Harmful Effects Of The Media On Children example essay topic

The Impact On a Childs Behavior Media vs. Parenting What impact does sex, violence, drugs, etc. in the media have on children? What can we do about it? How do we balance the tension between freedom of expression and the need to protect children? When you talk about the media and whether or not it is harmful on children, you must examine the whole industry and all aspects of its effects on children. It is that the media as a whole is not as harmful to children as some intense other can, but over exposure to certain aspects of certain types of media can be harmful.

To say that all media can be harmful to children is a fallacy that must be avoided when examining this topic. Most people when analyzing this issue tend to focus on drugs, sex, and violence in terms of the television media. Although those are some of the main topics throughout the history of this topic, there are more important issues then just that as said. This is an argument that should indefinitely point out the major impacts on young children. However this will be examining this topic in a much broader sense that will encompass the media as an entity and not focus only on the negative aspects but also the positive aspects of the media to show that the media is not in all ways bad for children. Media affecting children is increasingly rising, and is becoming a big factor among children's behaviors, but other factors such as parenting will also participate to whether media is harmful to children.

During the formation of our Constitution, our forefathers had enough foresight to know that one of the most sacred freedoms that a society can have is freedom of the press. They, however, could not envision how many different forms of the press there would be in the years after the Constitution was written. During our nation's formative years, the term press was primarily restricted to media in terms of newspapers and books. Over the years with different courts, congresses, and presidents, we have seen an expansion of the term press. This has been made even more so with advancing technology and the global expansion of the media. Therefore when we examine the media we must take a contemporary approach to this issue rather than looking at the issue based on the past.

The media has long been an easy target for the ills of society. If we go back to the times of the beginnings of World War II we can see how many at the time were turning a negative glance towards the media. William Randolph Hearst was widely criticized by his contemporary for focusing on media stories that related to crime and pseudo science. Those who disliked Hearst or competed against him called his brand of media 'yellow press'. However is can we accuse a person of imposing 'bad media' onto society, just because we do not believe in what they wish to talk about? The second amendment assures us that we have the right to voice our opinions, therefore by holding his ground I believe Mr. Hearst was not doing harm to society but just doing what he thought he was entitled to do.

I will further discuss other prominent individuals in the media and how they have been perceived. In a matter of seconds, 80% children can impersonate an action hero in a video action game, A TV show, Reality shows or even a movie / TV character. We see a lot of media as happy, energetic, and exciting. We rarely see the media as depressed, boring, and unattractive.

Sadly, as much as happy, exciting, and energetic sounds so great, a great number of that happy media is related to sex, violence, drugs, tobacco and alcohol. Children rely on the television, games, magazines, and the internet to occupy their time. The second a child opens a magazine and sees sexy women striking a pose with a beer in her hand, he / she looks up to that as sexy and cool. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse released a 145 page study claiming that children drink 25 percent of all alcohol consumed in the United States and that it is mainly because of so much media focusing on alcohol. Essentially, the alcoholic beverage industry is enduring the same kind of attack that the tobacco industry has fought for years. Children younger and younger are starting to smoke.

But, although there probably won't be billion-dollar lawsuits against brewers, visual ads are encouraging children to drink. Children as well have very easy access to alcohol. This is a enormous impact on young children. All in all, Children are accessed to a lot of things related to the media, and if they are physically capable they are more likely to mimic what they see... It really is that easy. Generally when people talk about the harmful effects of the media on children, they focus on either violence or drugs, rarely if ever is the topic of an unhealthy body image brought up when the topic of harmful effects on children is brought up.

Typically we have viewed this phenomenon as an adult one and fail to look at the effects that it may have on our young children. The main focus when it comes to children and their body has generally been on the alarming rate of obesity and eating disorders that we are seeing, but nobody is talking about how many children get an unrealistic body image from television. Furthermore, this phenomenon has even spread into the sports media where recent on Capital Hill; the National Football League was brought in to testify on the issue of steroids. We normally associate the use of steroids as a problem that lies with athletes who are trying to gain an advantage in performance. However at this hearing, there was testimony that stated that many children, some as young as middle school aged children, have begun to use steroids as a way to "look better". This issue is not only limited to boys anymore, as it was stated that some girls have begun to use steroids to improve their physical appearance.

Again, to fully understand the effects that the media has on children we must widen our scope. A typical child in the U.S. watches 28 hours of TV weekly, seeing as many as 8,000 murders by the time he or she finishes elementary school at age 11, and worse, the killers are depicted as getting away with the murders 75% of the time while showing no remorse or accountability (web). Such TV violence socialization may make children immune to brutality and aggression, while others become fearful of living in such a dangerous society. Here in lies a major problem, it is true that there are many images of violence on television, but what is this break up of this violence.

For example, what percentage of the total violence that children see is attributed to entertainment media and what percentage of it is attributed to the news media? After determining that percentage, what should we do about regulating each type of media? Is it okay for the news media to show such types of violence as war and crime and not okay for the entertainment media to do the same? Then also when does the news media cross the line from purely reporting the news and get into the realm of creating attention by broadcasting sensational news. As you can see when we begin to try and place the problem of violence in society on the media, it creates many more problems, none of which have clear and easily definable answers. In my opinion, not all media is bad for children.

As I have already stated, I believe that, yes some types of media are bad for children. However to a certain extent, I believe that in most cases it is not the type of media that can cause harm to children, but rather I believe that it is the type of media that parents choose to allow their children to have contact with. For example, no matter what the media is, it is ultimately up to the parents to determine what their children watch, read, or listen to. If we simply blame the media and hope them responsible, we are then saying that parents have no responsibility in what their children are doing. In my opinion the media has in many ways governed itself along with FCC sanctions, by applying ratings to much of its materials; the next step which is enforcement of these standards should be decided by the parents. We cannot just blindly blame the whole industry without examining our role in this discussion.

Pretty much along with the invention of the television was criticism of programming on television and possible negative effects that it may have on our children. In particular, violence and television have been closely linked. This criticism has come from parents, legislators, and mental health professionals have stated over and over that the overexposure of children to violence in the media will, in the long run, have a negative effect on our children. Due to these concerns, the United States Office of the Surgeon, in 1969 formed the Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior.

Its task was to monitor television programming and access the effect that violence on television had on children. After extensive research they developed a report and reissued this report in 1982 and this was the finding. First, Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Second, Children may be more fearful of the world around them.

Lastly, Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others (web). This statement that found on a website is indeed scary. However, does this necessarily mean that we should ban all such types of media from our televisions? If we did so, that would be one step closer to giving government the power to censor what we can view.

Although in the short run it may be a quick fix by disallowing potentially, reiterate potentially, harmful programs to be aired on television, in the long run it could give the government increased censorship powers. Therefore we must weigh the two evils and pick the lesser of the two. Now of course not all media has the blame of why children act the way they do. We have to look at the most important aspect of a child's life, their parents. As mentioned, much of a child's behavior and knowledge is absolutely learned from a visual object. In most cases they mimic every thing they see, from playing games with children, as they would see on the Disney channel, or start smoking because of the sexy ad they saw.

In terms of personality development, professionals are more concerned with how childhood experiences promote congruence or incongruence between one's self concept and one's experience (Whiten 375). As you can see with my example of the Disney Channel, children can also learn good behavior from television as well. In my opinion this logically leads to the premise that it is not so much the media that is being harmful to children, but rather the media that parents allow their children to watch is more to blame for being harmful. There are many different types of medias out in the world today and many different outlets from which they come, in my opinion it is up to the parents to determine what is best for their children and address it in that manner. By simply blaming the media as the cause of the world's ills we are taking the easy way out and not properly addressing the real cause behind these problems. Over the last several pages we discussed the role that parents have to pay in determining what types of media is appropriate for their children, now we must turn our attention to what role the media plays in this debate.

True, parents have the final say and what their children, see, read, and hear, but how much responsibility do the media have in these matters. Is it okay for the media to simply do as it wishes without regards to what is in the best of our society. Of course the answer to this question is an empathetic no. True the media must be allowed to have "freedom of speech", but this does not mean that they have no responsibility. When determining what it wants to portray and cover, the media must examine how its message will be received and how it will affect society as a whole. The media cannot simply try to make the next dollar without regards to how it achieves this goal.

To decide what role the media should play in this debate, we must further examine this topic more in depth. As stated earlier, children learn many of their social behavior through their interaction with the family television set. Knowing this, I believe that the media must play a more responsible role in programming. Such programs as The Family Guy on FOX or Desperate Housewives on ABC must be placed in time slots where they cannot be viewed by the younger audiences.

In the case of Desperate Housewives, they have done so, however with The Family Guy, this is not the case. Fox however has a history of trying to push the limits of television censorship with much of its programming. In this case, I believe that sponsors can be proactive and make it clear to Fox and other stations like it, that such programming is fine but must be regulated by time placement so that it cannot be viewed by the younger television audience. We see censorship in some way even in sports.

During the halftime show of Super Bowl 38 we saw a performance by Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, at the end of this performance we saw a "wardrobe malfunction". It has been debated whether or not this was the case or was this simply a publicity stunt, whatever the case maybe, the National Football League took action into its own hand. During the halftime show of Super Bowl 39 which took place this past February, we saw the National Football League change its programming from the more cutting edge performances that it has displayed in recent memory and gone to a more wholesome halftime performance featuring Paul McCartney. To truly make a difference in programming, television networks must take a proactive approach to programming and not simply look at the profit sheets.

Perhaps the biggest part of a young child's early socialization is through their interaction with the family television. Young children in many cases are babysat by the television; therefore they learn how people act with one another and in this way learn much early socialization behavior. Taking this into mind, we must into consideration what types of programming children view. More than likely if children view programming that is loaded with violence then they themselves will be sensitized by violence and this can lead into many problems. Studies in recent years have shown that children today are less sensitive to the violence that they view than children in past years. The obvious answer to the reason for this phenomenon, if all other things are held equal, must be that children today are exposed to more violent images.

In fact this is true; if you turn on any television set around the nation you are more likely to see violent images today as opposed to twenty years ago. Also these images today are not limited to popular media but they can also be seen on your local nightly news. True the news media has the responsibility to show the news as it is, but in many case what sells the news to the public are images of violence and this in turn drives advertisement dollars which in turn encourages the media to show more violent images. In every category of television we have seen an increase in violence and this, even if it is just a little, has to be a contributing factor in the desensitizing today's children from violence.

A growing problem with media being harmful to children is the video gaming industry. Prior to the 1980's, video games were limited to mainly arcades with more wholesome games. Today however, if you go into most American homes you will find a game console of some kind. Along with these game consoles we are seeing an increasing amount of games that promote violence and sex. A game such as Grand Theft Auto, which is sold for the Play Station II console, has many random acts of violence and depicts women in purely sexual roles.

Granted there are age warning labels to alert parents to the content of these games, but many parents today are either too busy or are simply not as computer and game savvy as their children and let their children buy these games. If you have played or seen games such as Grand Theft Auto, you would understand that this type of game has little if any social benefit, to the contrary it in many ways teaches children that violence and objectifying women is ok, just as long as it looks cool. In the long run if games such as these remain popular among children and young adults, we will see a worsening of our already decaying morals. As you can plainly see, we as a society cannot place the blame of the problem of today's children on the media and saying that the media is harmful to children. True the media can be harmful, but if it is carefully monitor and parents use discretion before saying yes to what their children can play, read, or watch then this problem would be greatly lessened.

If we blame the media without ourselves taking action then we are just as responsible because we are allowing the media to cause harm to our children with us just standing by and watching. It is true that the media as an industry must ensure that the products and programming that they are putting out is targeted to the proper markets, but in the end it is ultimately up to the parents to decide what is best for their children. It is the parents responsibility to determine what is or is not harmful to their children.