A few years ago I became concerned because my son (age 9 at
the time, 1986) was not doing well in school. He had not failed
any grades but, like most parents, my wife and I felt he might be
capable of better performance than we had seen from him thus
far.
Nevertheless, the facts being what they were, I became
suspicious there might be something in our home, or perhaps our
culture, that was having a deleterious effect on his ability to
learn. What, I could not imagine. A survey of his time quickly
suggested a possibility, however. He was averaging about three
hours per day perusing the tube's illustrious menu. I considered
simply axing this questionable habit and examining the results
after a few months. It didn't take much thought to come up with
several very good reasons why this might be wrought with problems.
First, like most kids in today's culture, he was insatiably
addicted. Second, I wasn't sure just how long a period of
abstinence might be necessary to confirm any results. Third, I was
just as addicted as he was! Now, none of us has much trouble
seeing hypocrisy in others, but children seem particularly adept
at picking it out in parents. Should I tell him he couldn't but
that I could simply would arouse predictable (and appropriate)
hostility.
I knew before I could attack this beast with a mouse's chance
of success I would have to pull the needle from my own vein as
well. And I was not willing to do that without some evidence that
it would be beneficial, the rotten programming notwithstanding.
What was I to do? Look for some other plausible cause for his
performance? Hope he would make it up when he became more mature?
Blame the school system? Ignore the problem?
To my knowledge, what little scrutiny television had received
revolved around the "quality of programming" issue. For more than
two decades any idiot could see the programming was awful. I
decided to see if there just might be some data dealing with
television as a "medium of communication." In other words, as a
medium of communication (like telegraphy, the written word, radio,
etc.), could it be possible that television might have a negative
effect on a child's ability to learn? Certainly current wisdom had
sanctioned it neutral at worst, and most of us assumed it
beneficial.
I began with a book search via the library, followed by
periodicals and finally unpublished works from students,
collegiate faculty, foundations, educational organizations, and
others. It took me nearly six months to read what I found on the
subject! I was furious. The more I read, the more I realized I had
been duped by the liberal media. There is exceedingly little data
that would indicate television viewing (even educational
programming) has a positive effect on a child's ability to learn,
and there are some very disconcerting data suggesting it may even
have a negative effect on his ability to
learn.2,15 Yet, this
paucity of supporting data has been flagrantly deleted from the
public's general awareness by the
media.2
Before we discuss some of the potential ills of television
viewing, perhaps we should see exactly who is involved. After all,
why fret over some beast if it doesn't really touch the average
person's life?
Two decades ago, (1971) adults were watching television 3.3
hrs/day. A decade later, they were up to 4.0 hours per day. Two
decades ago, grade schoolers were watching 3.6 hrs/day. A decade
later, they were up to 4.5 hours per day. Two decades ago
preschoolers watched 4.3 hrs/day. A decade later, they were up to
7.7 hrs/day! (Some of these figures are arguable. Even so, the
most conservative figures I have seen for preschoolers are 27
hrs/wk or 3.8 hrs/day as of 1990.41 In the 1990's American women
over age 55 watch the most TV (6 hrs and 19 min/day) and men over
55 are close behind, according to a Nielsen Media Research
survey.54 Americans
cumulatively watch 1.5 billion hours of TV/day. That's 2,300 human
lifetimes consumed each
day.51 Consider the
following activity breakdown of the average American
lifetime.53
* 24.5 years sleeping
* 13.5 years at work and school
* 12 years watching TV
* 4.5 years socializing
* 3 years reading
* 3 years eating
* 1.7 years bathing
* 1 year on the telephone (It seems to me that most of this
must be accumulated during the teenage years!)
* 0.8 years in the potty
* 9.5 years miscellaneous
Total = 76.5 years total (not exactly a guarantee, you
understand!)
It seems we would have little choice about some of these
(sleep time, time expended at work and school, eating, bathing,
pottying... 43.5 years). Of the remaining 33 years, television
consumes approximately a third! For some preschoolers, viewing
time consumes more than seventy-five percent of their waking
hours!
Now, if these numbers are not off by more than two hundred
percent, I should think we ought to be taking a critical look at
television's effect on our childrens' (and parents') lives.
Perhaps we might even consider doing something drastic. Like
turning this beast off. But let's look further. Perhaps this
activity is worthy of a third of our lives. NOT!
In capsuling the available data, I have chosen to illustrate
the case of the first issue (that of whether television as a
medium of communication is positive, neutral or negative with
respect to its effect on our ability to learn) with two very large
studies.2,15
The first of these began in the late 1960's, published by
Children's Television Workshop, as the ultimate experiment in
educational television, a pilot research project with the broad
based objective of developing educational programming capable of
educating the less fortunate children of America's lower class
(subsequently to become the famed Sesame Street programming we now
all know and love). It was conceived and designed by some of the
country's most distinguished educators, psychologists and child
specialists. It was backed in its initial two years by private
investors, the media, prominent nonprofit foundations and
government funding. It involved several thousand children from
varied backgrounds, nationwide, urban and rural, black and white,
across ethnic groups, wealthy and poor-obviously an attempt to cut
across the various social barriers traditional education had so
often failed to penetrate. The researchers inherently knew
television could penetrate these barriers for two simple reasons.
Virtually every American family has one (98 % of homes have at
least one; most have several).5 And they religiously watch
it.2,5,8, 51, 54
The results were widely publicized by the Educational Testing
Service (ETS) in 1970 and
1971.16 Later reviews,
however, uncovered some major discrepancies in the ETS evaluation
of the data from the study.15 It seems the
ETS reported data indicating that children made great gains as a
result of their viewing of this educational programming. Although
on the surface this appeared to be true, several problems arose
with the ETS evaluation of the data.
There was indeed a tiny subgroup of the children involved in
the study that did make significant cognitive gains (reading
skills) as a result of the study. This small subgroup of children
was encouraged to watch the programming in a particular fashion,
however. They received additional attention from researchers
through in-home visits. Their parents were keenly aware that the
children were a part of this selected subgroup. The subgroup and
their families received and were encouraged to read promotional
materials supplementing the educational programming. Now, this
does not necessarily land a fly in the soup. The problem arises
when one separates the skills acquired by the rest of the
programming viewers and compares them to this small subgroup. It
is here that several flies land in the soup. The "unencouraged"
heavy viewers (those watching more segments of the educational
programming) actually demonstrated fewer gains in cognitive skills
than did light viewers! Additionally, evidence has now emerged
indicating that the gap between socially advantaged and
disadvantaged children has actually further expanded as a result
of widespread viewing of the Sesame Street programming. In
summary, except for the "encouraged" subgroup of children in the
study, the balance of the data indicate the following: The more
time children spent viewing the Sesame Street programming, the
poorer their gains in cognitive skills. As a medium of
communication, Sesame Street programming has not proved to be
superior to As the World Turns!
Why then, has this programming been so colossally successful?
Money. Parents, you and I, liked it. Sponsors, eager to support
our tastes, placed the programming in the lime light where it has
remained to this day. That it didn't work is now unimportant. Like
much of the other questionable programming piped into our living
rooms each year by the secular television industry, it was
financially successful.
The Russel Sage Foundation's review of the Sesame Street data
is like the front page news we see across our nation's daily
newspapers. On page one a twelve hundred word character
assassination reads, "Christian Leader Found Fleecing His Flock".
Four months later, on page eighty-six, we find a twenty eight word
retraction admitting, "Christian leader found 'Not Guilty' of
embezzling funds". Alas, much of the damage is done. Little can be
recaptured.
The second of the studies evaluating the television's impact
on the childrens' cognitive skills was designed and executed by
the California State Board of Education during the late 1970's. It
involved some half million children! Its mission (among others)
was to determine the relationship (if any) between the quantity of
TV watched and scholastic achievement (as measured by childrens'
grades and SAT scores) within the public school system.
Painstaking attempts to verify the data were made by professional
in-home interviews followed by statistical multivariate analysis
of the data. The results were astounding. Much like the true
results of the Sesame Street programming study, the researchers
found that the more television children watched, the poorer their
scholastic achievements. Not too surprising, really. But take a
look at this. This deleterious effect on a child's ability to
learn was independent of three incredible factors: The child's
socioeconomic status. The child's IQ. The child's study habits. In
other words, the more TV a child viewed, the poorer his scholastic
achievements, regardless of where he lived, how he lived, what his
IQ was, nor how much he studied!
Why have parents not been apprised of this kind of
information? Frankly, I'm not sure. Sometimes it seems clearly
financially motivated. In other ways it seems Satan has a death
grip on the American family via a secularized media, education
system and government. These institutions are so incredibly
powerful and pervasive in our society, we simply must start
individually in our own homes to have a chance of freeing
ourselves.
This brings me to the second aspect of television viewing:
Quality of programming. Even if we completely ignore the available
data indicating television has a negative effect on our childrens'
ability to learn, as responsible parents we cannot ignore the
impact of its quality of programming.
Although there is exceedingly skimpy data to suggest
television has any significantly positive effect on our ability to
learn, such is not the case for the 'quality of programming'
issue. Despite the cries from the entertainment industry and
media, there remains no question about the profoundly negative
effect that today's violent, sexually explicit, "value free"
programming is having on our
society.1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,17,18,20,22,24,26,29,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,
I know this has the appearance of a ridiculously long list of
references employed simply for the impact of its length. But, I
promise you, I have merely scratched the surface of what has been
published on the subject. And much of this data comes from the
early years of television when programming was still tempered by a
more principled and moral society.
When you sit down to watch a TV program, a basic assumption is
employed by adults that most of us fail to consider. As adults, we
have the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. We were not
born with this ability. We developed the skill over many years by
assimilating the stimuli of day-to-day living beginning with the
simplest observations and developing the complex abstract thinking
of adulthood. Children do not have this ability we take for
granted. "So?," you may ask. What difference does this make?
Plenty. Television programming is a skillful but subtle blend of
fantasy and reality. To expose our children (particularly for the
extensive hours Americans allow) to this blend of reality and
imagination allows them to incorporate into their concept of the
world important but incorrect concepts of reality, many of which
will become increasingly difficult for them to sort as they grow
older. These misconceptions range from simple misunderstandings
about the natural laws (like gravity) all the way to gross
distortions of social
adaptation.1,2,5,7,9,17,23,24,25,26,28,29,38,40,41,44,46,48,60,62,64
In short, the idea held by the television industry that
programming merely reflects the ethics of society is a sick joke
at best, and perhaps a conscious effort of deception. Television
fantasy and violence seldom come packaged with any real life
consequences. There remains no question that television viewing
alters behavior of both adults and
children.41 If you doubt
that, then why do American corporations fruitlessly spend $700
million per year for advertising in an attempt to capture some $50
billion worth of market share?5 This faith of advertisers depends
totally upon television viewing being able to alter the viewers'
behavior (that is, causing us to buy their products after viewing
their ads).
Let's look at a few specifics. By age sixteen, a child will
have witnessed some 18,000 murders; 50,000 in a lifetime.5 Viewing
this reality from a different perspective, had television not been
developed, in America today there would be 10,000 fewer homicides
committed per year, 70,000 fewer rapes committed per year and
700,000 fewer injurious assaults committed per
year!41,67,68
So much for TV teaching our kids to be violent. Are there
other problems? Television programming has become the single
largest determinant of human sexuality in our society. Consider
these data in deciding if you think the message ingrained into our
children is appropriate (i.e. good for the child and/or the
culture). By age 16 (at current rates) a child will have heard
845,000 explicit sexual innuendoes and actually witnessed, in
living color, 120,900 explicit sexual acts on TV. More than 90 %
of these acts will be acts of fornication or adultery. These range
from sexually affectionate touching to sadomasochism and
exhibitionism.5 Has this
had an effect on the way our kids think? In a 1987 survey of some
1700 seventh to ninth graders (National Symposium on Child
Victimization, April 29, 1988), 24% of boys and 16% of girls said
that it was acceptable for a man to force a woman to have sex with
him if he had spent money on her. Also 65% of boys and 47 percent
of girls said that it was acceptable for a man to force a woman to
have sex with him if they had been dating more than six months.
Also 31% of boys and 32% of girls said it would not be improper
for a man to rape a woman who has had previous sexual experiences.
And sadly, 87% of boys and 79% of girls said rape in marriage is
permissible.5 Clearly, the imagery we play
in the theater of our minds ultimately will shape the habits of
our daily lives.69
A survey of teachers completed in 1940 revealed the following
seven items as the major problems identified in the classroom: 1)
Talking out of turn 2) Chewing gum 3) Making noise 4) Running in
the halls 5) Cutting in line 6) Dress code infractions 7)
Littering. The same survey of teachers in 1980 revealed the
following as the seven major problems facing the same classrooms:
1) Suicide 2) Assault 3) Robbery 4) Rape 5) Drug abuse 6) Alcohol
abuse 7) Pregnancy.71 Is
there really any mystery in the disillusionment of our children?
Is television worth this price? Will Christ hold us accountable
for what we are knowingly doing to our children? More than 98% of
American homes now have television sets. Only 96% of American
homes have inside toilets. This is the first time in America's
history that more refuse comes into our homes than goes
out.69 God help us!
I ran across one other little tidbit of information not long
ago, though pertinent, not directly related to the core issue
here. But consider the following if you will.
* The average reader reads about 80 words/minute (OK, maybe a
100) at an eighth grade reading level (e.g. The Living
Bible™, Reader's Digest™).
* At this pace, one can read through the Bible in about 65
hours.
* The average American adult watches TV = 4 hrs/day = 28
hrs/week = 112 hrs/month = 1344 hrs/year.
* At this rate (1344/65) one could potentially read through
the Bible = 20.6 times/year if (s)he spent the time reading it
that (s)he currently spends viewing television!
* What would America be like today if the average adult were
reading through the Scriptures twenty times per year? Given the
fare of 1990's television do you suppose Christ might pose this
question to us at, say, the Judgment? Perhaps we would be better
prepared in His sight if we considered the consequences of our
actions today rather than waiting.
Now, let's bring this to a close and follow up with what
happened to our baby boy. He's now a dating (read: omniscient)
teenager. Well, a bit to my chagrin, for about a year little if
anything happened, save some griping, wailing, and gnashing of
teeth. "For crying out loud, dad, I'm the only kid in school who
can't do a homework assignment because it involves writing a paper
on my favorite TV show." And others. But indeed, time did pass. He
did not die of embarrassment. We listened. We talked. We talked a
lot. There was, at times, little else to do as a family, or so it
seemed. We soothed the wounds of abstinence from TV with a book
reading program that allowed him to earn an allowance. With it
came better reading skills and some appreciation of money trees.
He became more socially and fiscally responsible. He slowly became
more interested in his school work. His grades are now
outstanding. Yes, we're proud of him. I don't deny it for one
minute. But far more important to his mom and me is the fact that
time not spent watching television gave more time for our
relationships to grow. He is now not just our child approaching
adulthood, but a very close personal friend to whom we often go
for advice ourselves. I know this must sound naive, if not
downright foolish to the parents of many teenagers. But, despite
his inherent juvenile omniscience, his insight into difficult
problems is often nothing short of astounding. I am proud to call
him my son.
Brenda and I now have a second child, Molly. She is a first
grader who has seen probably less than twenty hours of TV
programming (including videos) in her life. Yes, we're proud of
Molly as well. She may indeed grow up to be narrow minded,
intellectually stifled and socially maladjusted because of this
cultural deficit in her life. Based upon available data and
guidance from God's word, however, I am willing to take the
responsibility for my actions.
Nevertheless, do not base your opinion of this matter on the
anecdotal evidence of my kids alone, regardless of their ultimate
outcome. I have tried to instill into them God's way (Proverbs
22:6 says, "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he
is old he will not depart from it."70). Nevertheless, I may fail
or they may fail. There are plenty of solid scientific data giving
you guidance, not to mention the volumes of practical and
spiritual guidance available from God's word.
A. Robert Sheppard, M.D.
I would like to end this conjecture on American society with a
poem that fairly cogently renders my opinion of Twentieth Century
American television.
THE 23RD CHANNEL
The TV is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
It makes me to lie down on the sofa for long hours.
It leads me away from the Scriptures,
It destroys my soul.
It leads me in the paths of sex and violence,
And for what? The sponsors' sake!
Yea, though I walk in the shadow of my
Christian responsibilities,
There will be no interruptions;
For my TV is always with me.
The cable and its remote control...
They comfort me.
It prepares a commercial before me,
In the thirst for my worldliness.
It anoints my mind with humanism and secularism.
My coveting runneth over.
Surely laziness, ignorance & corruption
Shall follow me all the days of my life;
And I shall dwell in the house watching TV until it's too
late.
Author Unknown
TV Viewing Manuscript
References
1. Television and the American Family, by Jennings Bryant,
University of Alabama, Available from: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., 365 Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642
2. The Plug-In Drug , M. W. Miller, Viking Penguin, Inc., 299,
Murray Hill Parkway, East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073
3. The Read-Aloud Handbook,Jim Trelease, Viking Penguin, Inc.,
299 Murray Hill Parkway, East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073
4. Television and the Quality of Life, Robert Kubey (Rutgers
University) and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (University of Chicago)
Available from: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 365 Broadway,
Hillsdale, NJ 07642
5. Saturday Morning Mind Control,Phil Phillips, Thomas Nelson
Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1991
6. A Profile of the American Eighth-Grader, Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
20402, document # S/N 065-000-00404-6, cost of $9.
7. Responding to the Screen... Reception & Reaction
Processes,by Jennings Bryant (University of Alabama) and Dolf
Zillman (University of Alabama), Available from: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., 365 Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642
8. Nielsen Television Index, Report on Television Usage, A.C.
Nielsen Co., Hackensack, N.J.
9. Television and Social Behavior: A Technical Report to the
Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and
Social Behavior, Vol. IV, Washing D.C., United Stages Government
Printing Office, 1971
10. Television Content and Young Children's Behavior,
Television and Social behavior, Vol. II
11. How TV Threatens Your Child, Parents' Magazine, August,
1972
12. Raising Children in Modern America, by Nathan Talbot,
Boston: Little, Brown, 1976
13. Developmental Aspects of Variables Relevant to
Observational Learning, by Leifer, et. al., Child Development,
1970
14. Suburban Preschool Children's Comprehension of an
Age-Appropriate informational Television program, Child
Development, Vol. 45, 1974
15."Sesame Street" Revisited, T. D. Cook, et. al., Russell
Sage Foundation, New York, 1975
16. The First year of Sesame Street: A Continuing Evaluation
and The Second ear of Sesame Street: A Continuing Evaluation,
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N. J., 1970, 1971
17. Neurotic Distortion and the Creative Process, Lawrence
Kubie, Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1958
18. Children and Television, Gerald Lesser, Random House, New
York, 1974
19. The Educational TV in Your School May Be Anything But
Educational, Philip Jones from W. I. Halpern, The American School
Board Journal, March, 1974
20. Editorial, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 133, April,
1976
21. How to Tame the TV Monster, T. B Brazleton, Redbook,
April, 1972
22. Family Life 1948 AT (After Television), Jack Gould, The
New York Times, August, 1984
23. Age and Verbalization in Observational Learning, Coates
and Hartup, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 1, 1969
24. Eidetic Images, R. N. Haber, Scientific American, April,
1969
25. Brain Changes in Response to Environment, Rosenzweig, et.
al., Scientific American, Feb., 1972
26. Adult Status of Children with Contrasting Early Life
Experiences, Monographs on Social Research in Child Development,
Vol. 31, 1966
27. The Nature and Nurture of Behavior, A. Riesen, W. H.
Freeman Co., San Francisco, 1973
28. The Acoustic Image of Words: From Script to Print, H. J.
Chaytor, W. Heffer & Sons, London, 1950
29. Explorations in Patterns of Television Viewing by
Preschool-age Children, Lyle and Hoffman, Television and Social
Behavior, Vol. IV
30. Interest and Media Preference of Middle Grade Children, J.
Feeley, Reading World, 1974
31. The Effects of TV on Public Library Circulation, E.
parker, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 127, 1963
32. Why Johnny Can't Write, Newsweek, Dec. 8, 1975
33. Skyrocketing Juvenile Crime, The New York Times, Feb. 21,
1975
34. Television: The Critical View, J. Kosinski, Oxford
University Press, London, 1976
35. Does Television Violence Really Affect TV Viewers?, E.
Efron, TV Guide, June 14, 1975
36. Violent Crime by Young People: No Easy Answers, E. Nemy,
The New York Times, March 17, 1975
37. Crime on Television: A Survey Report, National Association
for Better Radio and Television, Los Angeles,1964
38. The 'Real' World of Television, L. Gross, Today's
Education, January, 1974
39. The Unique Perspective of Television and Its Effects--A
Pilot Study, K. Lang and G. Lang, American Sociological Review,
February, 1953
40. The Desensitization of Children to Television Violence, V.
Cline, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 1972
41. Television and Violence, Brandon S. Centerwall, M.D.,
JAMA, June 10, 1992, Vol 267, No. 22
42. Studies of the mass Media, 1949-1965, P. Witty, Science
Education, 1966
43. College Entry Tests Drop Sharply, E. Fiske, The New York
Times, September, 1975
44. What Is Television Doing to Us?, J. Gould, The new York
Times, June, 1949
45. Television and the Child, Himmelweit, et. al., Oxford
University Press, London, 1958
46. A Note on the Effects of Television Viewing, J. Gabardino,
Influences on human Development, 2nd ed., The Dryden press,
Hinsdale, Il, 1975
47. Television as Baby-sitter: A Field Comparison of Preschool
Behavior during playtime and During Television Viewing, S.
Gadberry, Child Development, Vol. 45, 1974
48. Dare to Discipline, James Dobson, Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, 1970
49. Would You Free Your Children from the Monster?, B. H.
Ryan, Denver Post, June, 1974
50. Ousting the Stranger from the House, C. McCarthy,
Newsweek, March 1974
51. Christian Parenting Today, September/October, 1990
52. BreakAway Magazine, August/September, 1990
53. The Compass in Your Nose & Other Astonishing Facts
about Humans, 1989 Marc McCutcheon (reprinted in Breakaway mag
Feb, 1991
54. Parade Magazine, May 23, 1993, p17
55. Focus: Outcome-Based Education, Education Reporter, Vol
88, p. 3, May 1993
56. Children's Television--The Economics of Exploitation, W.
Meelody, Yale University Press, CN, 1973
57. Children at Risk, David Porter, Crossway Books,
Westchester, IL, 1987
58. Violence and the Media, S. Auerbach, Secaucus, NJ, Lyle
Stuart, Inc., 1986
59. Where Do You Draw the Line?--An Exploration into media
Violence, Pornography, and Censorship, V. B. Cline, Brigham Young
University Press, Provo, UT, 1977
60. TV and Human Behavior, George Comstock, Columbia
University press, NY, 1978
61. Sex, Violence and the Media, Eysenck and Nias, Maurice
Temple Smith, NY, 1980
62. The Show and Tell Machine--How Television Works and Works
You Over, R. K. Goldsen, Dial Press, NY 1975
63. Television and Values, J. Kosinski, The Learning Sed
Company, 1982
64. The Early Window--Effects of Television on Children and
Youth, Liebert, et. al., Pergamon Press, NY, 1982
65. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, J.
Mander, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, NY, 1978
66. Children at Risk, James Dobson and Gary Bauer, Word
Publishing, Dallas, TX, 1990
67. Exposure to Television as a Risk Factor for Violence,
Centerwall, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1989,
129:643-652
68. Criminal Victimization 1989: A National Crime Survey
Report, J. M. Johnson and M. M. DeBerry, Washington, D.C., US
Department of Justice, 1990
69. Learn to Discern, Bob DuBose, Focus on the Family Video
series, 1993
70. The New American Standard Bible, Cambridge University
Press, New York, 1977
71. Television Violence in America, U. S. News & World
Report, August, 1993
73. http://www.parentstv.org,
(This is a web site that contains a frequently updated set of
reviews of all the prime time TV programs with a rating from a
Christian perspective of each program's content. The rating system
utilizes easy to follow "Red,
Yellow,
Green" alert tags. It is the only
such content based rating system in existence and a valuable tool
for parents who have not already abandoned TV viewing altogether.
)
74. http://movieguide.crosswalk.com/,
(Published by Dr. Ted Baehr, this magazine's focus is to guide
movie goers to the few good movies from a Christian perspective
and equip the viewers to avoid the filth, violence and sex laden
garbage pouring out of Hollywood. MOVIEGUIDE, P.O. Box 190010,
Atlanta, GA 31119, (770) 825-0084.