Children and the Media

Imagine a house next to a popular place of entertainment. Hundreds of people a week flock to this venue and in the process trample upon and leave litter all over the carefully tended lawn. A fence is erected to keep the unwelcome guests away. The lawn is in better shape. Imagine now that this “lawn” is the mind, specifically that of a child. What type of “fence-building” or gatekeeping would one employ to protect it?

It is assumed that it is the job of a child’s guardians to protect them from negative influences in the media. 76 percent of those polled in a recent survey believe it is the parent’s responsibility “to keep inappropriate content away from children” (First Amendment Center, 2008). There is a difference between knowing what not to do and knowing why one ought not to do it. A parent or guardian must also take up the responsibility to teach their children media literacy.

Media literacy is a “wider set of perspectives on the media” (Potter, 2009). It is taking the time to analyze where information is coming from, why and how it affects oneself. Oftentimes the media is simply consumed. It is easy to take in program after program without considering its affects on oneself and those watching with you. Taking this extra step of analysis sets one apart in this media saturated culture.
“Our experience with media is the basis for building our knowledge about the world” (Harris, 1994, p. 2). From radio talk shows, news on TV, to Internet blogs, mass media is vital to the flow of information in our culture. Mass media takes four main forms in today’s society: print, radio, television (along with movies) and the Internet. Each one has its own unique approach to the individual and in turn has its own unique gatekeeping methodology. The sheer amount of information and convergence of these four platfroms make media literacy a determined effort on the part of the parent.

Why is this all so important? Just as a child must be taught not to touch a hot stove, or to overindulge in sweets, the point of media literacy is to teach both caution and moderation in the use of media. For example, “In 1984, a 13-year-old boy died instantly after shooting himself in the head . . . re-enacting a scene from The Deer Hunter. . . the 31st person to have died reenacting the climatic scene” (Harris, 1994, p. 1). This is a keen example of how media can be misinterpreted by the young. The aim of this paper is to explore the various influences media has had on children and to present a foundation on which to build the better “fence” of media literacy. A fence that would help develop children into mature, informed adults. Even better, adults who are capable of teaching the next generation the same principles they have learned.
The mass media’s impact on children is worthy of particular note. A common fear is that a mass medium has the power to “corrupt moral values and stimulate undesirable behavior” (Overton, W. 2001. p.1). Another fear relates to what kind of damaging effects sophisticated psychological manipulation can have on defenseless children (Greenfield, P. 1984, p. 2). With the Internet, the “challenge is posed by content harmful to children yet legal when consumed by adults” (Machill, M. and Waltermann, J. 2000, p. 32).

Interestingly enough these negative aspects are counter-weighted by the positive benefits of mass media. The Internet is an “interactive tool [that] empowers its users with the freedom to communicate, to distribute, to seek and gather information, to develop and disseminate opinions” (Machill, 2000. p. 32). Not just the Internet but entirely new forms of media have people optimistic about the potential they have as new tools for teaching and learning and in the potential for expanding the horizons of children (Overton, 2001. p. 1). Also the honest pragmatic approach is that these mediums are here to stay and we need to make it “all the more urgent that we discover how best to use them” (Greenfield, 1984. p. 3).

When it comes down to it, the power and responsibility of controlling these mass media influences on children lies with parents. As a society, methods have been put in place to help filter these influences but parents must become media literate enough to be a gatekeeper for their children. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), television networks and gaming companies have rating systems in place, yet “parents must educate themselves about how labeling and filtering systems work” (Machill, 2000. p. 126). Corder-Bolz notes, “Whatever the negative effects of television on children, they can be mitigated, and perhaps even turned to positive changes through dialogue in the home” (Harris, 1994. p. 250). Parents need to become both aware and active in regards to the media input of their children.

Media literacy can be classified as knowing about the “formal features of each particular medium” (Harris, 1994. p. 248) and the implications media consumption can have on its viewers. To know television, for example, it is to know what programming is on and at what times along with what individual programs promote in regards to societal stereotypes, educational advancement and possible stimulation toward aggression.

Now what exactly the effects that mass media has on children is a matter of continuing study. A good deal of these studies have focused on the effects of television. More studies are being done on the effect the Internet has on older children and teenagers. Regarding the effects of the media, Richard J. Harris explains “Different people perceive the same message differently and respond to it in varied forms” (1994, p. 16). So, when it comes to gatekeeping for a child, the task is not just knowing what is coming down the media pipe, but how much and what the individual child can handle. For example, one study notes the impact of early television viewing has on later academic achievement. “Viewing Sesame Street was also associated with higher grades in math and science for girls, but watching violent programs at age 5 years was a negative predictor of high school grades for girls” (Overton, 2001. p. 65-66). Varying life effects can also be drawn from the use of different media. Print literacy can shape how one communicates verbally (Greenfield, 1984. pp. 76-77). Video game consumption not only increases hand-eye coordination but also contributes to growth in multi-dimensional thinking (Greenfield, 1984. p.110).

Mass media, whatever form it takes, has an influence on children. It is up to the parents to become media literate and use the tools available to them to understand the media influence and to be able to teach children how to deal with it effectively in their lives.

Alongside the conjecture on media theory and its effects are case studies mostly dealing with television, a few with the Internet, and one examining children in relation to modern media culture as a whole (Children in the Information Society, 2004).

Children encounter the media in their homes, at school and during play. When media and children coincide, there is often unease (Critcher, C, 2008). The effects of television, video games and the Internet on children were specifically examined. The 2003 analysis of the Cyberkids: children’s social networks, ‘virtual communities’ and online spaces research project by Sarah L. Holloway and Gil Valentine was used alongside the 2004 Children in the Information Society: The Case of Finland by Juha Suoranta and Hanna Lehtimaki in regards to the Internet. Television effects were considered from the 2001 Early Childhood Television Viewing and Adolescent Behavior study with Willis F. Overton as Editor. Positive and negative effects were found in each of the media venues. The conclusion of these findings led to this first hypothesis:
H1: Media literacy is necessary for parents to discern what is consumed
by their children.
The speed at which the mass media has changed and way people use it in ever-increasing sections of society highlights the necessity for media literacy. The rapid progression from print, to television, to the Internet as primary information sources has also lead to a continual morphing of communication/child development theory. The fear that new mass media are a “Pied Piper” for children may very well be justified. This leads to a second hypothesis:
H2: The continual changes in mass media suggest that gatekeeping is of ever-
increasing importance for parents to raise their children in a
media-saturated society.
Another issue that the rapid development of mass media raises is that of parental readiness. “Fears are exacerbated by the fact that parents and teachers – particularly those who are less technologically literate than the young people in their care – have a limited ability to control or filter what children might see and learn” (Holloway, S. and Valentine, G., 2003). Human developmental processes are slower as an adult than as a child. So, children have a distinct advantage in picking up and running with new forms of media. This divergence in learning speed leads to a third hypothesis:
H3: Parents need to be equipped and made aware of the effects diverse media
have on children.

The image of a lifelong media literate parent who effectively gatekeeps for their children is an ideal form. The combination of ideas from different theories allows a foundation to be laid for parents to build themselves a media literate lifestyle. Lifestyle suggestions from simple talks with children to more in-depth filtering methods on media sources will be discussed. These suggestions are laid out in order for parents to take action and not just hear another “boy who cried wolf.” Extreme reactions such as media isolation are not necessary and may alienate parents from their children. This society is media-saturated and these new forms of media are how children communicate. This leads to the final hypothesis:
H4: Children will become media literate and discerning as parents make lifestyle
changes that show understanding for the child and show the child the
consequences of their media intake.
Just as a child must be taught not to touch a hot stove or overindulge in sweets, the point of media literacy is to teach both caution and moderation in the use of media. For example, “In 1984, a 13-year-old boy died instantly after shooting himself in the head . . . re-enacting a scene from The Deer Hunter. . . the 31st person to have died reenacting the climatic scene” (Harris, 1994, p. 1). This is an extreme example on how media can be misinterpreted by the young. Also regarding the effects of the media, Richard J. Harris explains, “Different people perceive the same message differently and respond to it in varied forms” (1994, p. 16). So, when it comes to gate-keeping for a child, the task is not just knowing what is coming down the media pipe but also how much and what the individual child can handle. It becomes imperative for the parents to become media literate themselves and pass this ability to discern onto their children.

There are both dangers and benefits to media consumption. A 2001 study on the long-term effects of Sesame Street showed positive effects toward school readiness and literacy but commercial entertainment cartoons had negative effects in the same areas (Fisch, S. 2002, p. 420). When parents are aware of this they, in their gate-keeping role, can shield a child from the negative and direct the positive programming to further a child’s development. Knowing the potential consequences of specific media consumption, then, is a foundational aspect of being a media literate parent.
Whatever the media venue, the content for the child is the key. As they grow, children will be able to adapt quickly to whatever media form is presented to them for use. They can be compared to sponges absorbing water. They will take it all in, so a flow control is necessary if damaging content is to be avoided. In order to interpret and meaningfully deal with this flow of new information a parent must provide both guidelines and time to discuss it with their children. In a study of diverse families across the United States and their media use, it is apparent that a child’s view of the media is shaped by the family’s regular uses of it, and in extreme examples where the parents were media illiterate, the media exerted a stronger influence in life choices than the family itself. In the positive respect, those families that set forth guidelines and discussed the influence of media were much more aware of their identity as a family and their shared values (Drotner, K. and Livingstone, S. 2008, p. 105). [Also, to clarify, “guidelines” were a shared understanding of offensive and inoffensive content among family members rather than a list of prohibitions.] Another foundational principle, then, would be to have shared guidelines for the household and set aside time to discuss what media has been consumed.

Finally, a primary aspect in many children’s lives is that of play. In “play” children take risks as they explore their environment, experiment with how things and people work and just be plain creative. Interestingly enough this aspect of play is found in the way children deal with media as well. In a study of children in Finland, children used the computer for gaming, along with information searches, Web surfing and drawing. (Very little use noted for schoolwork). Also the mobile phone platform was transformed into a gaming tool more so than one of interpersonal communication (Suoranta & Lehtimaki, 2004, p. 115). In their “play” with the media, children need to know the boundaries so they do not hurt themselves, especially with the interactive forms of the Internet and social gaming. Parents must warn children of the inherent risks to certain activities, just as they would admonish to, “Look both ways before crossing the street.”
Caution and preparedness are necessary for a parent guiding their child through the media-saturated world. Knowing the potential outcomes of media consumption, discussing media usage with children, and setting boundaries for children are simple and straight forward principles that can be followed. Yet, the parent-child-media relationship is much more complex. There's more to it than personal stories and qualitative surveys can show (Drotner, K. and Livingstone, S. 2008, p. 105).
A way to look at this complexity is from two points of view. The family looking at the media and the media looking at the family. The media's role toward the family is extremely diverse. Some basic motives are profit-seeking (selling products to the family) and educational (teaching the family). Whatever the motive, the family is ultimately a consumer of the media. The family's view of the media can be just as diverse. The family can define its identity using the media as a measuring stick (Drotner, K. and Livingstone, S. 2008, p. 105). They can create who they are in contrast and congruence to what the media portrays. Also the family can be entirely identified by the media. Their lifestyles, if they so desire, are dictated by the ebb and flow of media input. These media-family relationships warrant further investigation.
Another observation of note is the adaptability of children toward new media. This adaptability puts children at risk only as much as their parents are “behind the times.” So keeping up with the changes in media allows parents to be better gate-keepers and also warn their children of dangers they may face in any new media. Also being media aware allows parents to structure their children’s use of media for educational benefit. Everything in the media is not antagonistic toward children and to adopt such an attitude would be detrimental to a child’s personal growth.
In conclusion, the ever-changing media landscape is a constantly developing playground for children. Yet, it is a playground that needs a fence and supervision of a guardian. The parent’s priority is to maintain safety, so their children are able to live long, undamaged lives. Secondly a parent’s responsibility is to grow their child's knowledge in how to safely play on the media playground. There are great benefits in consuming the variety of media in the world today. Also since the media is such a big part of society, ignorance of it may lead to career deficiencies in the days ahead. When parents do their job properly both the parent and child will have a better quality of life.

Works Cited
Armstrong, A. and Casement, C. (2000) The Child and the Machine. Robins Lane
Press. Beltsville, MD.
Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (2002) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Mahwah, NJ.
Calvert, S., Jordan A. and Cocking, R. (2002) Children in the Digital Age. Praeger.
Westport, CT.
Comstock, G. and Paik, H. (1991) Television and the American Child. Academic Press,
Inc. New York, NY.

Drotner, K. and Livingstone, S. (2008) The International Handbook of Children, Media
and Culture. Sage. Los Angeles, CA.
First Amendment Center. (2008). State of the First Amendment. Retrieved from:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20534 on 2/19/08.
Goulart, R. (1969) The Assault on Childhood. Sherbourne Press. Los Angeles, CA.
Greenfield, P. (1984) Mind and Media. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Harris, R. J. (1994). A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Holloway, S. and Valentine, G. (2003) Cyberkids: children in the information age.
RoutledgeFalmer. New York, NY.
Machill, M. and Waltermann, J. (2000). Protecting Our Children on the Internet.
Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers. Gutersloh.

Works Cited
Overton, W., Et Al. (2001) Early Childhood Television Viewing and Adolescent
Behavior. Blackwell Publishers. Boston, MA.
PBS. (2008) Children and the Media. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from:
http://www.pbs.org/parents/childrenandmedia/.
Potter, J.W. (2009). The Definition of Media Literacy. In Duffy, E.B and Turow, J.
Key Readings in Media Today. (pp. 36 – 46). Routledge, New York, NY.
Shrum, L.J. (2004) The Pyschology of Entertainment Media. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers. Mahwah, NJ.
Suoranta, J. and Lehtimaki, H. (2004) Children in the Information Society: The Case of
Finland. Peter Lang. New York, NY.