Search blog.co.uk

children - the future

by thespian @ 2007-12-17 - 20:00:04

Some newspapers were encouraged about the results of a survey of children under the age of 10.
It showed that they felt that 'being happy' was the most important thing in life.
That's nice.
But I was more interested in the fact that 'being famous' came second, ahead of 'being healthy'.
It just shows how much influence TV and the media are having on children of such an impressionable age.
It also demonstrates (to me, at least) that we should be really, really worried about the amount of time children
spend planted in front of TV screens.
My three children are grown up now, so it's too late for me to do anything about them now.  But when they were young, we played with toys and read books, and ran around in the fresh air.
Only later, after the evening meal, would we have some cuddling up by the fire and the TV time.

I know it's a sign of ageing and I probably sound like a typical middle aged bloke who is out of touch...I'd like to think that's not true, but even if it was, maybe that's not such a bad thing?

All I know is, that when I look through my telescope and try to see the future, I see today's children hardening into cynical, sophisticated adults too early.

Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

heather.bookwormheather.bookworm [Member]
2007-12-17 @ 21:19

Oh how true! The influence of TV has impacted on society, especially children, in so many ways. Children are striving to be grown-up before their time - but working in a school, i'm horrified to constantly hear certain teachers telling 9-year olds to 'grow up'. Four years later the same teacher is berating the same child for wearing make-up when they're considered 'too young'. What happened to childhood where innocence and naivety were preserved whilst respect and privileges were earned?

Even if you are a 'typical middle-aged bloke' that's no bad thing. I doubt I'm a typical mid/late-20s girl but I know for sure that television and computers have ransacked family life as it once was. They're also having a detrimental effect on literacy skills, I believe, considering UK kids spend so many hours watching a square screen and correspondingly fewer hours reading/playing games with family/spending time with family...our kids are getting 'worser and worser' [sic] at literacy. I never thought I'd say it, especially only at my age, but it's not like it used to be when I was young! :-)

happy28happy28 pro
2007-12-17 @ 22:06

That last line truly ages you ;-) , but you are so right sadly. I spent most of my younger years running about in the fresh air til I was called in for my tea (or knew what time tea was) before going back out til bedtime. TV was for winter and weekends. Bring back old style fun!

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-17 @ 23:41

Thanks HeatherB - a really good comment. I feel almost sad now, watching a couple of my nieces grow up. They are lovely kids, but I can see their spark being slowly replaced by the spark they get from TV. Soon it will be their only source of conversation and identity.

happy28happy28 pro
2007-12-17 @ 22:08

thesp, I don't think its your age, I think you just have common sense on your side and a lot of people have stopped applying it!

Being 'famous' when I was a kid was about inventing a medicine or writing a book, or really doing something. Now its about what reality TV programs a person is in. I think reality TV should be banned for its crimes against humanity!

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-17 @ 23:39

Oh, thank you, happy - it's good to know I'm not alone!
I wonder whether there is a market for middle aged blokes and women who could get paid to come and read books for other people's children!
I'd do it, too, I feel so strongly about it.

happy28happy28 pro
2007-12-19 @ 14:11

There probably is a huge market especially if you consider all of us sensible 20 somethings, who were brought up at a time when you could be smacked for being a shite which stopped us being shites, having kids now.

Then again, would your motives be doubted? It's so easy for the wrong message to go out isn't it (I watched Hollyoaks last night).

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-19 @ 14:15

That's true - I would be looked upon with deep suspicion.

EllieGantEllieGant pro
2007-12-17 @ 23:39

I think, like life, it is about getting an appropriate balance. I still remember the magic of TV when I was a child - we didn't have a set until I was 10. But my parents used to insist it was switched off and we were sent outside to get fresh air too. I think a lot of parents use TV/computers these days as babysitters. Or are too afraid to stand up and discipline children - which tells its own sad tale.

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-17 @ 23:44

Yes, that's true, Ellie. That's the big worry, isn't it - that TV is a prop for parents, or even a substitute either because parents are too busy, or they choose to be busy doing other things (like watching TV downstairs).

louidoglouidog [Member]
2007-12-17 @ 23:54

Thespian....schools do pay for people to come in and read books! They look for someone who can entertain, bring the book to life and sadly those who don't charge too much!

I also agree with all that has been said here. I know a parent who has a nanny and sends her son out every day of the week after school, and also including weekends, to do some kind of activity. It must cost her a fortune! the boy is then left to sit up all night watching films that are not suitable for a 7 year old. Mum is always out with her friends and is "busy". What does that tell you!

*kicks soapbox away*

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-18 @ 13:16

Thanks for that.
I never knew schools did that. Maybe I'll make the offer and see what happens.
As for the story you relate, it just reinforces my sense that it has all gone too far.

happy28happy28 pro
2007-12-20 @ 15:34

makes you wonder why she bothered having the kid! I was tucked up in bed by 8pm (or 10pm in the summer) until I was at least 18 (or maybe 12).

blacksheep63blacksheep63 pro
2007-12-18 @ 10:19

all good comments on an interesting post but i might add my own three pennyworth: increasingly in the west we live in a culture that is intent on instant self gratification. tv is a factor in this and yes it would be great if children could still play outside all day like we did. but its more than that. since the late 70s we have been sold a lie - one that says that everyone can be rich, everyone can own their own home, that tax should be low and initiative be rewarded almost without restriction. in fact we have been encouraged to abandon our postwar social contract in favour of a society without 'society'. this is get rich quick and sod everyone else. now that means young people no longer aspire to have the clothes, cars, houses and gadgets that are available - they demand them as thier birthright. why work for 20 years to earn life's luxuries when you can pick the right numbers and win £10m? why spend years training to be an engineer or a doctor when you can win a reality show and be on every front page in every waiting room? tv is a reflection of our society - of our popular culture - it is society that is sick not the tv. the same, incidently, is true of politicians. we get the sort of politics we deserve. after all millions voted for Mrs T et al - now they/we are reaping the whirlwind.

goodness im grumpy this morning :)

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-18 @ 13:18

I can't argue with your analysis, or that the rot really set in during the thatcher years.
I suppose my naive hope is that there would be the same level of control over television as there is on cigarette smoking! I know which one is more important.

blacksheep63blacksheep63 pro
2007-12-18 @ 13:28

ahh but you are an interventionist. we can control where people smoke (and perhaps where they watch tv) as that affects 'us'. But once you start restricting what and how much tv people view then you are walking a dangerous tightrope. dare i say it but you might even start a witch hunt ;)

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-18 @ 13:29

That's a very neat way of feeding me a line, I must say.
Thanks!

deana24deana24 [Member]
2007-12-18 @ 21:43

I agree. And have you noticed that since the shift in world politics in the 1980s it doesn't seem to matter which party you vote into power it all starts to look the same... or maybe that's just me.

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-19 @ 00:08

No, you are right - the differences are disappearing. The driving force now is election at any cost, which means goodbye to political principle and diminishing hope of anyone coming along who is brave enough to tackle issues like this.
Here endeth thespian's sermon...!

MistakenIdentityMistakenIdentity [Member]
2007-12-19 @ 12:34

It doesn't highlight your age but your strong perception of the world as it is today. My kid sister is 10 years younger than me, making her 12.

My mum is a lot more leniant than she was with me on the amount of TV she watches. A lot of this is mainly due to my parents work commitments and inability to squeeze everything in at the moment. Also there now lingers a stronger fear about children playing out after dark.

On the other side of the coin those who we once considered celebrities exuded class and generally had their place in the media. However now we are bombarded with a ridiculous number of 'wannabes' falling out clubs on the front of every newspaper and magazine. There's just not enough focus on what is important anymore.

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-19 @ 13:45

Thanks for that comment. I'd like to think that, however busy I was (and I used to be a very, very busy working dad) I would always make time to bring up the children and give them a happy and stimulating childhood, rather than copping out and asking a TV set to do it for me.
You are so right about the celebrity culture and your last sentence is perfect!
Thanks again.

laurensoaziqlaurensoaziq [Member]
2007-12-29 @ 19:30

My partner and I have come to the conclusion that the only way to consistently limit 'bad' TV watching is not to have one at all. We suspect we would not be strong enough to resist the gradual shift towards 'rubbish' ourselves, and therefore would end up being hypocritical, and possibly ineffectual, when it came to vetting our young daughter's TV viewing. We also hope we use the time we'd otherwise spend watching TV playing games and reading to her. We also would like to think we do other things for ourselves, but sometimes it doesn't seem you can achieve anything, time asting jsut creeps in somehow. If it's not TV it's sci-fi novels and blogging.

thespianthespian pro
2007-12-29 @ 19:33

Yes, we're thinking the same (though the children have grown up and moved on now). I suppose it is like everything else - as long as it is done in moderation, it is probably OK.
But so many parents just use it as a 24 hour substitute for parenting, it seems to me.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Recent Posts

  1. i'm not here
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-20
  2. the world of work - part 4
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-08
  3. day sleep
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-07
  4. next door
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-07
  5. songs = life
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-06
  6. have you ever wondered ...
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-06
  7. india
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-06
  8. get the facts straight
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-05
  9. pendle hill
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-05
  10. the world of work - part 3
    by thespian pro on 2008-04-05

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.