Think of the Children

Juliet Samuel | June 19, 2007

According to a new report on kids' media intake, fewer parents are worried about exposure to violent or sexual content:

Sixty-five percent of parents say they "closely" monitor their children's media use, while just 18% say they "should do more." This may help to explain why since 1998 the proportion of parents who say they are "very" concerned that their own children are exposed to inappropriate content – while still high – has dropped, from 67% to 51% for sexual content, from 62% to 46% for violence, and from 59% to 41% for adult language.

Parents are particularly confident in monitoring their children's online activities. Nearly three out of four parents (73%) say they know "a lot" about what their kids are doing online (among all parents with children 9 or older who use the Internet at home).

But hey, a little censorship never hurts:

Two-thirds (65%) of parents say they are "very" concerned that children in this country are exposed to too much inappropriate content in the media and a similar proportion (66%) favor government regulations to limit TV content during early evening hours.

In April, Kerry Howley noted that a number parents seem to think censorship is necessary to protect other people's kids:

It's not that parents don't think media violence is benign in the abstract; when polled, they tend to express concern about its effects. It just doesn't seem to be their kids at issue. A similar dynamic seems to be at work in video game purchases. According to a recent Federal Trade Commission report (pdf), 90 percent of parents are aware of the game ratings system, and two thirds of parents always or usually agree with its determinations. Yet 40 percent of parents who know system report that they let their kids play games deemed Mature; nearly a quarter of kids named an M-rated game as a favorite.

Comments

|6.19.07 @ 2:07PM|#

"Won't you puh-leeez think of The Children -- of other people only -- since mine are doing fine. It's those other parents who need the government to step in and provide some parenting."

|6.19.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Do you ever think of turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?

|6.19.07 @ 2:14PM|#

In April, Kerry Howley noted that a number parents seem to think censorship is necessary to protect other people's kids:

Yeah, I can handle drugs but we've got to make them illegal beause other people (the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Blacks) can't.

The road to Hell...

|6.19.07 @ 2:22PM|#

In April, Kerry Howley noted that a number parents seem to think censorship is necessary to protect other people's kids

The horror of living a society where people are concerned about other people!

|6.19.07 @ 2:26PM|#

The horror of living a society where people are concerned about other people!

The horror of living in a society where people can't mind their own goddam business.

thoreau|6.19.07 @ 2:27PM|#

The horror of living a society where people are concerned about other people!

See, Dan, some of us have been having a debate over whether to give you the benefit of the doubt, whether there's significant signal in that noise. The problem is that you put the worst spin on anything a libertarian says, and assume that we all want the harshest possible form of libertarianism, that we even revel in the downsides.

Give us something insightful. Ask us a hard question. Something.

highnumber|6.19.07 @ 2:30PM|#

The horror of living a society where people are concerned about other people!

What did you do this weekend, Dan T.?
Where did you go?
What did you eat?
Did you watch any movies?
Have any drinks?
Did you overdo it?
Any illicit drugs?
Get laid?
Spend any time batin'?
Use porn for that?
Where did you get that porn?
Was it all girls, all guys, a mixture of both?
Did you read anything?
What did you read?
Did you drive your car?
Couldn't you have taken public transportation or walked instead?

I've got more questions, but I'll let you answer these before we move on.

Lincoln|6.19.07 @ 2:35PM|#

The horror of living a society where people are concerned about other people!

Concern? When you're concerned for someone you ask if they need help. You provide the means for them to help themselves. You don't put them in a cage or shoot them if they fail to comply with your vision of the world.

|6.19.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Inquiring minds want to know

|6.19.07 @ 2:52PM|#

See, Dan, some of us have been having a debate over whether to give you the benefit of the doubt, whether there's significant signal in that noise. The problem is that you put the worst spin on anything a libertarian says, and assume that we all want the harshest possible form of libertarianism, that we even revel in the downsides.

I confess that I'm bad about that. But at the same time many here are bad about assuming the very worst about "statists". For example, Ms. Howley assuming that concern about the effect of the media on kids means you favor censorship.

But anyway, your point is taken.

thoreau|6.19.07 @ 3:01PM|#

Dan, if you think we're assuming the worst of somebody, then instead of returning the favor and escalating the problem you should offer a defense. Something other than a simplistic "Well, this is what a majority decided" or whatever your latest argument is.

Some people seem to really, truly believe that you are not a troll, and I'm trying to give you (and them) the benefit of the doubt here, one more time.

Hayekian Dreamer|6.19.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Speaking of children, I'm a Ron Paul supporter BUT this looks pretty bad.

|6.19.07 @ 3:13PM|#

The parents who think that censorship is needed for the kiddies sake should be sentenced to do nothing but listen to the whining noise that comes out of my kids' mouths when I tell them they can't watch something.

|6.19.07 @ 3:15PM|#

I think at some point, we must distinguish between (a) arguments for government censorship, and (b) social criticism.

Even if we don't advocate government action to suppress evil, it is a matter of free speech that we should be able to speak out against things that are very bad and dangerous.

And speaking of Reason Happy Hour ....

|6.19.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Some people seem to really, truly believe that you are not a troll, and I'm trying to give you (and them) the benefit of the doubt here, one more time.

I'd probably be considered a liberal statist by many on this blog, and even I am convinced that Dan T is a fucking troll. The shit he posts makes me shake my head in disgust. He makes it that much more difficult for people like me to have a quality exchange of ideas because he reinforces every fucking bullshit stereotype about "liberals" and at times hijacks a discussion.


It's not that he doesn't believe what he writes (I dunno if he does, although in many cases I pray he doesn't) it's that he is intentionally obtuse and mis-represents the position of others in extreme ways -- and even then he doesn't have a coherent response. Instead he tries to play "gotcha" games with his mis-representations of what people are saying.

Why anyone responds to him is beyond me. I'll admit that some of the things he says make me feel like they warrant a response or a correction but then I think "am I beating a dead horse? Will it make any difference to someone who believes his positions are inherently superior? Doesn't that just embolden him to be more obtuse?" And I just move on and look for something else to comment on. I think many people would do well to do the same.

|6.19.07 @ 3:26PM|#

I just want to censor other peoples kids. You know like make them SHUT THE FUCK UP and SIT THE FUCK DOWN in a restaurant.

|6.19.07 @ 3:28PM|#

Hayekian Dreamer,

After looking into that article you posted, I found that Congressman Paul paid his daughter, Lori Pyeatt, about $50,000 in salary for the 2002 2004, and 2006 campaign years, plus another $3,000 in travel reimbursements.

I don't see what is so troublesome about having his daughter in the campaign's employ and, presumably, paying her a reasonable salary for her efforts.

(See Page 98 of the Full Report)

That author was blatantly biased against Paul and exaggerated the report's implications.

Disclaimer: I'm mildly supportive of Paul's campaign, but no "fan-boy."

Hayekian Dreamer|6.19.07 @ 3:31PM|#

I agree with you Jason, and I DO think it's more of a hit piece than anything. The problem is that public perception will NOT think that way. Most people when polled don't know him or don't know much about him. If this hit piece starts getting play I'm concerned about the effect on his candidacy.

|6.19.07 @ 3:32PM|#

What exactly is the problem with putting family on the payroll? Would they rather the job went to the son of a wealthy contributor?

Hayekian Dreamer|6.19.07 @ 3:36PM|#

I suspect the problem that some people have is similar to what happened with former governor McGreevey and Golan Cipel, his male lover who was NOT qualified to be New Jersey's director of homeland security but was given the position anyway. Of course, in this case being a campaign manager falls outside that purview but do we really thing the public is attenuated to these nuances?

|6.19.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Yes, but who is her customer? Ron Paul.

If he feels she is qualified, and is satisfied with her performance I see no reason why he can't have her on his payroll, especially with the troubl ehe has in attracting competent employees Eric Dondero cough cough.

|6.19.07 @ 4:43PM|#

Exactly. It's not like the job was invented. Somebody was going to get paid to do it, why not his daughter?

And I would say the same thing even if it were Ted Kennedy doing the hiring.

LarryA|6.19.07 @ 4:47PM|#

I suspect the problem that some people have is similar to what happened with former governor McGreevey and Golan Cipel, his male lover who was NOT qualified to be New Jersey's director of homeland security but was given the position anyway.

The "nuance" here is that Ron Paul can pay anyone, out of his own pocket, anything he wants to, to do any job that's legal.

McGreevey put Cipel on a job paid for by taxpayers. That's illegal.

|6.19.07 @ 6:39PM|#

I think at some point, we must distinguish between (a) arguments for government censorship, and (b) social criticism.

Even if we don't advocate government action to suppress evil, it is a matter of free speech that we should be able to speak out against things that are very bad and dangerous.

Perhaps you could say that we are morally obligated to speak out against things that are very bad or dangerous.

You know, like David Hasselhoff, Barbra Streisand or Jimmy Swaggert.

Dave B.|6.19.07 @ 8:36PM|#

The "nuance" here is that Ron Paul can pay anyone, out of his own pocket, anything he wants to, to do any job that's legal.The "nuance" here is that Ron Paul can pay anyone, out of his own pocket, anything he wants to, to do any job that's legal.

But according to the article, some people believe that campaign funds should be provided by the taxpayers. Therefore, Ron Paul was actually using taxpayer money. What's so hard to understand about that? Its a solid argument.

LarryA|6.20.07 @ 12:31PM|#

But according to the article, some people believe that campaign funds should be provided by the taxpayers. Therefore, Ron Paul was actually using taxpayer money. What's so hard to understand about that? Its a solid argument.

1. Regardles of what "ought to be," The funds in question were not provided by taxpayers.

2. Some people believe medical bills should be paid for by the taxpayers. So if Paul's daughter decides to pay her father for health care, that would be illegitimate?

3. I have a feeling Ron Paul can safely write off the public campaign financing folks as a lost cause.

LarryA|6.20.07 @ 12:40PM|#

BTW, this seems to be an excellent example of why Ayn Rand was so down on altruism.

If most parents are satisfied with the current situation we don't need the new law. But parents concerned about other parents (who are satisfied with the monitoring they do) will vote for a law for the sake of other parents who don't think they need it.