No-one ever said parenting would be easy but the past fortnight - perhaps more than any other before – has brought to the surface just how hard parenting in the multimedia age has become.
Quite simply, modern communication technology makes our children vulnerable and it does so on so many levels.
Take the Virginia Tech massacre, a tragedy of unquestionable proportions.
The ramifications of this are spreading way beyond the US campus where Cho Seung Hui killed 32 faculty members and students and himself.
The language used in reporting of this – America’s worst school massacre was a phrase used repeatedly – undoubtedly made children feel especially vulnerable.
But what happened next goes to the heart of why new media will create new challenges for parents.
First there is the impact of the citizen journalist on the coverage of the event. The digital native students of the university blogged, You Tubed, videoed and text messaged their way through the crisis. And the mainstream new organisations fell over each other to get their hands on the material.
At one level this is evidence of the advantages of citizen journalism but take a look at I Report on CNN and what you see is mobile phone footage collected by a student running into the line of fire.
Eagerness to engage in citizen journalism put students in the line of fire literally but rather than being disturbed by the outcome, networks rewarded the risk-taking by high rotation screening of the footage.
The risks go beyond those collecting the footage. With almost every citizen on every street corner now armed with video-capable mobile phones, the potential for disturbing footage to be collected and screened in a way that is liable to disturb children is greater than at any other time in the past.
It’s almost impossible to believe, for example, that children wouldn’t have been disturbed by the image of Cho Seung Hui aiming a gun at them on the front page of The Courier-Mail in the aftermath of the Virgina Tech massacre.
Now it seems a multi-media enabled maniac with a gun can use the media to spread a message of hate to the masses.
It can – and has – been argued that the footage screened and posted in the middle of the killing spree should be aired because it gives the public a vital insight into the mind of a killer.
Equally it can – and has – be argued that it merely provides a recipe for other deranged individuals to have their manifestos broadcast across the globe.
What is more difficult to understand is just how we might benefit from graphic self portraits taken by Cho Seung Hui aimed in our face from the front page of a daily newspaper.
More restraint is clearly called for.
The other tragic event – the suicide death in an apparent pact of teenagers Stephanie Gestier and Jodie Gater - also raises questions that must be faced by parents in the multimedia age.
We need to understand how our children are communicating with each other. We need to look for signs for an unhealthy addiction to communicating online. It won’t be easy and it’s not something that parents can be expected to tackle alone.
Indeed comments by Prime Minister John Howard - that parents and not regulators – must act to prevent a repeat tragedy are unhelpful at best.
"I think the greatest thing that has to be said about this is that parental responsibility in the end is the key to behaviour by children," Mr Howard told ABC Radio.
Parents have a role to play but blaming the parents in what is clearly a very complicated area is to dodge any responsibility which must be taken by government and content regulators.
Why aren’t sites that allow uncensored, defamatory and dangerous material being called into questions?
Why isn’t the government taking a lead?
Parenting has always been difficult but with our kids increasing using tools that hadn’t been dreamed of when most of us were growing up and in ways few of us truely understand we have a right to expect some support from governments.
Our kids deserve it.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Children have rights too
Will you all just leave our kids out of it?
UnionsWA is taking its fight against the government's WorkChoices legislation to the soccer pitch paying $8800 to sponsor a junior soccer club in Western Australia.
The union argues this an appropriate move because the Howard Government legislation will impact on parents' time with their kids.
And they are entitled to that opinion. They should also be entitled to sponsor junior sport. What they shouldn't be entitled to do is turn a club full of junior players - starting at just six - into mobile political billboards.
By putting their logos and the slogan "Your Rights at Work" on the jerseys of 16 soccer teams, Unions WA has politicised the junior members of Tuart Hill Soccer Club.
In a way you can't blame the club. Cash-strapped junior sports teams around the country have had to find innovative ways to make ends meet.
Many will argue that if big business can sponsor junior sport surely the unions should have the right too.
And they should. But there's a world of difference between paying for your logo on the boundary hoarding or buying a spot on the back of the club's newsletter and effectively buying a spot on the backs and fronts of children.
It's not as though a junior player can opt out an wear a different jersey. A uniform is a uniform. You wear the union colours or you sit on the sidelines.
But there's a bigger picture here - and that it just what is appropriate when it comes to the sponsorship of junior sport?
Many of the dollars flowing into the teams across the country come from the fast food industry. We want our children to play organised sport to help defeat the childhood obesity epidemic then when they get there we reward players with vouchers for burgers and fries.
Just as advertising of junk food in children's television needs strict regulation so too does its sponsorship of kids' sport.
Our kids deserve to be able to kick a football, swim a few laps or throw a netball without being targeted by marketing gurus.
Work choices are important. Play choices for our kids equally so.
UnionsWA is taking its fight against the government's WorkChoices legislation to the soccer pitch paying $8800 to sponsor a junior soccer club in Western Australia.
The union argues this an appropriate move because the Howard Government legislation will impact on parents' time with their kids.
And they are entitled to that opinion. They should also be entitled to sponsor junior sport. What they shouldn't be entitled to do is turn a club full of junior players - starting at just six - into mobile political billboards.
By putting their logos and the slogan "Your Rights at Work" on the jerseys of 16 soccer teams, Unions WA has politicised the junior members of Tuart Hill Soccer Club.
In a way you can't blame the club. Cash-strapped junior sports teams around the country have had to find innovative ways to make ends meet.
Many will argue that if big business can sponsor junior sport surely the unions should have the right too.
And they should. But there's a world of difference between paying for your logo on the boundary hoarding or buying a spot on the back of the club's newsletter and effectively buying a spot on the backs and fronts of children.
It's not as though a junior player can opt out an wear a different jersey. A uniform is a uniform. You wear the union colours or you sit on the sidelines.
But there's a bigger picture here - and that it just what is appropriate when it comes to the sponsorship of junior sport?
Many of the dollars flowing into the teams across the country come from the fast food industry. We want our children to play organised sport to help defeat the childhood obesity epidemic then when they get there we reward players with vouchers for burgers and fries.
Just as advertising of junk food in children's television needs strict regulation so too does its sponsorship of kids' sport.
Our kids deserve to be able to kick a football, swim a few laps or throw a netball without being targeted by marketing gurus.
Work choices are important. Play choices for our kids equally so.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Let's get to the bottom of the problem
Apparently the book Everyone's Got a Bottom is offensive, so offensive that Australia's largest chain of daycare providers ABC Learning Centres won't have it on their shelves.
After all the book does contain words such as vulva, penis, vagina and testicles.
Worse still it contains cartoon-like drawings of these "bits".
Privates are private and should not see the light of day in the day care setting, apparently. Or in an ABC spokesman's words "We respect the right of families to discuss private issues in their own way and in their own time".
That's a fine ideal that totally denies the real issue here.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was no such thing as child abuse?
Wouldn't be nice if Family Planning Queensland thought it wasn't necessary to write a book about child sexual abuse pitched at children aged three to eight?
Wouldn't it be nice if all children were given the tools they need to speak out about inappropriate sexual behaviour by their adults?
The problem is that child sexual abuse does exist and the people most likely to hurt children are not strangers but those nearest and dearest to them.
So leaving he job of talking about child sexual abuse to parents is - most unfortunately - a strategy destined to seriously let down the children most at need.
It may not be the core business of childcare centres to teach sex education to children but it's a job that needs to be done and if families can't or won't do it then those charged with the care of kids should take up the challenge.
The book is presented in a way that's non-threatening to children.
It is a story about Ben and his brother and sister learning and talking together about bodies meant to gently start a conversation with children about self protection.
It's simply putting the information out there in an age-appropriate way that gives kids the language needed to speak up should they be confronted with some inappropriate behaviour.
The book says "It might be a person that I know and like. It is still not OK for them to touch or ask to see my private parts or to show me theirs".
Everyone's got a bottom so why are some of us scared to talk about it?
The book is for sale for $15 via www.fpq.com.au
After all the book does contain words such as vulva, penis, vagina and testicles.
Worse still it contains cartoon-like drawings of these "bits".
Privates are private and should not see the light of day in the day care setting, apparently. Or in an ABC spokesman's words "We respect the right of families to discuss private issues in their own way and in their own time".
That's a fine ideal that totally denies the real issue here.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was no such thing as child abuse?
Wouldn't be nice if Family Planning Queensland thought it wasn't necessary to write a book about child sexual abuse pitched at children aged three to eight?
Wouldn't it be nice if all children were given the tools they need to speak out about inappropriate sexual behaviour by their adults?
The problem is that child sexual abuse does exist and the people most likely to hurt children are not strangers but those nearest and dearest to them.
So leaving he job of talking about child sexual abuse to parents is - most unfortunately - a strategy destined to seriously let down the children most at need.
It may not be the core business of childcare centres to teach sex education to children but it's a job that needs to be done and if families can't or won't do it then those charged with the care of kids should take up the challenge.
The book is presented in a way that's non-threatening to children.
It is a story about Ben and his brother and sister learning and talking together about bodies meant to gently start a conversation with children about self protection.
It's simply putting the information out there in an age-appropriate way that gives kids the language needed to speak up should they be confronted with some inappropriate behaviour.
The book says "It might be a person that I know and like. It is still not OK for them to touch or ask to see my private parts or to show me theirs".
Everyone's got a bottom so why are some of us scared to talk about it?
The book is for sale for $15 via www.fpq.com.au
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Little Brother is Watching You
What are the two most violent things screened on television?
Forget the late night episodes of CSI (insert any US city here). If you want to see something truly shocking, disturbing, violent or riddled with bad language then television news or live sport is as good a place as any to start.
Take the very unfortunate incident last week of Ukranian swimming coach Mikhaylo Zubkov in a violent poolside brawl in Melbourne at the World Swimming Championships.
Live on TV at 6.30 at night families tuning in to see the world's greatest swimmers in action - what you would have to consider a "safe"family viewing - were treated to extremely disturbing vision.
One of the most disturbing parts of the incident for television viewers was that it was live which means that no-one could know what would happen next yet it was being screened without protection into homes at a time which is in the G classification zone.
Of course the great out for broadcasters is that news and live sport are exempted from classification under the code provided "the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast having regard to:
2.4.1.1 the likely audience of the program; and
2.4.1.2 any identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program
material."
You'd have to wonder exactly what care is taken in broadcasting unedited live television footage of a volatile situation. In reality exactly none. Which is the problem. The incident, in itself, did not end up being too bad but no-one could have known the result.
But the frightening thing is the trend. With the increasing number of surveillance cameras and the fact that we all now carry devices capable of capturing video and still images the possibility of disturbing footage being captured and broadcast is higher than ever before. Indeed the television stations are falling over each other to get their hands on our footage and the most "attractive" footage to broadcasters seems to be the most violent footage.
All of us with children should be very alarmed. The more of this kind of footage children see, the more likely it is that they will succumb to wicked world syndrome. If you see this happening all the time on television it's not a big leap to start believing that's all that's happening all the time outside the square box.
Our children deserve better. Horrible things do happen in the world every day and for their own protection our children do need know that horrible people capable of doing horrible things are out there.
They just don't need to be deluged with it and the danger is that that's what is going to happen unless we give real thought to what happens to all that footage being collected by all those cameras all over the place.
Forget the late night episodes of CSI (insert any US city here). If you want to see something truly shocking, disturbing, violent or riddled with bad language then television news or live sport is as good a place as any to start.
Take the very unfortunate incident last week of Ukranian swimming coach Mikhaylo Zubkov in a violent poolside brawl in Melbourne at the World Swimming Championships.
Live on TV at 6.30 at night families tuning in to see the world's greatest swimmers in action - what you would have to consider a "safe"family viewing - were treated to extremely disturbing vision.
One of the most disturbing parts of the incident for television viewers was that it was live which means that no-one could know what would happen next yet it was being screened without protection into homes at a time which is in the G classification zone.
Of course the great out for broadcasters is that news and live sport are exempted from classification under the code provided "the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast having regard to:
2.4.1.1 the likely audience of the program; and
2.4.1.2 any identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program
material."
You'd have to wonder exactly what care is taken in broadcasting unedited live television footage of a volatile situation. In reality exactly none. Which is the problem. The incident, in itself, did not end up being too bad but no-one could have known the result.
But the frightening thing is the trend. With the increasing number of surveillance cameras and the fact that we all now carry devices capable of capturing video and still images the possibility of disturbing footage being captured and broadcast is higher than ever before. Indeed the television stations are falling over each other to get their hands on our footage and the most "attractive" footage to broadcasters seems to be the most violent footage.
All of us with children should be very alarmed. The more of this kind of footage children see, the more likely it is that they will succumb to wicked world syndrome. If you see this happening all the time on television it's not a big leap to start believing that's all that's happening all the time outside the square box.
Our children deserve better. Horrible things do happen in the world every day and for their own protection our children do need know that horrible people capable of doing horrible things are out there.
They just don't need to be deluged with it and the danger is that that's what is going to happen unless we give real thought to what happens to all that footage being collected by all those cameras all over the place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
