A broad review of previously published research has documented something most of us suspect: our mass-market culture is hurting our children. The study (not yet published as far as I know - and I haven't read it) reviews 173 previous original studies, and finds a positive correlation between "media exposure" among children to television, movies and other media and such problems as obesity, tobacco use, sexual behavior, substance use, and academic underachievement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
This shouldn’t be surprising. Most of us would guess that kids who spend their free time playing soccer, rehearsing school plays, or laughing hysterically with their friends, are less likely to be in some other kind of trouble; whereas kids who spend hours per day in a semi-hypnotic trance in front of some kind of screen are more at risk.
Another thing we all should know is that too much mass-market culture is bad for our kids, our values, and our families.
"Correlation isn’t causation" is the principle at the heart of all statistical analysis: this data, if legitimate, doesn’t show that too much screen time causes these problems. But it correlates with something else most of us would perceive to be true: mass culture, particularly marketing of products to children, is hurting our society.
For decades, we’ve all been told that "free market capitalism" is the best economic system: bringing prosperity and "freedom" in a marketplace in which individual members of society, by "voting" with their disposable dollars, bring about the nearest approach to collective happiness.
It’s a modern day application of Adam Smith’s concept of the "invisible hand" of the market to economics and anthropology.
The problem is this analysis ignores the effectiveness of advertising and other forms of marketing. People’s "votes" of their disposable dollars are easily warped by marketing campaigns. An increasing share of our economic output has depended on getting consumers to buy products they don’t really need: greasy food, inefficient cars, expensive "copycat" pharmaceuticals.
No group is easier to target through marketing than children. My own little boy longs for a McDonald’s "Happy Meal" (about 700 calories), because of the toy. Highly stimulating television shows, often spiced with preadolescent sexuality (Hannah Montana) or violence (Power Rangers), draw kids into contact with marketing for a bevy of related products.
I’m not arguing that this represents a catastrophe. Video games are fun. Lots of little girls sing along with Hannah Montana and are none the worse for it – particularly if their parents are around to take them bike riding, or if a good group of pals are available for a tag game in the neighborhood.
But more and more of our kids are growing up in single-parent homes; in neighborhoods where parents rightly or wrongly fear to let their kids play out of doors unwatched; in families where both parents are working long hours to make ends meet.
More and more kids are at risk, spending hours alone in front of screens. Is it a surprise that obesity and anxiety are up, that kids who are trained to self-stimulate for happiness playing Medal of Honor at 8 are more likely to buy a pack of Marlboros at 14?
It shouldn’t be.
Market economics is a really bad way to direct the care for and education of children. Kids need adults who care enough, and have time enough, to coach sports, build models, or help with homework. We need after-school programs in poor neighborhoods that offer games, companionship, and imaginative play, and a thousand other things.
We need a society that care about kids, and is willing to put more than just disposable consumer dollars where its mouth is.