Media Research PaperIntroduction

“On average, preschool children spend 32 hours a week with screen media”

(The Nielsen Company). Ever since the creation of media, Americans have

embracedit and now depend on the media for everything from information to

entertainment. This obsession with the media starts even before a child is born. It is

now a staple of the American way of life, so much so that it has become virtually

impossible to imagine what society would be like with out it. However, because the

American society depends so much on media, the role of media in society often

becomes skewed.Although it has many benefits, the media has many negative

aspects as well; more specifically the negative affectsthat take place in early youth

development.

This issue of the media affecting the early development of this nation’s youth

is one of great importance. Enola Aird puts the gravity of this issue into words as she

states in the film, Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood, “This is a lot

more than about selling products and services. If we care about nourishing the

human spirit, if we care about human relationships, then we've got to care about

this issue” (Consuming Kids). Today’s children will soon be tomorrow’s adults,

adults that will be running our society in the near future. As the need for media,

marketing, and advertising to children increases, the questions as to how this media

focuses on children will in turn affect them in the future.The central focus of this

paper is to research if media exposure to adolescent persons plays a negative role in

establishing values and morals during the developmental time in young children.

The history of this issue begins back in 1791 with the formal ratification of

the United States Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the

United States Constitution. The First Amendment, which reserves the right of

Americans to the freedom of speech, press, religion, and petition, is what the central

issue of this controversy is about. Since the birth of media in America, the root of its

success has been based off of the freedoms granted by the First Amendment. Since

1791, this issue of freedoms and media once again surfaced in 1934 with the passing

of the Communications Act of 1934. This act was passed because of the rise of media

and the lack of regulation. The official purpose statement of the Act is as follows:

“For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation- wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.”

(Communications Act of 1934)

This Communications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC), which was formed to regulate media. Years later, children continued to

consume large amounts of media and many people began to worry about the effects

that the media was having on children. By around 1970, The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC), or the consumer protection agency that manages media related

issues, realized what was going on attempted to place strict regulations on the

media that children were exposed to. Due to extreme backlash from many

marketers and advertisers, the FTC soon repealed the regulations and by the 1980’s

the FTC had little to no control over the media that children had access to

(Consuming Kids).

People such as advertisers, marketers, and those who work in the media

business tend to be in favorof the continuation of media exposure for children.

Media that is made for children has resulted in becoming a huge and extremely

profitable market. Bruce Horovitz writes, “Companies spend about $17 billion

annually marketing to children” (Horovitz, Bruce) and that is just marketing alone.

Those who are pro-youth media believe that the media which children are exposed

to, regardless if it is focused on the youth or not, is a first amendment right on the

behalf of those who create it and that the families should be responsible for the

values that their children learn as well asthe regulation of the media exposure for

their youth. As expressed by Sociology Professor Karen Sternheimer in the book

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Mass Media and Society, “What

really contributes to family relationships, structures, and family conflict has much

more to do with contemporary social, economic, and political realities than any

idolizing of celebrity culture or media content” (Alexander, Alison, and Jarice

Hanson). Those who are in favor of having media available to children want the

freedom and ability to have whatever they choose to in the media, and it is their

desire that the parents are held responsible for how their children’s media is

monitored. Further more, those in support of media for children push for the

negative connotations associated with media for children to be lifted and

disassociated.

To support their belief that the media has no negative affect on the

development of children, those who are advocates for children’s media site a study

published in The Journal of Pediatrics, which tested associations between media

viewing and language development in children under the age of two years. During

this study, researchers tracked a total of 1008 parents who had children between

the ages of two and twenty-four months. The study tested to see if there were any

correlations between young children who consumed large amounts of media and

slower language development. The results of the study found no direct correlations,

however it was decided that further research would be needed “to determine the

reasons for an association between early viewing of baby DVDs/videos and poor

language development” (Zimmerman, Frederick J, Dimitri A. Christakis, and Andrew

N. Meltzoff). Therefore, with this research those in favor of media for children

believe that there is no definite evidence to prove that large media exposure is

negatively affecting the development of youth.

Furthermore, those who favor media for children believe that media

exposure does not have any affect on a child’s views of society, morals, or early

development. These same people argue that children learn more from their

environment rather than the media they are exposed to. Karen Sternheimer says,

“Rather than the decline of “family values”, cultural norms have changed to adapt to

structural shifts in American society” (Alexander, Alison, and Jarice Hanson),thus

showing that the structure of the American society has fundamentally changed and

that media has simply catered to the interest of the society.

On the other hand, people who are against media exposure for children such

as parents and children’s advocacy groups like Campaign for a Consumer-Free

Childhood, (CCFC) argue the content that is found on today’s media is inappropriate

and should be regulated because of the potential developmental issues it could

cause with children. A journal about media and its affects on children writes, “The

message is clear: most (if not all) media effects must be considered in light of media

content. With respect to development, what children watch is at least as important

as, and probably more important than, how much they watch” and that “the increase

in infant-directed media products has led to debate over whether infants and

toddlers should be exposed to electronic media” (Heather L. Kirkorian, Ellen A.

Wartella, and Daniel R. Anderson). This is the foundation of what those who are

against media exposure for children believe. This belief is also stated in a journal,

“the need to balance the media industry's potentially important contributions to the

healthy development of America's children against the consequences of excessive

and age-inappropriate media exposure” (Amy Jordan).Therefore, those who are

against media exposure for children believe that the content that children see or

hear in the media is having a negative affect on their lives, and particularly the

values systems and development of the youth. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign

for a Commercial Free Childhood and a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical

School, explains why the media has such an affect on children in an interview. Linn

says, "Children are not just adults in teeny tiny bodies. They don't have the same

impulse control as adults, and they have a harder time separating reality from

hype. Very young children can't differentiate between a commercial and a program"

(Marketing to Kids: Toy Sellers' Bonanza or Danger Zone?).

Those who are against media for children want to “inform policymakers,

educators, parents, and others who work with young children about the impact of

media, particularly television, on preschool children, and what society can do to

maximize the benefits and minimize the costs” (Heather L. Kirkorian, Ellen A.

Wartella, and Daniel R. Anderson). They also want government to regulate more

than just the media on television because that is the only a small portion of the

media children consume now is. Amy Jordan states this desire, “because many

government regulations apply only to broadcast television and not to non-broadcast

media such as the Internet or cable television” (Amy Jordan).

To support their case, those against media exposure for children, site a study

byThe Society for Research in Child Development .“The study compared

preschoolers who were exposed to prosocial programs, neutral films, and violent

cartoons. Children were observed first for a baseline period of three weeks, then for

a four-week television period, and finally for two weeks after the viewing period”

(Lynette Kohn Friedrich and Aletha Huston Stein). The results of the study show

that there is a link between television viewing and children’s attention skills and

that the children’s attention skills are mediated by content. Furthermore, children

who viewed more violent shows decreased in measures of self-regulation. Those

who are against media for children view this study as proof to why media has a

negative effect on children’s development and believe that this is a creditable source

of information.

Both those for and against media for children argue that it is a parent’s right

to protect their child from commercial messages, yet those who are against it

believe that it is virtually impossible to monitor every moment of a child’s time

spent using technology. The rise in new technological advances like the Internet,

iPods, cell phones, and 24 hour children’s TV programming have made children

more available and therefore more vulnerable to the messages of the media.

According to a recent Nielson Company study, “Pre-schoolers, aged 2-5 spend 32.5

hours a week in front of the television” (Shapley). During a crucial developmental

time for a child, he or she is being impacted by the content that they see in the

media.

Advocacy of one side &Conclusion

Personally I believe that the media that children are exposed to today is a

huge problem and it is truly corrupting the morals, values, and early development of

the youth in this society. Therefore I feel that stricter regulation of the media that

children are exposed to would be what is best for the youth. I do not see a difference

between this issue and protecting children from the marketing of tobacco. I feel that

this issue of using the media to target children and using the power of media to get

inside the mind of a child is wrong, especially in the early developmental years

when children are most vulnerable. A quote by Michael Brody from the movie,

Consuming Kids, describes how the media has crossed a boundary, “These marketers

are very similar to pedophiles. Okay? They are child experts. If you're going to be a

pedophile, or a child marketer, you have to know about children and what children

are going to want” (Consuming Kids).

I agree with the advocates that are against media for children because of the

many studies I have previously listed as well as witnessing first hand the slow

deterioration of values, morals, and the incredibly obvious decline of knowledge

during early development that the youth of this generation appear to have. In my

opinion I felt that the argument of those in favor of media for children do not have

the best interest of the child in mind. If the youth continues to be bombarded with

mixed messages from the media they consume, no matter how hard parents try to

protect them from it, children will still be exposed and negatively influenced.

This issue is worth continued study becauseit is one that will have an impact

on the lives of everyone in this country, whether it be our children, grandchildren,

nieces, nephews, it is undeniable that the future leaders will be products of these

coming generations. As a country we have made monumental strides in educational

equality and have made great efforts to instill morals and values in children.

However, if the media continues to battle parents for the rights to teach children

what is right and wrong, all of the progress that has been made could easily be lost. I

think that society is changing, and as great as the media has been for our country is

it a double-edged sword, people need to realize we cannot go on living like this

forever and that is it time to reclaim the youth back from the grasp of the media.

Works Cited

Alexander, Alison, and Jarice Hanson. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial

Issues in Mass Media and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2003. 2-

25 and 70-94. Print.

Amy B. Jordan. "Children's Media Policy." The Future of Children 18.1 (2008): 235-53.

Print.

Communications Act of 1934. Government Rep. Report. 23 Apr. 2013.

<http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf>.

CONSUMING KIDS: The Commercialization of Childhood. Dir. Adriana Barbaro and

Jeremy Earp. Media Education Foundation, 2008. DVD. Consuming Kids: The

Commercialization of Childhood. Media Education Foundation. Web. 25 Mar.

2013.

Heather L. Kirkorian, Ellen A. Wartella, and Daniel R. Anderson. "Media and Young

Children's Learning." The Future of Children 18.1 (2008): 39-61. Print.

Horovitz, Bruce. "Six Strategies Marketers Use to Get Kids to Want Stuff Bad –

USATODAY.com." Six Strategies Marketers Use to Get Kids to Want Stuff Bad –

USATODAY.com. USA Today, 22 Nov. 2006. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.

<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2006-11-21-toy-strategies-

usat_x.htm>.

Lynette Kohn Friedrich and Aletha Huston Stein Monographs of the Society for

Research in Child Development , Vol. 38, No. 4, Aggressive and Prosocial

Television Programs and the Natural Behavior of Preschool Children (Aug.,

1973), pp. 1-64

"Marketing to Kids: Toy Sellers' Bonanza or Danger Zone?" Knowledge@Wharton. N.p.,

05 Dec. 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

Meltz, Barbara F. "Protecting Kids from Marketers' Clutches." Boston.com. N.p., 30 Sept.

2004. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

Shapley, Daniela. "Kids Spend Nearly 55 Hours a Week Watching TV, Texting, Playing

Video Games..." The Daily Green. N.p., 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

The Nielsen Company (2009). TV viewing among kids at an eight-year high. Retrieved

July 19, 2010 from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/tv-

viewing-among-kids-at-an-eight-year-high/

Zimmerman, Frederick J., Dimitri A. Christakis, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. "Associations

between Media Viewing and Language Development in Children Under Age 2

Years." The Journal of Pediatrics 151.4 (2007): 364-68. The Journal of

Pediatrics. Print. 21 Apr. 2013.