America To Government Censors: Step Away From The TV
from the no,-seriously,-stop-it dept
While some politicians have been pushing to get more regulatory control over TV for the sake of blocking out "indecent" material, a new study suggests that parents are overwhelmingly against government intervention when it comes to television, and that they believe good parenting skills are what's necessary to protect children from seeing indecent material online. While this is a position I tend to agree with, the stats (91% say government shouldn't be more involved) are so extreme to make you wonder if the questions in the survey were biased to get the answer they were looking for. There's been enough talk in this country about indecency on TV over the past few years that it would be quite surprising if politicians were pushing an idea that was really only popular with less than 10% of the population. You could easily word questions about this topic in a way that would elicit exactly these answers -- and I'm sure someone could just as easily do a study that showed nearly the opposite results by wording the questions in a different way.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Silence!
Skewed impressive statistics are impressive statistics just the same, and since for once its results are encouraging, it is better to have it provide its fullest effect on politicians and opinion makers. No use, yourself, pointing out that the survey methodology might have been questionable.
Especially since you don't really know yourself, not having been shown the actual source data.
Especially since from the article it is not to be excluded that people were asked a blunt and direct question, for which no alternative interpretation can be given, one such as "If you are worried about the quality of TV shows, would you rather A) have the government provide tighter control of the content of TV programming or B) involve yourself directly in the choice of what your kids are watching?
If such was the question, and the answer was 91% for B, there would be little room for interpretation, I guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silence!
If the data's questionable, even if it supports your beliefs, it's only going to come back and haunt you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silence!
Our founding fathers realized this.
That's why it is the FIRST amendment.
Truth and education are what really protects us all from the horrible aspects of the world that will never cease to exist.
This is also why I say the Internet is our modern "savior."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silence!
CENSOR - have fun ripping on me for that one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Silence!
That's pretty fcuking scary. I trust Internet sites, especially Wikipedia, about as much as I trust politicians and lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want my [explitive deleted] tv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the fence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the fence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the fence
Besides, it's not about shielding your kids from offensive material, it's about teaching your kids what is considered appropriate for their age (or developmental level). It's about sitting down and watching TV with your kids every now and then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On the fence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the fence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America To Government Censors: Step Away From The
In my house the precocious 10 year old is single handedly destoying the innocence of my 13 year old. She is bringing into the house media that is inappropriate. I waste hours a day attempting to keep this out of the house.
I need parental controls that work that require minimal parental effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America To Government Censors: Step Away From
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America To Government Censors: Step Away From
You had the kid. You took responsibility for the step-child. It's not (and shouldn't be) the government's responsibility to oversee the media industry so you don't have to rear your children. There are much better places for my tax money to be spent than a government board reviewing every piece of music, video, and print material that comes through the pipe.
How does a 10-year-old get inappropriate media? You don't know where she's going or with whom she's associating? YOU'RE the adult in the relationship -- YOU'RE the one who is supposed to be setting limits and instilling values. You complain that you "...waste hours a day attempting to keep this out of the house." Sorry, but that's your job as a parent. If you don't want her or your 13-year-old seeing such material then the time isn't "wasted."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America To Government Censors: Step Away From
You had the kid. You took responsibility for the step-child. It's not (and shouldn't be) the government's responsibility to oversee the media industry so you don't have to rear your children. There are much better places for my tax money to be spent than a government board reviewing every piece of music, video, and print material that comes through the pipe.
How does a 10-year-old get inappropriate media? You don't know where she's going or with whom she's associating? YOU'RE the adult in the relationship -- YOU'RE the one who is supposed to be setting limits and instilling values. You complain that you "...waste hours a day attempting to keep this out of the house." Sorry, but that's your job as a parent. If you don't want her or your 13-year-old seeing such material then the time isn't "wasted."
I agree wholeheartedly. Granted I do not have kids right now (I will be getting married next year, kids the year after), but I do know a thing or two about educating and caring for children.
Nobody forces anybody to have a TV. Heck, if my girlfriend didn't want one, we wouldn't even use it other than for movies. If you decide that you want to use the television for entertainment (hopefully you don't use it for supervision, but I have seen a lot of parents who do), then it is up to you to control what they watch.
If one really wants to do this with a minimum effort (also makes me cringe, I would rather raise kids with the maximum effort in everything that involves them), you could use a vchip, or the parental controls most cable companies use (my parents, who I no longer live with, still have the cable box set to block anything PG-13 or over, even though my youngest brother is 16, this is more of a factor of just not removing the controls because they do not remember how).
Also, I hope to raise my kids well enough, that even if they do happen to watch objectionable material, they will understand that it is innappropriate. I don't plan on raising them ignorant of the real world. If they are old enough to ask a question, they are old enough to here the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America To Government Censors: Step Away From
I am willing to bet that if you replace the word “innocence” with the word “ignorance” in the above sentence you will be MUCH closer to the truth. Or is your 10 year old involving your 13 year old in some sort of crime?
What is it that your 10 year old is teaching your 13 year old about, and why are you so afraid of it?
In no other realm of human endeavor would we refer to “ignorance” as “innocence” and value that ignorance so highly.
“My son’s Geometry teacher is despoiling his innocence of mathematics! This must be STOPPED immediately!!! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America To Government Censors: Step Away From
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV = Babysitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TV = Babysitter
Um, no shit. Censorship is for the "othertimes"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution
This would weed out mediocre parents and would ultimately do more good for children than any regulation of the media. Will somebody please think of the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]