How do you not see the contradiction in what you just wrote? You can't simultaneously say that the media is inherently bad and that parents are to blame for exposing their kids to the content. The media is appropriate for people with a certain level of experience, knowledge, and a proper context--this is distinct from age. Recommended ages are given on ratings as they are approximations of when a child may have said life experience but it varies greatly with parenting, genetics, and the culture around the child.
I have no idea where you came up with this. I never once said media was evil. In fact, I don't think that it is. Not for someone old enough to realize that it is, in fact, only entertainment. But I do believe that parents should be held accountable for the content they allow their children to be exposed to. Especially when the material isn't age appropriate.
A child who has a proper sense of right and wrong and is taught how to manage media can handle almost anything; a parent just has to step in and put everything into context.
Exactly. But I'm not talking about responsible parenting, am I? If I were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
To say that there is certain media that kids CANNOT be exposed to under any and all circumstances lest they become violent themselves is unfounded.
This isn't necessarily true. Take for example the recent plot that was masterminded by a classroom of
third graders. They created and nearly carried out an elaborate plot to kill their teacher. Ultimately, it was unsuccessful. But what if it had been? Would have learned more in regards to where this motivation to kill their teacher had come from? Most certainly. But since the plot wasn't successful, it faded out of the spotlight before such motivations could be established.
Now, here's the question: Where the hell do third graders learn how to kill their teacher? Is it from their genetics? Doubtful. Parents? Again, unlikely. Media? Definitely a possiblity. What other explanation could there be? I'm not saying it's the only explanation. But it's more than likely, one of these children watched something, or played something, that they shouldn't have. Took this information, and applied it to their life in the form of a plot to kill their teacher.
Here's the next question: Why did the rest of the class decide to go along with this plot? Because they were all evil children that had been abused by their parents? Not likely. Because the devil told them to? Probably not. Because children are impressionable? I think so.
Which ties into:
Kids are never a "blank slate." People are genetically predisposed to many things and even if they weren't, a parent is unable to manage every individual media that a child experiences. School and the relationships it provides accounts for a huge amount of a child's development and parents are not free to completely manipulate their "blank slate" of a child by their selves.
What a bunch of crap. You can play the genetics angle all you want. But a newborn baby is a blank slate in the most literal sense of the word. The child knows nothing of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. It's the responsibility of their parents to teach them these things over the course of the next several years. To give them context. To provide them with the guidance they need to learn for themselves the difference between right and wrong. To tell them when something they're doing is wrong. To screen what they watch and play. And if a parent ignores these needs, the child learns these things from wherever it can, television, film, games, neighbors, friends, etc. And that's when problems arise. Because it is not the needs of the child that are being directly addressed, the chances of the child learning the wrong lessons is all to likely.
Take this film for example.
You have a Parent/Guardian, we'll call him Tom, that decides to bring a child, we'll call him Jerry, to see the Dark Knight.
Tom is a lousy parent. Never spends that much time with Jerry. Doesn't pay much attention to him. Doesn't screen the television he watches or the games he plays. He's too busy with his own life to worry about that sort of thing. But decides that because Jerry likes Batman, he's going to bring him to see this movie, in an effort to be a "good dad." Well, Jerry loves the movie. It's a little to omuch in spots. But hey, it's BATMAN! Problem is, because the kid was never taught that beating people up isn't something that you should do, he decides to beat his friend up the next time they're playing. "Well hey! Batman beat the tar out of the Joker, so why can't I beat up my friend? He's playing Joker, I'm playing Batman!"
You see where I'm going with this?
-WsS?
