Risky World:
Perhaps you’ve noticed: we live in a risky world. Every
day we are told about some new danger, a new disease, and
new environmental hazard. The fact is that living in our high
tech society means that we have increased the environmental
risks we face. Many of these risks are not a matter of personal
choice. Take air pollution for example. Our kids will encounter
this risk if we live in a polluted city, whether we drive
or not. Risks are calculated as the probability of a negative
outcome from a specific activity measured across wide populations
and over considerable time. The more we know about risks,
the better we think we can control or avoid them. We rely
on medical science to assess these risks and the media to
keep us informed. We are in fact overwhelmed by statistics
that indicate that just about every thing we do has an element
of risk to it.
Growth of Risk Science:
Of course there are many other things our children do in
the course of there lives which knowingly involve risks to
their health and well being – from skiing at Whistler,
smoking, or eating at McDonald’s. The growth of risk
science was predicated on the belief that the better we can
predict a health hazard occurrence, the more we can avoid
their devastating consequences. This is particularly true
of lifestyle risks, because the dangers arise not from eating
one hamburger, or smoking a single cigarette, but from a cumulative
patterning of voluntary behavior over time. The tragic backcountry
avalanche that recent killed seven students has brought home
the importance of the science of risk assessment for our everyday
decisions about our children.
The reason for acknowledging, rather than avoiding risks
is that we sometimes discover simple ways of reducing them
by changing the way we think about them. For example on average
1700 children die each year in car accidents. This makes cars
one of the greatest mortality risks to children. Yet this
number has been halved since the 1970’s because we use
seat belts and car seats that helped reduce the risks associated
with cars. We benefit most from the scientific study of risks
when they provide us with a sensible way of reducing, avoiding
or limiting the risks to our kids.
Lifestyle Risks:
Thinking about lifestyle risks is now an important part of
contemporary parenting. As long as they are a matter of informed
consent we accept a certain degree of risk in our children’s
lives. Certainly, if we thought about all the risks we would
drown in the waves of anxiety or become exhausted by searching
for accurate information about them. So we normally tolerate
levels of anxiety about our kids as part of the normal course
of life (walking to school) and even acknowledge that our
children seek others (back country skiing; skate boarding
etc.) because they also have other benefits. We could of course
opt for zero tolerance. But because lifestyle risks are voluntary,
governments are increasingly reluctant to regulate them. More
and more responsibility for managing risk therefore falls
upon the parental consumer. So parents wrestle with difficult
decisions daily: should I get a helmet for my young skiier;
should we allow our 10 year old to take the bus home after
dark? Yet we often find that we make these choices with very
imperfect knowledge of the real risks. But if we have trouble
making wise choices, then how much harder is it for our kids.
This is why when risks are hard to estimate we advise the
precautionary principle: to err on the side of safety in uncertainty.
Media As Lifestyle Risk:
In fact, parents have been concerned about the risks associated
with new media since TV first diffused into our living rooms
after WWII. Originally announced as a window onto the world
of knowledge, the media also revealed itself to be a vast
wasteland of low brow entertainment. So there have been a
series of inquiries dating back to 1951 assessing the benefits
and risks associated with media. It will come as no surprise
to you, that there are significant health and safety risks
associated with excessive media consumption. Recently we learned
that even sitting in front of a computer screen all day, created
a risk of heart attack. So too, the flickering screen of the
Pokemon cartoon, was found to induce epileptic seizures in
13 Japanese children before it was changed. Both these risks
are relatively rare. But as we are learning with the internet,
and video games, every media has both costs and benefits:
even though the internet allows children to do their homework
on-line, it also allows them to surf for pornography, be cyber-stalked
or to be subjected to email bullying. And the more kids use
them the greater the risks can be.
The dossiers we prepared are to help parents learn more about
children’s relationship to TV, video games or the internet
which underwrites heavy media consumption. But these reviews
document three fairly well known lifestyle risks associated
with a pattern of heavy media consumption: poor grades; lack
of fitness; and anti-social behaviour.
It is long been said that watching too much TV turns our
children’s brains to mush. Well this is not exactly
true, But the literature shows a clear correlation between
excessive use of media, poor reading and lower grades (Van
der voort; california studies). (http: reading dossier) The
reasons for this relationship are complex and depend on a
variety of other factors, including the child's intelligence
(Schramm 1968) and the way the family supports and encourages
reading and homework (Williams 1986; Rosengren 1989). The
following data from the 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey of
13000 teens in the USA provides a fairly strong indication
that excessive media consumption interferes with reading and
school achievement. Grade A students are almost twice as likely
to be light viewers as heavy
viewers of TV. Grade C students are over represented in the
heavy viewing group.
It has also been said that TV makes kids passive couch potatoes.
Although such rhetoric is unhelpful, because it blames TV
for what is a lifestyle risk, there is an element of truth
to this assertion. A number of recent studies note that obesity
is much higher among heavy TV watchers, especially for girls.
http dossier Again the YSRB study shows that there is a general
relationship between excessive media consumption and the health
risks associated with obesity and inactivity. Such correlations
we be expected for two reasons: first because children who
watch a lot of TV will be exposed to more snack and fast food
commercials. And second because in order to watch a lot of
TV these children tend to give up other kinds of active leisure
activities like sports and walking.
With crime rates rising from the 1950’s, youth violence
and crime have become a leading health issue in North America.
After each shooting -- Littleton, Taber and the motorway sniper
we ask ourselves an important question: are our children safe
in a world whose mean and brutal spirit is magnified on the
screen. In 2000, the Surgeon General of the USA published
a comprehensive study of youth violence adopting a public
health perspective, which ‘focuses on prevention rather
than consequences’. The Surgeon General explains, “the
concepts of risk and protection are integral to public health.
A risk factor is anything that increases the probability that
a person will suffer harm. A protective factor is something
that decreases the potential harmful effect of a risk factor.
… the public health approach to youth violence involves
identifying risk and protective factors, determining how they
work, making the public aware of these findings, and designing
programs to prevent or stop the violence.”
Decrease in Murder Rates:
First the good news; Murder rates have after 30 years of
climbing, peaked in 1992-93 and have begun to go down in the
USA – especially for young victims. The Surgeon General
report concludes that, “three important indicators of
the violent behavior – arrest records, victimization
data, and hospital emergency room records – have shown
significant downward trends. The total number of school killings
peaked in 1992 at 55 and have been declining since. Although
these brutal acts command the headlines, such killings account
for less than 1% of all murders of children in the United
States . School-yard shootings are a tiny fraction of the
mortality risks to children, with over 1700 dying in car accidents
and close to 30 % suffering from obesity. If we want to stop
killing our kids, we should probably ban cars and chocolate
bars, rather than guns. Which is why the Surgeon General states:
Americans cannot afford to become complacent. Even though
youth violence is less lethal today than it was in 1993, the
percentage of adolescents involved in violent behavior remains
alarmingly high’.
Bullying and Anti-social behaviour still exists:
And now the bad news; The media’s emphasis on murder
and violence provides a distorted sense of the real safety
risks that kids experience. Youth violence and bullying has
not diminished. Recent studies in the USA reveal that about
14% of children bring weapons to school, about 38% get in
fights during the year. The Surgeon General concluded: “Americans
cannot afford to become complacent. Even though youth violence
is less lethal today than it was in 1993, the percentage of
adolescents involved in violent behaviour remains alarmingly
high”.
Canadian studies:
Although the mortality rate is much lower in Canada, a similar
survey in Ontario (http OSDUS) indicated that 12.3% of students
reported assaulting someone during the past year and 10.4%
carried a weapon to school. The Ontario report suggests that
fighting, bullying and weapons in the school remain a serious
issue for teens, peaking in the 9th and 10th grades. In BC
the ministry’s surveys report it was found … insert
slide data One main effect of media, then is that children
see their own world as filled with risks. 9% of children in
the USA report feeling so afraid that they miss school; and
from the BC study x% of children report not feeling safe at
school. And we parents feel afraid too – which is why
we often feel better about them going to their room to watch
TV or play on their computers than go out and play on the
street.
7% factor:
But are they safer in these virtual playgrounds? Over the
last three decades researchers have accumulated lots of evidence
that children learn about conflict from their media –
and the more they watch and play, the more their view of conflict
reflects the mean world of terrorism and revenge that permeates
that world. For example, from the YRBS in 2001, teens who
watched more than 4 hours of TV per day, are 7% more likely
to report getting in a fight, than those that watch 1 hour
or less per day. That doesn’t mean that watching fictional
battles causes kids to feel more hostile. But it may mean
that those kids see fighting as a legitimate way of solving
social problems or have never learned that there are alternative
ways to respond to conflict. Over the population those attitudes
become magnified. We might estimate that 1,700,000 fights
every year can in part be attributed to television in the
USA.
In its review of the problem of youth violence, the Surgeon
General of the United States has said:
Research to date justifies sustained efforts to curb the
adverse effects of media violence on youths. Although our
knowledge is incomplete, it is sufficient to develop a coherent
public health approach to violence prevention that builds
upon what is known, even as more research is under way. Unlike
earlier Federal research reports on media violence and youth
(National Institute of Mental Health, 1982; U.S. Surgeon General’s
Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior,
1972), this discussion takes place within a broader examination
of the causes and prevention of youth violence. This context
is vital. It permits media violence to be regarded as one
of many complex influences on the behavior of America’s
children and young people. It also suggests that multi-layered
solutions are needed to address aggressive and violent behavior.
There has been 50 years of debate among media researchers
about the relationship between regular consumption of violent
entertainment and aggression among children and youth. The
media industries predictably claim that solid evidence concerning
the causal hypothesis is lacking and that kids know the difference
between fiction and reality. Both of these points are valid:
no-one expects ordinary kids to play Soldier of Fortune and
then go out and shoot their best friends. Sure they know it's
only a game. But with the recent murder of a Counterstrike
player in Coquitlam, the industry also seems to be missing
the point about how media are an important aspect of the socialization
of aggression in the modern world. With children being exposed
to 8000 deaths and 100,000 violent conflicts by the time they
are 12 how could media not affect their attitudes about social
conflict and their understanding of moral constructs.
Longitudinal Studies:
Although the scientific debate about whether media cause
aggressive behaviour continues there is little a growing consensus
that heavy consumption of violent entertainment is one of
the risk factors contributing in the development of anti-social
behaviour. “tapping into a rich but often fragmented
knowledge base about risk factors, preventive interventions
and public education, the public health perspective calls
for examinging and reconciling what are frequently contradictory
conclusions.” A recent study published in Science (Johnson
et al. (2002) also noted that whereas 45% of the boys who
watched television more than 3 hours per day at age 14, subsequently
committed aggressive acts involving others, only 8.9%, who
watched television less than an hour a day were aggressive
later in life and that this relationship existed even after
other factors that contribute to aggression such as neighbourhood,
family dysfunction and developmental issues are accounted
for.
Regulations:
Most Canadians belief that these risks are sufficient that
media violence should be regulated. The Media Q study reported
that 57% of parents see their kids as being effected by the
movies or TV they watch. In Canada, up to 70% of parents surveyed
by Media Watch had media violence as their highest regulatory
concern. Although task forces have recognized these risks
for many years, they are not politically important enough
to do something about them. Of course there was the V-chip,
but this has turned into one of the most laughable regulatory
tools ever. The video game ratings system developed by the
last BC government was one of the first to be abandoned by
the Liberals. Even the widespread concerns about internet
stalking have produced not safeguards. The reasons are, that
to do so would violate limit the industries rights to make
money off selling their legal products. The industry therefore
puts the onus for these risks on parents.
Alternatives- Dr. Robinson’s study:
The alternative to this political stalemate lies in thinking
globally and acting locally argued Dr. Tom Robinson and colleagues
in San Jose who researched the risks associated with media
violence differently by applying the public health perspective
suggested by the Surgeon General of the USA: if heavy media
consumption increases risk to children’s health and
safety, then getting them to cut back on media should reduce
the risks. They therefore developed an 18 session media education
program conducted in grades three and four classroom which
encouraged children to limit the time they spent watching
TV and playing video games. By doing so, they were able to
reduce the incidence of aggression on the playground by 25%,
slow the rising tide of obesity, and make kids ages 8and 9
feel safer and happier at school. Our mission is to pilot
test this same risk reduction strategy in Canadian schools.
The following program outlines how we hope to challenge both
children and families to make better choices about what they
do with their free time.
In the absence of legislation we feel that the Robinson study
provides one glimmer of hope. And perhaps it is time to think
globally and act locally: Given that media are being increasingly
deregulated, a community based program provides the only way
we can attempt to reduce the risks associated with media:
We are going to launch a well designed social communication
campaign that attempts to persuade kids in grade three/ four
to cut down their use of media for at least one week.
Inspired by Dr. Tom Robinson demonstration project recently
undertaken we propose a community based strategy which combines
the tools of risk communication, social marketing and media
education to reduce the developmental risks associated with
heavy consumption of media. There is a method to our madness,
and a clear goal behind this strategy: namely the desire to
demonstrate that communities like ours can do something to
reduce lifestyle risks associated with the media saturated
world our kids are growing up in. We will ask children to
think about the role that media play in their lives and challenge
them to explore what they can do if they didn’t rely
on media so much to entertain them: it won’t be easy.
To achieve this goal we have adopted a social marketing approach
to community mobilization which recognizes children’s
media use is deeply embedded in the routines of family life:
to change these patterns first ask why do kids watch so much
TV and play video game?: From our study of the media saturated
lifestyle studies we conclude:
Firstly because there is pleasure in watching stories and
playing games – to ask children to change their use
of media can therefore be seen as prohibiting something that
is theirs and fun. The task must be to challenge them to change
without giving up something of value.
From our surveys we know that kids often report that watching
TV and playing video games is not their most preferred activity.
In fact many of them even report they would rather being hanging
with friends or even playing with their parents. They often
choose to watch because of circumstances in their lives make
it the best way they can balance boredom, sociality and family
expectations.
Media as part of Peer Culture:
Children also consume media because they share experiences
and get peer support for doing so. Discussions of programs
and games is an important aspect of children’s peer
interactions, which like adults tend to consolidate in taste
cultures (interpretive communities). We are going to attempt
to shift the emphasis in these peer cultures and make what
you do when you don’t watch TV cool.
Media as part of Family Life:
We know that there are many circumstances in family life
that make media the easy solution to boredom and loneliness.
Children develop their habits within a family dynamic in which
parents model and negotiate limits to media consumption as
part of the family solution for a busy life. For example the
conflict over what to watch is resolved by giving kids a TV
of their own, often in their bedroom. Not only do many parents
not know what their kids are doing with media, but few families
regard TV or video games as a way of talking about moral and
aesthetic attitudes with children. The majority of parents
in our communities take a laissez faire attitude to their
children’s media use, and never bother to communicate
why playing or watching too much is not acceptable.
Media Risk Reduction Strategy:
This media risk reduction strategy uses a two-pronged social
marketing campaign to convince elementary students to participate
in an experiment. The experiment addresses the question 'What
would you do if you turned off TV, video games and PC’s
for a whole week?' The object of this exercise is to
explore what else there is to do instead.
The first prong is the Media Education Component: we will
go into their classrooms and talk to the children about what
and how they use media.
1) What is it that we can do to motivate children to watch
less TV?
REFLEXIVITY: you can’t change
what you can’t see:A week long media diary will be used
to address the media usage patterns of the children at home
and at school. Parents will also be encoraged to particpate
in their own media audit to encourage discussions about media
in the home within the family.
MEDIA EDUCATION: 4 lessons will
be taught in the classroom dealing with issues such as;
1) Hero and Heroines; both fictional
and real represenations of heroes in the lives of children
and disucss about the child's understanding of the characteristics
of a real and fictional hero. This lesson will include art
projects, written work, letter writing, group work, math work
and interviews with parents or another adult in their lives
about their childhood heroes.
2) Scripting and Re-scripting;
this lesson will focus on bullying and aggressive behaviour
in both real life and in the media. A discussion of stereotypes
will lead into class discussion of genres of programmes and
games and finally a media content analysis to allow children
to examine elements of a programme or game rather than just
'zoneing out'.
3) Moral Education; This lesson
will ask children to examine the games they play along with
the games their parents played as children. We will introduce
them to games such as hop scotch, skipping games and a variety
of non-media related games for them to play in the playground
and at home. The lessons will ask children to construct a
game along with rules, regulations, goals and explanations
using 4 objects provided by the teachers in the school. Discussions
of games and rules along with a discussion of what happens
when children play too rough or a game gets out of hand will
follow this lesson.
4) Tune Out Week; The final 2 weeks
of the program will deal with getting ready for Tune out week
(making posters, T-shirts, writing stories, letters to the
media) along with preparation of a list of alternatives that
can be played during Tune Out week. The last week of the intervention
will ask the children and families involved to find alternative
actitivies for one week and selectively view programmes or
play games as a family. For some children a total media free
week may be impossible, but a Tune Out week may be more possible,
with children selectively tuning out media and choosing a
different activity to engage in. The basis behind this lesson
is to empower the child to make choices better suited to a
healther lifestyle; a means of deciding to reduce the risks
associated with high media consumption.
|