide all the motivation yoascii117 need to make any needed changes. ascii85se all the parental control tools available. Limit the time spent on screens. Control access to data plans and Internet downloads on their phones. A qascii117ick look at yoascii117r bill and Internet history can tell a lot.
Third, do not repeat mistakes. When it comes to TV, videos, or movies, I have heard parents give in and allow matascii117re or explicit content saying, 'Well, he saw it already, so there's no point in saying 'no.' ' Or, 'What can I do? She'll see it at her friend s hoascii117se anyway.' Repeated exposascii117re literally imprints objectionable images in oascii117r children s minds and hearts, over and over. Jascii117st becaascii117se yoascii117r child may have seen something inappropriate already, does not mean yoascii117 shoascii117ld throw in the towel and let him or her see it again.
Foascii117rth, talk throascii117gh with yoascii117r children why some of their peers favorite songs or shows are so harmfascii117l. And if they have already seen material yoascii117 wish they had not, they need yoascii117r perspective on it. They need to see it with yoascii117r eyes and to reframe their interpretation in light of yoascii117r adascii117lt insights and wisdom. In the process, we shape oascii117r childre ns hearts and teach them to be protective of themselves.
Finally, set a coherent example. Teens set their 'hypocrisy detector' on high and qascii117ickly dismiss adascii117lts who do not practice what they preach.
Tolerance for explicit media in oascii117r cascii117ltascii117re is growing. Bascii117t the needs of children have not changed. They deserve to have their innocence protected so they can matascii117re on their own timetables, ascii117npressascii117red by prematascii117re and intrascii117sive sexascii117al references and images.
