Psychology of Kids' TV

[Dead Peasants]

Is anyone else ever disturbed by kids television programming? I live in a house with a few familes who have kids, and some of the shows' messages make me a bit queasy. What I want to know is, am I overreacting, or are these shows' conformist/consumerist messages really as deliberate and they appear? I'll describe a few (edit: just one, but there are many like it).

Dibo, the Gift Dragon. Gives gifts to depressed kids. Are you sad? Having a bad day? Make a wish, and Dibo shows up instantly (and I mean instantly - actual "instant" gratification here - they don't even need to look for him, ever), not with words of encouragement or actual help, but with a bright, giftwrapped box with a toy of some kind inside (or a service, like a make-over or beauty treatment, for the girls). This one is the big favorite around here. Actual lines from the show playing behind me right now:

Girl: Until you pointed out how miserable I was, I thought I was happy. (Sad face)
"Bunny": Hm. Maybe I can help you. Diiiiiiiiiibooooooo!
(Dibo shows up)
Dibo: Hey kids! When you want a gift, say this: (commence Dibo song).

The lyrics (from Google, but they seem accurate):

"Hello, hello, my name's Dibo
here is something you should know
when you want/ a gift say this
di.di. bo ding di bo di bo ding!

I'm a gift dragon
and a gifyky (sic) wagon ["and I have a gift wagon" I think]
to grant your every wish
and take things through the air..wooooooooo

Hello, hello my name's Dibo
here is something you should know
when you want/ a gift say this
di.di. bo ding di bo di bo ding!!"

Conclusion: Dibo gives the girl a makeover. Exit Dibo.

Now, eventually the girl learns that beauty is only skin deep, and that the makeover didn't make her a better person. Her friends liked her better the way she was, and they tell her so, which makes her happy. But nowhere is there any indication that giftgiving wasn't the answer. Sometimes a character will get jealous of someone's new gift and start a fight, but Dibo reconciles them by more giftgiving, or some such thing. This show plays almost nonstop on Southeast Asia Disney. The characters are all plush dolls, so the merchandising is built in to the concept from the beginning. A quick forum search:

http://telebisyon.net/Dibo-the-Gift-Dra ... /comments/

...speaks to its effectiveness. (A bunch of parents asking where they can buy dolls and DVDs, if you don't want to click). And since basically every show involves someone's birthday or "lucky day" (getting a gift for no stated reason is always a "lucky day"), the merchandise is probably in high demand for kids' birthdays.

Anyway, that's enough analysis (if you can even call it that - it's too blatant a message to require actual "analysis"). I've overshot the length I wanted with this post, so I'll leave off describing the other shows. They're all about the same. "Handy Manny" might be an exception (a hard-working Mexican solves problems with anthropomorphic tools and teaches the kids a bit of Spanish - no complaints at first glance.

What do you think of this kind of thing? Turning off the t.v. is obviously not an option - it's the only thing that can get kids to sit still for more than thirty seconds at a time. And they're already thoroughly addicted - they flip out whenever the song comes on, and go into hysterics if the power goes out when they're watching or if the show is interrupted by some other means. So what do you do, or would you do, if the object of their addiction is something harmful? Has anyone here had to deal with this? What sort of TV did you watch as a kid? Do you think it affected you psychologically? Was the result a good thing overall, or a bad one? Thanks for any replies!

[Lunatic Goofballs]

My kids don't watch very much TV. Right now they're in the living room and I think they're trying to form Voltron.

[Ifreann]

My kids don't watch very much TV. Right now they're in the living room and I think they're trying to form Voltron.

Oh dear god!

[Central Slavia]

I think positive.
In my small youth there were the awesome kids' tv series back from the socialist times, and also the french series "There once was a life" which got me interested in natural science as a kid.
Also later there were other fun western ones later ones such as Popeye the sailor man, or Rescue Rangers, Asterix, a cartoon adaptation of one of the redwall books, and something called Animals of the Farthing Wood that actually had good character profiling and pretty much anyone could die if it was a logical outcome so it was intense as well...

Pity kids today get such crap as you have described

[Vectrova]

If you're concerned with the conditioning presented by television, either eliminate the source or produce your own to compensate. Plain and simple.

Some TV shows for kids are in very bad taste, but censorship isn't the answer.

[Saaturia]

I'd vote positive, simply because of the existence of (now defunct) shows like Beakman's World and Bill Nye the Science Guy.

[Dead Peasants]

If you're concerned with the conditioning presented by television, either eliminate the source or produce your own to compensate. Plain and simple.

Some TV shows for kids are in very bad taste, but censorship isn't the answer.

The what now? Eliminate the source? You mean Disney? Not likely. Produce my own what, syndicated television series? Even less likely. Thanks for the suggestions, though.

"Censorship isn't the answer" is nonsense - we're talking about possibly harmful messages in children's television, not individuals' freedom of speech. You wouldn't allow a racist message, for example, to be promoted on kids' TV, even if racist ideology is protected speech otherwise. That's an extreme example, of course, but the point is, there's no right to *broadcast* anything you like - if parents (or concerned citizens - I'm not a parent myself) think a broadcast is harmful, they ought to say so, and try to get it changed or drop their subscriptions if nothing is done. Cigarette companies used to advertise during kids' TV, remember? There are circumstances that demand that we complain.

[Dead Peasants]

I'd vote positive, simply because of the existence of (now defunct) shows like Beakman's World and Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Those really were excellent. I'd add Mr. Wizard to the list; if memory serves, that was a great show.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

My kids don't watch very much TV. Right now they're in the living room and I think they're trying to form Voltron.

Oh dear god!

Yes. And should they ever figure it out, we're all doomed.

[Greed and Death]

I dont care as long as they zone out watching Tv and leave me alone.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In my opinion, these days regulators tend to be quite strict about the types of products, if anything, that appears on the programme. In the advent of commercial children's channels, many toy makers or companies behind what it commonly perceived as junk food (such as Coco pops or McDonald's Happy Meals) tend to bid for the most valuable slots, i.e. the breaks during a programme, or the main hours. The psychology, according to me, is that the companies are trying to educate children to be impulse consumers in the future, rather than backing down to let children make crucial social life decisions.

[Vectrova]

If you're concerned with the conditioning presented by television, either eliminate the source or produce your own to compensate. Plain and simple.

Some TV shows for kids are in very bad taste, but censorship isn't the answer.

The what now? Eliminate the source? You mean Disney? Not likely. Produce my own what, syndicated television series? Even less likely. Thanks for the suggestions, though.

"Censorship isn't the answer" is nonsense - we're talking about possibly harmful messages in children's television, not individuals' freedom of speech. You wouldn't allow a racist message, for example, to be promoted on kids' TV, even if racist ideology is protected speech otherwise. That's an extreme example, of course, but the point is, there's no right to *broadcast* anything you like - if parents (or concerned citizens - I'm not a parent myself) think a broadcast is harmful, they ought to say so, and try to get it changed or drop their subscriptions if nothing is done. Cigarette companies used to advertise during kids' TV, remember? There are circumstances that demand that we complain.

Your TV, not the company. Unless you wanted to sue them for corrupting the youth. That charge has an excellent precedent of success. Similarly, produce your own conditioning. Your own messages and imposed values on your child. If you can't get through to them better than a TV screen, you have bigger problems at hand than a child's show.

You're free to boycott stations you don't approve of for whatever reason. Censoring what you don't like when simply turning the TV off does the same thing, however, is just silly. I don't recall a time when cigarette companies advertised on children's shows, but again: why can't you tell them smoking is bad? Moreover, medical advancements can demonstrate the correlation between smoking and disease (among other things). It can't be promoted like that any more.

I don't see the problem. Why do you feel so inclined to filter information rather than explain the distinction between fantasy and reality (in the case of that gift-giving show) or turn the message of the show into something more agreeable?

[Ashmoria]

childrens programming only gets creepier as the years go by. seems that they can get parents to plunk their kids down in front of anything that is on so why not make a boatload of extra money on the toy tie-ins?

[Ifreann]

My kids don't watch very much TV. Right now they're in the living room and I think they're trying to form Voltron.

Oh dear god!

Yes. And should they ever figure it out, we're all doomed.

Especially you.

[Dead Peasants]

Your TV, not the company. Unless you wanted to sue them for corrupting the youth. That charge has an excellent precedent of success. Similarly, produce your own conditioning. Your own messages and imposed values on your child. If you can't get through to them better than a TV screen, you have bigger problems at hand than a child's show.

You're free to boycott stations you don't approve of for whatever reason. Censoring what you don't like when simply turning the TV off does the same thing, however, is just silly. I don't recall a time when cigarette companies advertised on children's shows, but again: why can't you tell them smoking is bad? Moreover, medical advancements can demonstrate the correlation between smoking and disease (among other things). It can't be promoted like that any more.

I don't see the problem. Why do you feel so inclined to filter information rather than explain the distinction between fantasy and reality (in the case of that gift-giving show) or turn the message of the show into something more agreeable?

Yes, they really did advertise cigarettes during kids' TV. Alcohol, too. And no one was ignorant about the medical effects of either one of them. Here's a famous example, which most of us have probably seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c

So, how would turning off my own television set solve this problem? These things are bigger than any of us as individuals. Whether or not I have kids, or can counter-propagandize the message out of them is beside the point. It's irrelevant when we're talking about social policy.

[Saaturia]

Your TV, not the company. Unless you wanted to sue them for corrupting the youth. That charge has an excellent precedent of success. Similarly, produce your own conditioning. Your own messages and imposed values on your child. If you can't get through to them better than a TV screen, you have bigger problems at hand than a child's show.

You're free to boycott stations you don't approve of for whatever reason. Censoring what you don't like when simply turning the TV off does the same thing, however, is just silly. I don't recall a time when cigarette companies advertised on children's shows, but again: why can't you tell them smoking is bad? Moreover, medical advancements can demonstrate the correlation between smoking and disease (among other things). It can't be promoted like that any more.

I don't see the problem. Why do you feel so inclined to filter information rather than explain the distinction between fantasy and reality (in the case of that gift-giving show) or turn the message of the show into something more agreeable?

Yes, they really did advertise cigarettes during kids' TV. Alcohol, too. And no one was ignorant about the medical effects of either one of them. Here's a famous example, which most of us have probably seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c

So, how would turning off my own television set solve this problem? These things are bigger than any of us as individuals. Whether or not I have kids, or can counter-propagandize the message out of them is beside the point. It's irrelevant when we're talking about social policy.

Propaganda is everywhere. Everywhere. The best thing to combat it is to teach your children to be critical thinkers and pick out biased arguments. Those skills are two of the most important attributes your children can have in our world.

[Dead Peasants]

Propaganda is everywhere. Everywhere. The best thing to combat it is to teach your children to be critical thinkers and pick out biased arguments. Those skills are two of the most important attributes your children can have in our world.

Of course. It's important to promote critical thinking skills AND to prevent things like false advertising, illegal forms of propaganda (black propaganda, e.g.) and so on. It's not either/or here. You do both.

[Vectrova]

Your TV, not the company. Unless you wanted to sue them for corrupting the youth. That charge has an excellent precedent of success. Similarly, produce your own conditioning. Your own messages and imposed values on your child. If you can't get through to them better than a TV screen, you have bigger problems at hand than a child's show.

You're free to boycott stations you don't approve of for whatever reason. Censoring what you don't like when simply turning the TV off does the same thing, however, is just silly. I don't recall a time when cigarette companies advertised on children's shows, but again: why can't you tell them smoking is bad? Moreover, medical advancements can demonstrate the correlation between smoking and disease (among other things). It can't be promoted like that any more.

I don't see the problem. Why do you feel so inclined to filter information rather than explain the distinction between fantasy and reality (in the case of that gift-giving show) or turn the message of the show into something more agreeable?

Yes, they really did advertise cigarettes during kids' TV. Alcohol, too. And no one was ignorant about the medical effects of either one of them. Here's a famous example, which most of us have probably seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c

So, how would turning off my own television set solve this problem? These things are bigger than any of us as individuals. Whether or not I have kids, or can counter-propagandize the message out of them is beside the point. It's irrelevant when we're talking about social policy.

Propaganda is everywhere. Everywhere. The best thing to combat it is to teach your children to be critical thinkers and pick out biased arguments. Those skills are two of the most important attributes your children can have in our world.

^Quite. I'd elaborate more, but you said everything I would.

Though reform for social policy starts when you (Dead Peasants) realize that any action on the national level necessarily requires the action of the individuals that comprise the nation. Put simply? Enough people turn off the TV and the company stops doing it. Boycotting is funny like that.

Of course. It's important to promote critical thinking skills AND to prevent things like false advertising, illegal forms of propaganda (black propaganda, e.g.) and so on. It's not either/or here. You do both.

False advertising and propaganda are not tolerated within most western nations (the only exception being the latter during a time of war, and that was many years ago.). If you're referring to product placement and advertising within shows rather than breaks between them, you've discovered the joys of a capitalist, consumerist society.

[Dead Peasants]

Though reform for social policy starts when you (Dead Peasants) realize that any action on the national level necessarily requires the action of the individuals that comprise the nation. Put simply? Enough people turn off the TV and the company stops doing it. Boycotting is funny like that.

Of course. It's important to promote critical thinking skills AND to prevent things like false advertising, illegal forms of propaganda (black propaganda, e.g.) and so on. It's not either/or here. You do both.

False advertising and propaganda are not tolerated within most western nations (the only exception being the latter during a time of war, and that was many years ago.). If you're referring to product placement and advertising within shows rather than breaks between them, you've discovered the joys of a capitalist, consumerist society.

Wow. Propaganda ended "many years ago"? Really? And it only happened during times of war, huh? Well, you haven't provided any evidence for those assertions, so I'll dismiss them as self-evidently false, in the same spirit.

Closer to the topic, I agree with you that boycotts can work - sometimes they are enough to solve a problem, and I don't advocate using more force than is necessary to accomplish a goal. But other times, they fail. I'm not out to shake your faith in the free market, but you can't really believe that everything is so simple, can you?

I'm still interested in the topic I began in the OP, but if we're on the the fundamental nature of reality, we'll have to continue some other time - it's the middle of the night where I am, and I simply don't have the energy for that.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I miss the cartoons of the good old days. Spongebob nowadays is just awful.

[Vectrova]

Though reform for social policy starts when you (Dead Peasants) realize that any action on the national level necessarily requires the action of the individuals that comprise the nation. Put simply? Enough people turn off the TV and the company stops doing it. Boycotting is funny like that.

Of course. It's important to promote critical thinking skills AND to prevent things like false advertising, illegal forms of propaganda (black propaganda, e.g.) and so on. It's not either/or here. You do both.

False advertising and propaganda are not tolerated within most western nations (the only exception being the latter during a time of war, and that was many years ago.). If you're referring to product placement and advertising within shows rather than breaks between them, you've discovered the joys of a capitalist, consumerist society.

Wow. Propaganda ended "many years ago"? Really? And it only happened during times of war, huh? Well, you haven't provided any evidence for those assertions, so I'll dismiss them as self-evidently false, in the same spirit.

Closer to the topic, I agree with you that boycotts can work - sometimes they are enough to solve a problem, and I don't advocate using more force than is necessary to accomplish a goal. But other times, they fail. I'm not out to shake your faith in the free market, but you can't really believe that everything is so simple, can you?

I'm still interested in the topic I began in the OP, but if we're on the the fundamental nature of reality, we'll have to continue some other time - it's the middle of the night where I am, and I simply don't have the energy for that.

Apparently I recalled war propaganda and such. My error. Never was one for history.

I don't have very much faith in a free market. However, I also understand that regulation can't fix everything. Both systems working together is better than one extreme, yes?

Not necessarily reality, but how select influences can change our perceptions of it through subtle behavior changes, reinforcement, and punishment. And also how this influence can permeate through a culture to the point of becoming inseparable from the host culture.

[Chrobalta]

Just don't let the TV take the place of parenting and your kids will turn out okay.

[Hamilay]

Children's TV taught me to speak with a vaguely English accent.

So positive without a doubt.

[Saint Clair Island]

Hmm. I don't own and will never consider paying for a television, so my hypothetical kids will have to find some other way to entertain themselves. Of course, it'll be easier for me to just put them to work dawn to dusk, chopping firewood, killing, cleaning, and cooking food, tending to the vegetable garden et cetera. This plus their home-administered lessons teaching them everything they need to know will probably take up all of their day, hence no need for expensive and easily breakable toys or video games or whatever. If they really want entertainment I can just hit them with sticks. That would be pretty entertaining.

[Dead Peasants]

Apparently I recalled war propaganda and such. My error. Never was one for history.

I don't have very much faith in a free market. However, I also understand that regulation can't fix everything. Both systems working together is better than one extreme, yes?

Not necessarily reality, but how select influences can change our perceptions of it through subtle behavior changes, reinforcement, and punishment. And also how this influence can permeate through a culture to the point of becoming inseparable from the host culture.

True enough. Regulation shouldn't be our first impulse - it's our last defense, used when a problem can't be solved within the current framework of laws and market forces. A responsible consumer asks questions - that's the point. I don't consider it an act of censorship to criticize media content, especially media content that is being fed to people whose critical thinking abilities haven't developed yet (children).

Children's TV taught me to speak with a vaguely English accent.

So positive without a doubt.

British kids' TV was so different. I'm ashamed of it now, but Paddington Bear was naptime for me, when I was a kid. Not enough movement or color for my four-year old brain.