In the 1950s smoking was everywhere.There was a cultural assumption that it was cool to smoke and everyone had the right. People smoked sitting next to you on planes or restaurants, and in the office. Advertisements were plastered on billboards around the world, and actors smoked throughout both television shows and movies. Even doctors touted their favorite cigarette brand in magazines. And then, slowly, we realized that smoking has significant health risks. It became a well-defined public health concern and steps were taken to protect our children from the hazards of cigarettes and second-hand smoke.
Today our society seems more attuned to potential risks in our environment. A few years ago, preliminary evidence uncovered a possible danger from a certain plastic found in bottles. Parents leapt into action and because of that pressure companies stopped using it. Studies about potential risks of pesticides and food dyes make headlines for weeks and weeks after their release.
Imagine what would happen if a substance in our water supply was linked to obesity, poor academic performance, aggressive behavior, and early sexuality in teens. It sounds horrifying, impossible we would expose our children to such risk. There would be a public outcry. Yet in reality, that ‘substance' already exists. Unregulated media time for children and teens has been linked to all these problems and more. A generation from now, what are we going to think about the excesses we are now allowing?
It's the Message and the Messenger
In the same way as smoking once was, video screens today are inescapable. Televisions and computers sit throughout the house, in living rooms and kitchens and bedrooms - even in those of young children. They are in our cars, and media is accessible on our laptops and phones. We encounter more screens at the gas pump, barber, in airports, doctor waiting rooms, in line at the supermarket, and everywhere we turn. They continue to multiply, seemingly exponentially, without any real attention paid to possible implications. We are living on autopilot, individually and as a society, allowing it to happen to us instead of giving fair consideration to what is beneficial, what is harmful, and what could be simply inappropriate for many younger viewers.
Children don't fully understand the difference between reality and the pretend situations they see on TV and the computer screen. Younger children don't see the difference at all. Older children may be able to label something ‘pretend' and still not fully grasp the subtle (and not so subtle) implications of anything from a violent police show or video game to reality television in general. Many teens lack the judgment to separate fact from fiction, recklessly mimicking inappropriate behaviors they watch on screen without recognizing the potential implications in their own, very real, lives.
This inability to understand media fully has always been true for kids, but the medium has changed immensely. The level and type of violence seen in cartoons and shows, the sexual content, and the direct sales pitches aimed at kids are nothing like a generation ago. The images are far more graphic and realistic, the marketing more targeted and inappropriate.
Studies have shown that as media hours increase, so does the risk of everything noted above - from obesity to sexuality and experimentation with alcohol to behavioral issues. They have shown that exposure to violence and aggression numbs children to them. They have suggested that increased media hours may even correlate with academic and attention problems.
Who do you want to sway your child's choices, your family and friends or a corporation? Marketing influences behavior or it wouldn't exist, and billions of dollars are spent on it. Children are particularly susceptible to media influences and companies take advantage. Advertisers have known for years a basic fact - seeing a product promoted multiple times makes it more likely a child will prefer it to another (perhaps healthier) option. Businesses today have become as skilled at defining what motivates young children as child psychologists, if not more so. (We may be starting to catch up - just this week regulations on marketing to kids were recommended by the government.)
I don't mean to say that we should get rid of our televisions, smart phones, or computers. Technology is part of the fabric of society and provides many benefits and plenty of healthy entertainment. But for some parents, there seems to be an assumption that media trends are either untamable or completely benign. Instead of waiting a generation to regret the effects of unfiltered media, we can start by making long-sighted, rational choices that fit our individual families' needs.
Smoking and media is not a perfect analogy. Smoking is absolutely bad for anyone in any quantity and media is not. Media is entertaining and at times informative, and helps us organize and find information. So perhaps it would be more precise to say this: Media is to healthy child development what dessert is to healthy eating.
We don't expect children to regulate their own dessert intake. Most kids, if allowed to make their own choices, would elect to eat more junk food than is best for their health. Instead of letting that happen, we guide them and set boundaries that over time teach self-care. Some children need more supervision, some children need less - but all of them need guidance. In the same way, it is imperative that instead of letting anything just happen to us, parents make intentional choices about the role of media in our lives.
Action Steps for Media Control
Here are some starting points for any parent to consider.
