Ban under-threes from watching television, says study

A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood (Dr Aric Sigman) says children’s obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm.

• On average, he says, a British teenager spends six hours a day looking at screens at home – not including any time at school. In North America, it is nearer eight hours.
• The critical time for brain growth is the first three years of life. That is when babies and small children need to interact with their parents, eye to eye, and not with a screen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/09/ban-under-threes-watching-television

 

To ban or not to ban?

The ‘video nasty’ debate seems to appear constantly within the world’s media, the popular press are quick to jump on the ‘effects’ bandwagon, placing the blame of all sorts of criminal acts upon certain video games.

For example, in Vietnam, according to Sky News, “campaigners have warned about the dangers of online game addiction after a teenager allegedly killed a seven-year-old girl for her earrings to feed his video game habit…Mong The Xuong, 15, said he killed Anh Nhu because he did not have money to play online games at an internet cafe near his home in Yen Hoa, it is claimed.” The article then quotes a number of people who claim that there is a direct link between video game addiction and criminal acts.

For example, Elizabeth Woolley who set up Online Gamers Anonymous after her son Shawn committed suicide because of his addiction to online games argues that “Until governments around the world recognise it’s a problem, it’s just going to keep getting worse and worse in terms of murders and crimes caused by excessive and obsessive online game play,”

Yet, despite such damning claims, there is not compelling evidence to suggest that there us a causal link between video games and criminal behaviour. Many people are supposing a link rather than actually being able to prove it scientifically. Read http://www.brighthub.com/video-games/pc/articles/119429.aspx for some measured debate.

Interesting, censorship does not just exist on a protective level. Governments are also trying to regulate the actual ideological content of games. In 2010 for example, Conservative Defence Minister, Liam Fox criticised Medal of Honoue, saying that he was “disgusted” that the game allowed players to act as the terrorists and kill British troops. However, is this really a problem? Why should games have to support the government of the day? Does this mean that all media products should only encourage consumers to be 100% ethnocentric?

Matthew Handrahan, features editor of GamesTM Magazine told Sky News Online he was surprised at the furore. “Often the person passing comment on a game has no experience of the game itself. “The people who made Medal of Honour have worked hard to keep the game respectful and to give players an insight into the combat rather than cheaply glamourising it.”

This is a rich area for study – come to your own conclusion…

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/video_game_faqs.html

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727162108.htm

Regulating the media

Just how much does the media influence us?

   Of course this is one of the fundamental questions of media studies and it is a question that polarises opinion. Yet, most governments hold a general consensus that there does need to be some regulation, especially when children are the consumers. The most recent report argues that childhood is being sexualised and it recommends that stricter controls should be put in place:

    Media regulation