Beth wrote:
> The Corruption of the American Child is a thought-provoking
> special that examines the effects of the entertainment
> industry on today's kids. The show provides examples of
> content from television, the Internet, recorded music and
> other entertainment outlets that are influencing today�s
> children. Some may be shocked to see and hear what today's
> youth are exposed to on a daily basis � salacious dress,
> obscene lyrics, violent bullying and sexual promiscuity.
Actually, with the exception of the inclusion of the Internet,
it sounds a LOT like many of the shows they did during the late sixties
about _my_ generation!
From a personal perspective, I certainly see problems with much
of the entertainment presented to kids--in particular I tend to view MTV
as having one of the worst influences on culture that has occurred since
the Victorian influences of the 1800's, thanks to the enormous changes
it made in the nature of popular music--but to blame the entertainment
industry for today's youth is little more than a cop-out. Millions of
kids are growing up with these same influences and only a minority are
responding from a socially negative perspective.
The problem with these concepts is that they are subjective, not
objective. For example:
Salacious dress: Seems to me that the dress of the 1960's and
1970's was a _lot_ more sexually revealing and "enticing" than the
rather bulky and shapeless clothing you see many kids wearing today.
Anyone remember when the mini skirt was considered the "ruin of American
youth?"
Obscene lyrics: Frankly, it isn't obscenity in lyrics that we
need to be concerned with--it's violence. At the worst, obscene lyrics
tend to degrade women and to offend the listener--both problematic but
no where near as much of a problem as the "doomsayers" would like to
imply it is. Like "Salacious dress," obscenity in music is dependent on
the era--in the 1950's Elvis was considered obscene due to his
"gyrations" and in the sixties many songs were viewed as too obscene for
traditional radio stations to play at all (i.e., "I want to ball you all
night long," "Maggot Brain," and even Bob Dylan's "Lay Lady Lay.").
Sexual promiscuity: Young people are more promiscuous now than
in the late 1960's & early 1970's? Those years would be pretty hard to
top! Of course the same claim was made IN the 1960's (and during the
Flapper era, for that matter). One thing that never accompanies the
claim, however, is how (even if true) that is necessarily negative.
Religious values aside, one can only view promiscuity as a negative if
the individual demonstrates antisocial behavior or personal problems as
a result. In and of itself, taking pleasure in an active sex life is a
pretty normal response to teenage hormones! In addition, promiscuity, in
the media sense rather than as a more specifically defined sexual
behavior, is a pretty vague and misused term. Does it refer to males and
females EQUALLY, or is it being used to refer only to young women? Does
it mean the person has a new partner each year? Each month? Each week?
Each day? Each hour (now THAT might indicate a problem :-)? Who gets to
be the judge of the "appropriate" sexual activity level for a young
person? His or her culture? The parents? The churches? Psychologists?
MTV? Him-or-herself?
If there is one area that the claim is at all accurate, it's in
violence (also the only area of media that has been demonstrated by
research to actually HAVE a negative effect on the long term behavior
and attitudes of people and the one that the media are least interested
in eliminating, as it provides most of their income). Today's media (and
culture) are _vastly_ more violent than earlier ones. Domestic violence
is at an all time high, and "Macho" is very definitely "in" with the
violent characteristics usually associated with it. Even there, however,
is the problem really the material kids are exposed to? Or is it simply
the fact that today there are fewer parents who take the time to share
the media experiences WITH their kids, and thus the youths have only
their peers to help them define their responses to the material? If an
adult "surfs the web" with a youth--even encountering the inevitable
trash sites, hate sites, and redirection (an area that really DOES need
response--but only because it violates all our rights NOT to be exposed
to the material)--that adult can help the youth to understand both what
s/he is encountering and the reasons some of it is inappropriate or
"trash" while other parts have value. Unfortunately, very few parents
take the time to share the web--or MTV and other youth venues--with
their kids. The Internet has become the babysitter of the new
millennium, and parents are _voluntarily_ relinquishing their ability to
demonstrate and instill values in their children to that babysitter!
Just a few thoughts to stir up some conversation on the topic.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, Michigan
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the
love you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
