WhatEVer?! (to take a page from teen culture). ;-} I guess I thought you were saying the media doesn't have much of an effect. I didn't realize you were limiting the negative effects to things like body image. Media eroticism has no negative effect on teens but media distortion of body image does? Is it only because it is a physically unhealthy body type. Is it OK if the media tells us that healthy, fit, athletic body types are sexy?
Now I realize that "to imply that there's something bad about the availability, or even the proliferation, of lurid material, you have to show that it causes harm" while "the marbling of information and advertising (as on Channel One or in teen magazines). . . [is] bad on its face, whether or not any further resultant harm is demonstrated". But I am confused about the traffic light reference and what kind of content would be metaphorically considered a traffic light. Your mention of the Insane Clown Posse as being referenced on the Fox News site really made me wonder even more about the connection between these two programs since the ICP is actually profiled in some depth on the Frontline program (and there is a link to them from the Frontline website). I think someone on the FoxNews program must have seen the Frontline program. The Frontline program followed ICP from its debut as a band that appealed to the adolescent need for uniqueness (this music is cool because so few other people know about it or appreciate it) to its eventual sell-out signing to a big name label. I am certainly not saying that these two programs are making all the same points. I am sure the FoxNews program is more concerned with the effects of sexual and violent content itself while the Frontline program is more concerned (than Fox) with the effects on rampant consumerism. They definitely come from different value orientations. My point in bringing up the comparison initially was to show that there was agreement from both right and left wings that the media is evil and is having a negative influence on our teens. Many posters to the list were expressing doubt that the media had any significant effect on culture. Those they disagreed with seemed to be right-wingers (possibly including O'Reilly). I just wanted to point out that both the right and the left seems to believe, when it fits their agenda, that the media is a powerful force in society. Whether it is influencing teens to become mindless consumers or sex addicts, they both argue that it is influencing them. Of course, bipartisan agreement on some fact is no guarantee that it is true (in fact, it might be a guarantee of the opposite). Rick Dr. Richard L. Froman Psychology Department John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone and voice mail: (479)524-7295 http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/rfroman.html -----Original Message----- From: David Epstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:10 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: Special on Thur.-media and children On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Rick Froman went: > The Frontline episode also discusses "salacious dress" (they discuss > MTV's invention and marketing of the alleged prototypical adolescent > male, the mook, a Tom Green-type character, and the alleged > prototypical adolescent female, the midriff, a Britney Spears clone) > and the negative effects these images have on real adolescents. I would agree that these images probably have negative effects--not because midriffs are being bared, but because the midriffs being bared are skinny. There's a big difference between criticizing "salacious dress" and criticizing the eroticization of only certain body types. This is a difference I don't see mentioned on the Fox News site. > Overall, [Frontline] takes a very negative view of the effects of > the media on teens and their culture (they conclude there basically > is no teen culture that is not generated in corporate boardrooms). > Although the problems are exacerbated by the fact that the power of > the media is concentrated in only a few large conglomerates, that > fact basically just makes the conspiracy of teen marketing easier to > accomplish. The program comes down very strongly on the side that > mass media focused on teens is having a very negative impact on > teens. This still seems like a different argument from the one I saw on the Fox News site, which lists its grievances as "salacious dress, obscene lyrics, violent bullying, and sexual promiscuity" and implies that the perpetrators are such acts as "Insane Clown Posse, Marilyn Manson, and 'shock jocks' Opie and Anthony." But those are just items on a menu. Kids who don't like Insane Clown Posse or Marilyn Manson can listen to Dido or Indigo Girls; kids who don't like "shock jocks" can listen to NPR; kids who don't like violent video games can play You Don't Know Jack; kids who don't like _Celebrity Deathmatch_ can watch _Once and Again_. To imply that there's something bad about the availability, or even the proliferation, of lurid material, you have to show that it causes harm. I don't accept "kids are seeing things I don't think they should see" as a type of harm. On the contrary, I would argue that it is inherently good when people--including kids--can make informed choices about what to see and hear (with obvious context-specific exceptions such as traffic lights). The Frontline site, unlike the Fox News site, seems to focus on the latter issue. Kids' ability to make an informed choice is subverted by the marbling of information and advertising (as on Channel One or in teen magazines). I say that that's bad on its face, whether or not any further resultant harm is demonstrated. --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
