New Study To Provide Fodder For FCC Censorship

from the making-the-world-child-safe dept

Mon, Apr 3rd 2006 10:20am — Joseph Weisenthal

If the FCC is looking for yet another reason to regulate broadcast content, a new study claims a link between sexual content on TV and teen sexual promiscuity. The study also notes a rise in sexual activity when parents don't talk to their kids about such topics. Here's where the study fails to make the logical leap, that parents who don't talk to their kids are more likely to let them watch hours and hours of TV as well. Considering this, the relationship between sex on TV and sex in real life is at least as likely to be correlative as it is causal. If there is an underlying cause, it's probably bad parenting. Almost certainly, the researchers are hoping their work leads to further regulation as similar studies about alcohol and fast-food advertising have led to proposed law changes and lawsuits. Now instead of suing McDonald's because your daughter is obese, you can sue MTV to recoup the cost of your daughter getting pregnant.

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

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bob, 3 Apr 2006 @ 10:48am

parenting
Parents who teach their kids compassion and about what's healthy and right don't neet to worry that their kids might see porn. Those kids already know that porn is a fantasy for people who are sociologically challenged; not something that they should aspire to. So those kids won't end up as promiscuous just for watching porn, because they know better. Kid's who aren't given some good values will fall into the trap. The FCC should refer the issue to Child protective services.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:02pm

parenting....
There's quite a lot of sociologically challenged folks out there then. Just because it's watched doesn't mean it's believed by all, it's something to be enjoyed appropriately. Besides, porn doesn't make kids horny. Seeing anything that uses sex to sell does. I would wager more kids have seen axe commericals telling them to put on axe and go get laid then they have pornography convincing them to have sex.
I'd say the problem lies within advertising moreso than pornography.
Besides, which parent left the porn out for the kids to find anyway? This just takes us back to: bad parenting
Promiscuity isn't the problem, pregnancy and disease are. More than anything what the people need is education to see past the brainwashing the tv has in store for all. Not another scapegoat like videogames and porn.
BTW, hot coffee is what's making all the kids screw around - of course!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joel Coehoorn, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:04pm

The article I read about the study made it plain that they were very careful to adjust for factors like this (parents who don't want their children having sex also restrict tv) when figuring out the results.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/03/health/webmd/main1464262.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nilt, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:08pm

I agree the real issue here is poor parenting. Bob, however, seems to miss the point that this isn't actual pornography; I think everyone agrees children ought not to be seeing that.
It's the prevalence of sexual content in things like movies, magazines and on non-adult television that this study is dealing with. Parents can, and should, limit their children's consumption of all media in my opinion. If you allow a child to watch television without parental involvement, then any values inherent to the programming will generally be accepted without question by the child. It's a parent's job to help their child learn how to filter, so to speak, this content.
I suspect you could also find a corelation in this study to the fact that children wearing clothing that comes "stock" with holes are more sexually active.
The trick in evaluating such studys is what were the parameters of the study, who paid for it and, probably most critical, has it passed peer review. Just because a study supposedly exposes a corelation between 2 things doesn't mean that those 2 things are actual related in fact, just that there may be a coorelation for some reason. It's the reason for said corelation we need to identify before we can claim to have found a cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tim, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:08pm

It's more than parenting
I hear slants like this all the time, but honestly, television is all about sex. It's what sells, from cars to soda to body sprays. Teens are told time and time again that they HAVE to have this or wear that to be cool or sexy. And if they are cool and sexy, then they get laid.

Sorry guys, but as a person who tries to help teenagers with self identity and other major problems, the world at large is a very influential place for teens, good parents or not.

Pornography really isn't as damaging in some ways like the constant ads/shows/channels telling a teenager that they must become X or Y to be accepted.

Everyone focuses on the pregnancies and diseases as the bar to measure by, but has anyone really looked at the mental and emotional cost of teens dealing with this imagery?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnarChaos, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:11pm

Re: parenting
I guess goes way back to where they compare violence on TV with kids bringing guns to school.

OR... violent video games causing about abusive behaviour. That's why they invented ESRB ratings for such things.

And the best parental control out there is to keep tabs on your kids, whether it's watching TV/movies, playing video games or just talking.

Good post Bob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnarChaos, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:17pm

Peer Pressure - Emotional Imagery
"Everyone focuses on the pregnancies and diseases as the bar to measure by, but has anyone really looked at the mental and emotional cost of teens dealing with this imagery?"

How many teens commit suicide each year due to emotional issues of peer pressure??

Not fitting into the "in" crowd becuase you too fat, too thin, don't wear Nike/Guess/Calvin, bad hair, acne, etc., just common REAL issues.

Come on - we as adults can relate to this, as we were teens once too. Granted, the advertising and social structure back then IS NOT as powerful as today, but it still EXISTS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shalkar, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:29pm

I agree with Tim!
There is also the factor of when parents repress their kids. I mean, if you OVERprotect your kid as they grow up instead of slowly letting them see just how ugly the world is, they'll be unprepared for it and thus have no guidance. They'll be pawns to the predators. "For fun" I've guessed what would end up happening to those I grew up around as they got older. Sadly, I was almost always right. I say almost because some died. lol

Seriously though, why do people try to overprotect their kids? It only compounds the problem(s)!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BlackCow, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:30pm

oh rly
"Bob, however, seems to miss the point that this isn't actual pornography; I think everyone agrees children ought not to be seeing that."
Well I dont think adults ought to be seeing that. What now huh! You treat younger people like they are totaly difrent from adults. Teens are just less experienced and educated. And its these teens that dont know any better and fall victim to these images set by the media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evan, 3 Apr 2006 @ 12:51pm

Boobies never killed anyone
Boobies never killed anyone. I'm FAR more concerned about violence on tv than nudity/sexuality. Naked people are natural, sexuality is natural, being bludgened to death with a blunt object is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
operator, 3 Apr 2006 @ 1:06pm

ah, the wonder of the FCC
i'd really have to say that it doesn't MATTER weather or not teen sex is caused by the media.
The FCC is not there to be some idiot mom's personal cencor! These people need to be better parents, not just get the FCC to do it for them and mess it up for the people actually mature enough to handle the content.
Literally, i'm 15 and exposed to more porn and sexual content than almost anyone and I'm not phased by it at all. I was taught not to be. These people need to grow up. (and so do a the kids too)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred Sanford, 3 Apr 2006 @ 1:13pm

TV violence and sexual content
You know, it's amazing most kids from the 50's, 60's, and 70's didn't become cross-dressing, gun-toting megalomaniacs bent on world domination/destruction. Warner Brothers and Hanna-Barberra should be held accountable for every violent act done in the last 40-50 years if we keep up with these suppositions about cartoon/tv violence and sexuality. I love Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam, but I don't cross dress and shoot everyone who makes me mad. And parents alone aren't to blame; everyone is an influence when growing up. Teachers, close adults, and other kids affect our world view as well. Pinning down one major influence can be difficult. My dad was in the army and therefore gone a lot, but I didn't base my ideas on fatherhood on that or Fred Flintstone or Mr. Cleaver. I saw how women were treated during the 70's in the movies and on tv, and I saw how my brothers treated girls/women. I do not treat women like that now or ever. I think these researchers are just helping people find an excuse for their actions instead of accepting responsibility and moving on with life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Erick, 3 Apr 2006 @ 1:50pm

I'm looking at this with some issue. We all remember the studies done about the affects of graffitti in NY streets corollate to an increase in crime. When it was cleaned up, there was a direct corollation to a decrease in crime. And I know most techies will want to voice out the techie-correct opinion that FCC should just stay out of it, the real world is simply is that, real. If we let such things plague our public airwaves, it's no different than letting the graffitti tags go. I am a good parent, but what about the kids raised by the lowest common denomenator of a parent. That's who my kids will have to go with, and eventually face peer pressure, when there really shouldn't be any. With all the pressures of being a kid, why would we allow more pressures to generate from something we can simply control. It's easy to conclude that this is delegating parental control to the government. And if so, it's a shallow perspective. The reason for it, is that a community that wants to uplift the lowest common denominator can't form a comitee to move the FCC actions so easily. Hence I see this as no different as cleaning up the grafitti, to send a message that no, it is ok to grow up without such sexual pressures in k-5th grade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nilt, 3 Apr 2006 @ 2:56pm

Re: oh rly
"Bob, however, seems to miss the point that this isn't actual pornography; I think everyone agrees children ought not to be seeing that."

Well I dont think adults ought to be seeing that. What now huh! You treat younger people like they are totaly difrent from adults. Teens are just less experienced and educated. And its these teens that dont know any better and fall victim to these images set by the media.

Granted teens are less educated than many adults. This is why it's a parent's responsibility to monitor their intake, as I stated. It's not just sex and violence we need to do this with, of course. We also need to teach our kids how to recognize lies in advertising as well, among other things. Children need to be taught how to think critically about what they're told, not just repeat whatever they're told.

To speak to the original point of my comment again, though, I don't see what thi shas to do with pornography, though. Aside from the fact that the defenition of pornography seems to be different depending on one's own political views, there was nothing in the original articel regarding porn being harmful to children. Bob jumped to that conclusion, leading me to believe it's a kneejerk reaction on his part that sex=porn.

Pornography has nothing to do with this article was my main point. The other point is you can't rely solely on a synopsis of the study if you want to determine whether it's accurate. You need to know several things about it before making that decision as I laid out originally. Finally, to evaluate why the conclusions reached by the study may be so, you need to do yet another study. For example, they drew the conclusion that black children somehow pay more attention to their parents. Why this is so they don't seem to know. Therefore, it is entirely possible it's something else which is insignificant affecting the data. Perhaps the white kids were less embarrassed about their sexual activity. I have no idea but you just can't have a study like this all by itself be your sole source.

To be honest, I get tired of all the sex they push in media myself. It's, unfortunately, the case that I seem to be a minority as sex does appear to sell still.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Apr 2006 @ 3:21pm

see I love these"studies"...A teacher of mine in high school said it best. Statistics is the art of lying with numbers.

If you massage the numbers enough you can make a case for water being dangerous..see www.dhmo.org for proof. The site in question is a joke, but LOTS of stupid people have fallen for it. The point of my liitle rant is simple. You can blame whatever you want, but the root cause of ALL problems is ....YOU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BLix, 3 Apr 2006 @ 5:30pm

You mean I have to watch my kid?
I just can't believe that so many people believe that TV and other groups are to blame for their children turning out the way they do. These groups are out to make money.. thats what they do.. they are not out to rase other peoples children.

Ok I'm done complaining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kdub, 4 Apr 2006 @ 7:55am

Agree with most of ya'll
"I'd say the problem lies within advertising more so than pornography."

Totally agree with that statement and with most of the comments here. Seems like when you talk to most (rational) people who have kids they will spout off similar ideas.

We know what we need to be doing differently but there is a lot more talk than action going on. And of course, it's also a lot easier said than done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick, 17 Mar 2008 @ 5:43pm

That is unfair to blame MTV for someones daughter getting pregnant. After all it was her who acted on what she wanted to do. It was her fault because of that, not MTV for hinting towards it if they ever did. But from what I have seen, sex is hinted in everyday televisions shows that everyone watches, but you don't see young girls going out and getting pregnant because someone on some show hinted towards it. It's their decision, not television. So for the most part it is the parents fault because they either didn't get along with their children or they never talked about the consiquences of those actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]