THE PARENT (CLAP)TRAP
or, why open your mind when you can turn
off your tv?
Remember, at the end of Monday's post, when I suggested that Lisa
Segelman and the rest of her Woe Is Mom/We
Poor Parents ilk would do well to remember that
parents have the authority, the
possibility, and hell, even the responsibility, to make some rules and set some
limits? (I'm guessing that you do, if the
number of Bravo!
emails I've already received is any indication.)
That thought, and some parents' absurd application of it, introduces us to the
next, and almost equally annoying, variation on the
What About the Children
Essay: the ones in which parents who are unable
to see the shades and nuances necessary to setting reasonable limits -- which is
to say, parents who are unable to properly parent -- seek solace in an act of
extreme prohibition, then report with great and almost insufferable levels of
self-satisfaction that they have seen the light, that they have solved the
problems of the modern media world, and that their kids are therefore a hell of
a lot better and healthier than
yours.
Which brings us, then, to Jennifer Kissel's Four Kids, No Cable, as fine -- which is to say, fatuous -- an example of this Desperate Times Call For Draconian Measures sub-subgenre as you're ever likely to find. From the moment I first caught a glimpse of the title in Saturday morning's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I knew I'd struck (fool's) gold. And I knew I'd found not just the perfect, day-after companion piece for my deconstruction of that My Turn detritus, but also the perfect example of how a parent can so exaggerate those same dubious threats to her children that, even if she starts in the right direction, she can go so far off the deep end on the other side that she circles back and still arrives at Ms. Segelman's destination: if not road-trip hell, at least the purgatory of over-reaction...
Let's see...
It's only the first two words, and already she's pontificating. I hate that.
...the rate of childhood obesity is skyrocketing, more than 20 percent of American adults are obese and kids watch thousands of television ads a year that push junk food, soda, fast food and nutritionally empty cereal.
You don't suppose she has the solution, do you?
Kids are glued not only to the tube but to the X-box, Play Station and Wii.
And Game Boys. And DSes. And PSPs. And iPods. And cell phones. And computers. And...
...well, hell. If you're gonna enumerate all the electronic evils of the adolescent world, at least do it right.
And (finally) a study by Kaiser Family Foundation has linked obesity to watching food ads.
In fact, it hasn't. Not even close.
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the researchers -- full text, in PDF form, here -- who explain what their study does (and doesn't do) in this excerpt from its executive summary:
This study does not address the issue of whether food advertising to children on TV is going up or down, nor does it address the issue of whether such advertising influences what kids eat, or should be in any way restricted, either through voluntary efforts or through regulatory policy. What it does indicate, however, is that food marketing is a predominant part of the television advertising landscape for children, and that young people's exposure to such messages is substantial, while their exposure to countervailing health messages on TV is minimal.
Ms. Kissel must have missed that part. (Which is odd, since it's on page 4, under the rather obvious and important-sounding heading, Conclusions.) Or perhaps -- and I suspect this is more likely -- she missed the whole thing, and simply parroted some lazy or sensational (or both) misrepresentation of it she saw or read or overheard in the media.
But then, hey, why take the time to be make sure your claims are correct? As long as they sound impressive and help set up the empty argument to follow, that's all you need, right?
[On a side note: the whole study's a bunch of twaddle. Check back later this week, in Friday's Notes post, to see why.]
Gee, what a surprise.
You mean that someone who seems incapable of appreciating parental nuance would leap to embrace the misrepresentation of a mostly useless study that simply makes her feel better about her biases?
You're right. That's no surprise at all.
The television industry and food giants don't give a flying Fruit Loop about your child.
Had I not read this in an op-ed piece, I would never have believed it. Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing this wisdom with us.
They are in business to make money.
That's pretty much the definition of being in business, isn't it?
We wring our hands and blame the food industry and television for turning our children into talking Cheez Puffs.
I don't. In part because neither of my boys have orange skin. But also because I still cling to the increasingly antiquated notion that my wife and I have far more control over the lives of our children than anything they see on television. Or anywhere else.
Whatever will we do?
Get a sense of perspective?
Here's an idea: Turn off the TV!
Apparently not.
Instead, let's just throw out the baby with the bath water, the good programming with the bad advertising, and the nuanced thinking with the knee-jerk reactions.
I know, I have uttered the unthinkable.
No, just the unreasonable. The uncritical. And the unctuous.
But I'm here to tell you: You can turn off the TV ... and your kids will live.
I never would have guessed. Except, of course, for all the times I turned off the television, or I told the boys to turn off the television, or Wendy told the boys to turn off the television, and they somehow managed to survive. And all these years we just thought we were getting lucky.
I know because I have four kids (ages 10, 9, 6 and 3) and no cable.
Maybe they have DirecTV.
We do have a TV (although if it was entirely up to me, we wouldn't).
Because they're evil. Because they emit radiation that rots your brain. And because they turn your children into Cheez Puffs.
We don't have an X-Box or any other electronic game besides a couple of computer games.
I'm guessing they're educational. And that your kids hate them.
(I know, this is akin to child abuse. I get stares of incredulity when I mention this to people.)
You probably get those stares because you're so damned smug about it.
My kids aren't geeks. They're not socially backwards.
None of their friends want to come over to our house to play, but other than that...
They're also not unhealthy.
...they're just fine...er...I mean...not unfine.
They watch PBS after school (although they do love "American Idol").
What? You let them watch TV after school? But I thought TV was evil! And you let them watch American Idol? I mean, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a whole hell of a lot of commercials on that show. And some of them were even for food.
You aren't suggesting, are you, that a little television and maybe even -- (gasp!) -- a little advertising in moderation, combined with good guidance and a sound parental influence, might be okay? Because if you are -- and I think you are -- then why the need to unplug the cable? Do the bad effects only come from pay channels?
Or is it possible that, despite your hard-line stance, there are still some times you can't say no to your kids?
Then they play -- hockey, soccer, catch, tag.
Funny. So do my kids. When they're not playing basketball or baseball or frisbee or 4-square or rundown or capture the flag. Or playing with all the kids in the neighborhood. Or taking walks with Wendy and me. Or watching television. Or playing video games.
They build forts and lemonade stands.
So do my kids.
(Well, except for the lemonade stands. They're not that naive.)
Inside, they knock around a nerf ball, play mini-sticks hockey, read, put on puppet shows, help me cook, write stories, do chores, paint pictures,...
Wow. So do my kids. I don't know how they manage to find all this time to do all these things and watch tv and play video games too. And yet they do.
...listen to the Pirates on the radio...
I don't know about a lack of video games, but allowing them to listen to the Pirates is definitely akin to child abuse.
...and help me do volunteer work.
Which, of course, they could not possibly do if they watched twenty minutes of Nickelodeon every day.
We walk together.
No doubt in search of a house with better reception.
Sometimes, they're bored.
Funny. My kids are never bored.
We used to have cable. I spent one horrible summer begging, pleading and ordering them outside, away from the mind-numbing cartoons in which the characters disrespected each other and adults.
Begging? Pleading? You're not a pre-schooler, for God's sake, you're a parent. Act like one, and your problems are solved. But I suppose it's just easier to cancel your Comcast account.
They were glued to sitcoms touted as pre-teen shows, in which 10-year-olds acted like 16-year-olds but the commercials pushed products at 6- to 8-year-olds.
And who, exactly, allowed them to watch these shows? Weren't you home at the time? Couldn't you figure out how to use the remote?
During the endless barrage of toy and junk food commercials, I heard a litany of "Can I have that for my birthday? Can I have that to eat? Can you buy me that?"
To which they should have heard a litany of "No" and "No" and "No." That seemed to work for my kids. At least I think it did, because they don't say those things any more.
When the TV wasn't on, they were like limp dolls.
Which is better, I suppose, than being like wet noodles. But not nearly as good as being like action figures.
They were crabby, headachy and they fought.
They also had terrible bouts of diarrhea, but that might have been caused by a virus. Or not.
Also, the cable bill had been creeping up. When my husband and I were married, it was $25 a month. Eight years later, it was up to $43. So about three years ago, I canceled cable. We told the kids it was broken. They have lived. And lived well.
Since we lied to them. Which seems to me an odd thing for a parent -- especially a parent so concerned about television characters disrespecting each other -- to do.
The oldest three are in elementary school and are getting good grades. They are fit and trim. They love sports, love to read, love to create.
My boys are in elementary and middle school. They get straight As. They are fit and trim and active. They love sports and reading and creating. They also like to watch tv and love to play video games. And yet, somehow, perhaps through divine providence or sheer good fortune or maybe, just maybe, the setting of reasonable limits and the accepting of parental responsibility, they are not mutually exclusive.
Imagine that.
Recently, someone bet me that if given a choice my kids would pick cable TV over playing baseball or soccer. So I asked them. One son said he would give up one baseball game in order to see the Penguins play on KBL,...
...on KBL? What was he going to do, go back in time?
[Note: if by not watching television or playing video games her son has been able to invent a fully functioning time machine, then I immediately withdraw all these scathing comments and humbly submit myself to Ms. Kissel's superior parenting strategies.]
...but that was it. My daughter said I was insane. And my youngest son cried because he thought I was saying he couldn't play sports anymore.
Gee, with so little television watching to numb their minds, you'd think they'd be smarter than that.
Do they eat junk food? Sometimes. (They love ice cream.) Do they eat fast food? Sometimes.
I wonder who buys it for them.
They love Cheerios, oatmeal, all fruits and most vegetables.
None of which are ever advertised on tv.
I'm far from being a perfect parent. Do they eat junk if it's offered? Yes. I rail against fast food but occasionally take them for McDonald's pancakes.
Didn't we just go through this? And, anyway -- if you rail against fast food, then what are you doing taking them to McDonald's? Because, despite these steadfast principles, you just can't say no to them? Doesn't that seem just a tad hypocritical? Or at least counter-productive?
The next thing you know, she'll be borrowing a DVD player, an XBox, and a satellite dish, throwing them all in the minivan, and driving down to Florida.
I'm a vegetarian but my son lives for the hot dogs at baseball games. I bake a lot.
What the hell does any of this have to do with watching television? Did I fall asleep and wake up in a different pointless essay?
But I also have no doubt that keeping TV at bay is helping to keep my kids healthy.
I mean, I can't prove that it is. And plenty of other active, healthy kids watch TV and play video games. But I have no doubt that what I'm doing is best. You know why? Because...
TV encourages unhealthy habits and contributes to America's obesity epidemic. The TV industry has no interest in changing its advertising policies unless it is forced to. Make it easy on them. Instead of battling the advertisers, cut the problem off at its source. Cancel cable. Turn off the TV. Your kids will entertain themselves. They might even spend more time with you. You're the parent -- say no to excessive junk food and limit their TV time. You will be surprised at how creative -- and healthy -- they can be.
I would have taken these one at a time, but frankly, I'm tired. And I'll bet you are too. Tired of the lecture, tired of the holier-and-healthier-than-thou attitude, and tired of Ms. Kissel's desire to have her smug little cake and bleat it too. But if you're anything like I am, you're especially tired of the notion that someone who can't seem to control her own kids (at least without lying to them), and who can't seem to keep even her own principles consistent (do we turn off the TV or not?), somehow seems to think that we'd all be better off if we just followed her advice. Which is to say, if we just treated our children and our televisions as dismissively as she does.
Which brings us, then, to Jennifer Kissel's Four Kids, No Cable, as fine -- which is to say, fatuous -- an example of this Desperate Times Call For Draconian Measures sub-subgenre as you're ever likely to find. From the moment I first caught a glimpse of the title in Saturday morning's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I knew I'd struck (fool's) gold. And I knew I'd found not just the perfect, day-after companion piece for my deconstruction of that My Turn detritus, but also the perfect example of how a parent can so exaggerate those same dubious threats to her children that, even if she starts in the right direction, she can go so far off the deep end on the other side that she circles back and still arrives at Ms. Segelman's destination: if not road-trip hell, at least the purgatory of over-reaction...
Let's see...
It's only the first two words, and already she's pontificating. I hate that.
...the rate of childhood obesity is skyrocketing, more than 20 percent of American adults are obese and kids watch thousands of television ads a year that push junk food, soda, fast food and nutritionally empty cereal.
You don't suppose she has the solution, do you?
Kids are glued not only to the tube but to the X-box, Play Station and Wii.
And Game Boys. And DSes. And PSPs. And iPods. And cell phones. And computers. And...
...well, hell. If you're gonna enumerate all the electronic evils of the adolescent world, at least do it right.
And (finally) a study by Kaiser Family Foundation has linked obesity to watching food ads.
In fact, it hasn't. Not even close.
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the researchers -- full text, in PDF form, here -- who explain what their study does (and doesn't do) in this excerpt from its executive summary:
This study does not address the issue of whether food advertising to children on TV is going up or down, nor does it address the issue of whether such advertising influences what kids eat, or should be in any way restricted, either through voluntary efforts or through regulatory policy. What it does indicate, however, is that food marketing is a predominant part of the television advertising landscape for children, and that young people's exposure to such messages is substantial, while their exposure to countervailing health messages on TV is minimal.
Ms. Kissel must have missed that part. (Which is odd, since it's on page 4, under the rather obvious and important-sounding heading, Conclusions.) Or perhaps -- and I suspect this is more likely -- she missed the whole thing, and simply parroted some lazy or sensational (or both) misrepresentation of it she saw or read or overheard in the media.
But then, hey, why take the time to be make sure your claims are correct? As long as they sound impressive and help set up the empty argument to follow, that's all you need, right?
[On a side note: the whole study's a bunch of twaddle. Check back later this week, in Friday's Notes post, to see why.]
Gee, what a surprise.
You mean that someone who seems incapable of appreciating parental nuance would leap to embrace the misrepresentation of a mostly useless study that simply makes her feel better about her biases?
You're right. That's no surprise at all.
The television industry and food giants don't give a flying Fruit Loop about your child.
Had I not read this in an op-ed piece, I would never have believed it. Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing this wisdom with us.
They are in business to make money.
That's pretty much the definition of being in business, isn't it?
We wring our hands and blame the food industry and television for turning our children into talking Cheez Puffs.
I don't. In part because neither of my boys have orange skin. But also because I still cling to the increasingly antiquated notion that my wife and I have far more control over the lives of our children than anything they see on television. Or anywhere else.
Whatever will we do?
Get a sense of perspective?
Here's an idea: Turn off the TV!
Apparently not.
Instead, let's just throw out the baby with the bath water, the good programming with the bad advertising, and the nuanced thinking with the knee-jerk reactions.
I know, I have uttered the unthinkable.
No, just the unreasonable. The uncritical. And the unctuous.
But I'm here to tell you: You can turn off the TV ... and your kids will live.
I never would have guessed. Except, of course, for all the times I turned off the television, or I told the boys to turn off the television, or Wendy told the boys to turn off the television, and they somehow managed to survive. And all these years we just thought we were getting lucky.
I know because I have four kids (ages 10, 9, 6 and 3) and no cable.
Maybe they have DirecTV.
We do have a TV (although if it was entirely up to me, we wouldn't).
Because they're evil. Because they emit radiation that rots your brain. And because they turn your children into Cheez Puffs.
We don't have an X-Box or any other electronic game besides a couple of computer games.
I'm guessing they're educational. And that your kids hate them.
(I know, this is akin to child abuse. I get stares of incredulity when I mention this to people.)
You probably get those stares because you're so damned smug about it.
My kids aren't geeks. They're not socially backwards.
None of their friends want to come over to our house to play, but other than that...
They're also not unhealthy.
...they're just fine...er...I mean...not unfine.
They watch PBS after school (although they do love "American Idol").
What? You let them watch TV after school? But I thought TV was evil! And you let them watch American Idol? I mean, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a whole hell of a lot of commercials on that show. And some of them were even for food.
You aren't suggesting, are you, that a little television and maybe even -- (gasp!) -- a little advertising in moderation, combined with good guidance and a sound parental influence, might be okay? Because if you are -- and I think you are -- then why the need to unplug the cable? Do the bad effects only come from pay channels?
Or is it possible that, despite your hard-line stance, there are still some times you can't say no to your kids?
Then they play -- hockey, soccer, catch, tag.
Funny. So do my kids. When they're not playing basketball or baseball or frisbee or 4-square or rundown or capture the flag. Or playing with all the kids in the neighborhood. Or taking walks with Wendy and me. Or watching television. Or playing video games.
They build forts and lemonade stands.
So do my kids.
(Well, except for the lemonade stands. They're not that naive.)
Inside, they knock around a nerf ball, play mini-sticks hockey, read, put on puppet shows, help me cook, write stories, do chores, paint pictures,...
Wow. So do my kids. I don't know how they manage to find all this time to do all these things and watch tv and play video games too. And yet they do.
...listen to the Pirates on the radio...
I don't know about a lack of video games, but allowing them to listen to the Pirates is definitely akin to child abuse.
...and help me do volunteer work.
Which, of course, they could not possibly do if they watched twenty minutes of Nickelodeon every day.
We walk together.
No doubt in search of a house with better reception.
Sometimes, they're bored.
Funny. My kids are never bored.
We used to have cable. I spent one horrible summer begging, pleading and ordering them outside, away from the mind-numbing cartoons in which the characters disrespected each other and adults.
Begging? Pleading? You're not a pre-schooler, for God's sake, you're a parent. Act like one, and your problems are solved. But I suppose it's just easier to cancel your Comcast account.
They were glued to sitcoms touted as pre-teen shows, in which 10-year-olds acted like 16-year-olds but the commercials pushed products at 6- to 8-year-olds.
And who, exactly, allowed them to watch these shows? Weren't you home at the time? Couldn't you figure out how to use the remote?
During the endless barrage of toy and junk food commercials, I heard a litany of "Can I have that for my birthday? Can I have that to eat? Can you buy me that?"
To which they should have heard a litany of "No" and "No" and "No." That seemed to work for my kids. At least I think it did, because they don't say those things any more.
When the TV wasn't on, they were like limp dolls.
Which is better, I suppose, than being like wet noodles. But not nearly as good as being like action figures.
They were crabby, headachy and they fought.
They also had terrible bouts of diarrhea, but that might have been caused by a virus. Or not.
Also, the cable bill had been creeping up. When my husband and I were married, it was $25 a month. Eight years later, it was up to $43. So about three years ago, I canceled cable. We told the kids it was broken. They have lived. And lived well.
Since we lied to them. Which seems to me an odd thing for a parent -- especially a parent so concerned about television characters disrespecting each other -- to do.
The oldest three are in elementary school and are getting good grades. They are fit and trim. They love sports, love to read, love to create.
My boys are in elementary and middle school. They get straight As. They are fit and trim and active. They love sports and reading and creating. They also like to watch tv and love to play video games. And yet, somehow, perhaps through divine providence or sheer good fortune or maybe, just maybe, the setting of reasonable limits and the accepting of parental responsibility, they are not mutually exclusive.
Imagine that.
Recently, someone bet me that if given a choice my kids would pick cable TV over playing baseball or soccer. So I asked them. One son said he would give up one baseball game in order to see the Penguins play on KBL,...
...on KBL? What was he going to do, go back in time?
[Note: if by not watching television or playing video games her son has been able to invent a fully functioning time machine, then I immediately withdraw all these scathing comments and humbly submit myself to Ms. Kissel's superior parenting strategies.]
...but that was it. My daughter said I was insane. And my youngest son cried because he thought I was saying he couldn't play sports anymore.
Gee, with so little television watching to numb their minds, you'd think they'd be smarter than that.
Do they eat junk food? Sometimes. (They love ice cream.) Do they eat fast food? Sometimes.
I wonder who buys it for them.
They love Cheerios, oatmeal, all fruits and most vegetables.
None of which are ever advertised on tv.
I'm far from being a perfect parent. Do they eat junk if it's offered? Yes. I rail against fast food but occasionally take them for McDonald's pancakes.
Didn't we just go through this? And, anyway -- if you rail against fast food, then what are you doing taking them to McDonald's? Because, despite these steadfast principles, you just can't say no to them? Doesn't that seem just a tad hypocritical? Or at least counter-productive?
The next thing you know, she'll be borrowing a DVD player, an XBox, and a satellite dish, throwing them all in the minivan, and driving down to Florida.
I'm a vegetarian but my son lives for the hot dogs at baseball games. I bake a lot.
What the hell does any of this have to do with watching television? Did I fall asleep and wake up in a different pointless essay?
But I also have no doubt that keeping TV at bay is helping to keep my kids healthy.
I mean, I can't prove that it is. And plenty of other active, healthy kids watch TV and play video games. But I have no doubt that what I'm doing is best. You know why? Because...
TV encourages unhealthy habits and contributes to America's obesity epidemic. The TV industry has no interest in changing its advertising policies unless it is forced to. Make it easy on them. Instead of battling the advertisers, cut the problem off at its source. Cancel cable. Turn off the TV. Your kids will entertain themselves. They might even spend more time with you. You're the parent -- say no to excessive junk food and limit their TV time. You will be surprised at how creative -- and healthy -- they can be.
I would have taken these one at a time, but frankly, I'm tired. And I'll bet you are too. Tired of the lecture, tired of the holier-and-healthier-than-thou attitude, and tired of Ms. Kissel's desire to have her smug little cake and bleat it too. But if you're anything like I am, you're especially tired of the notion that someone who can't seem to control her own kids (at least without lying to them), and who can't seem to keep even her own principles consistent (do we turn off the TV or not?), somehow seems to think that we'd all be better off if we just followed her advice. Which is to say, if we just treated our children and our televisions as dismissively as she does.
Posted: Wed - July 25, 2007 at 02:35 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
Terror Alert
Brilliant Satire
Required Reading
Traffic Count
Official Muse
Syndication
Carbolic Wear
Y Chromosomes
Some Perspective
On Tour
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 28, 2008 10:24 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 28, 2008 10:24 PM