Messages in Kid's TV Shows

Lessons are never bad thing until you insist that they must be there and must be correct.

Because lessons are never either.

That being said, don't cheat kids! But you'll do it anyway to get ahead, you little bastards, never thinking about how you've just stepped on someone else who put in the effort and is probably better than you, probably going to eventually get a more secure job than you, probably not going to get fired because that kid didn't take shortcuts.

"And I'm not seeing what's so "dishonest" about the practice."

You are using fiction to support an argument. And since it is your fiction for your argument, it will be tailor made to support your points, while reality may not support your points.

"So you wouldn't say an anvil of tolerance towards all races/sexualities shouldn't be dropped in kids TV?"

Is that an anvil? Does it thus fall under the statement "No anvils should ever be dropped in fiction"?

"Also good luck swaying a younger audience towards your argument with pamphlets and studies."

If they are too young to be capable of intelligently approaching a subject, then why bother discussing it with them in the first place? Further, if they are too young to actually grasp the situation, then any and all methods you use to convince them cannot be based on logical argument.

"I wouldn't say it is dishonest, in the fact that the world can be created differently can be used to show views in ways that would be hard in a plain text essay, and with a story framing it make it easier to understand."

There is nothing stopping one from using hypothetical scenarios in an argument. The important thing is that it is openly presented as an argument, and has real evidence as well, instead of just hypotheticals tailor-made to support the argument.

If they are too young to be capable of intelligently approaching a subject, then why bother discussing it with them in the first place? Further, if they are too young to actually grasp the situation, then any and all methods you use to convince them cannot be based on logical argument.

Because they are intelligent enough to understand when something is right or wrong, at least in their own views. They might be immature views, but they have views, and those can only development to be more complex and mature in nature given time.

EDIT: The point is, TV and all other media will always be fallible, but at least they're a method to convey ideas. The more ideas presented to a person, the more possibilities they can see and understand, all the better if they're younger. This allows them to pick their own morality at a young age IF given enough variety to choose from.

edited 27th Feb '11 10:45:09 AM by Usht

"Because they are intelligent enough to understand when something is right or wrong, at least in their own views. They might be immature views, but they have views, and those can only development to be more complex and mature in nature given time. "

Then if you want to affect their views, use facts.

Facts, when you get right down to it, are both boring and often enough, irrelevant in an individual's morality unless that morality is specifically tailored to involve facts.

It won't matter if it's a fact that the only way for me to allow the human race to survive near extinction is to impregnate an under aged girl, I'll still wait and let her grow up and have a part in the decision.

Sure, I can know that guns can hurt other people, but that's irrelevant in whether or not I feel like hurting others.

"So you wouldn't say an anvil of tolerance towards all races/sexualities shouldn't be dropped in kids TV?"

Is that an anvil? Does it thus fall under the statement "No anvils should ever be dropped in fiction"?

Well it is a moral message so it is an anvil by the troping terms, so then it does fall under your sentence about never dropping anvils in fiction. So according to that you don't think the message of tolerance should be promoted through Children's telvision.

If they are too young to be capable of intelligently approaching a subject, then why bother discussing it with them in the first place? Further, if they are too young to actually grasp the situation, then any and all methods you use to convince them cannot be based on logical argument.

There is nothing stopping one from using hypothetical scenarios in an argument. The important thing is that it is openly presented as an argument, and has real evidence as well, instead of just hypotheticals tailor-made to support the argument.

So if there was an episode of some kids TV about what to do with a criminal, between death penalty and prison and in the conclusion they chose to send him to prison because it was cheaper (factually correct) and that killing him would breach his human rights as while he is a criminal he is still human (factually correct).

Would you agree with that?

You also want to prevent children from taking views from fictional evidence, as it's a very bad habit.

True, with some caveats.

That's a good point. I recall discussing a similar topic in a YKTTW of mine.

I remember reading once that one of the prime markers for the success of a child in school isn't dependent on how much extracurricular work you stack on or how many museums and cultural institutions you take them to. It is how many books you have in your home. Not how many you read to them. Simply how many you have.

The reasoning is that it isn't the lessons that you try to teach that are learned. It is the lessons you hold that are learned. Who you are is more important to the development of your kid than what you attempt to forge them into.

Any form of moralizing or messaging in a children show is pointless. I can remember being as young as 8 and thinking that captain planet was retarded. I remember that the only episode that I enjoyed from the series was the very special drugs episode because it was one of the only episodes that had a genuine seeming conflict. I didn't walk away thinking "drugs are bad" I walked away thinking, wow a story about that blond chick with wind powers getting strung out on pills and the rest of the cast dealing with her legitimate addiction is a hell of a lot more interesting than watching that pig looking fuck crash oil tankers for shits and giggles.

A genuinely engrossing story told by a person of moral fiber will demonstrate the values desired more thoroughly than any attempt to package and deliver them. Fiction done right will teach through example. I learned more of the morality of consequence from watching serious cinema than any amount of TBS bullshit. Any work of fiction powerful enough to truly instruct will invariably leave scars.

edited 27th Feb '11 8:45:53 PM by Shrimpus

so, does anybody have a problem with kids shows having messages on topics like "the equitable distribution of goods amongst like-minded individuals"

"Facts, when you get right down to it, are both boring and often enough, irrelevant in an individual's morality unless that morality is specifically tailored to involve facts.

It won't matter if it's a fact that the only way for me to allow the human race to survive near extinction is to impregnate an under aged girl, I'll still wait and let her grow up and have a part in the decision."

"Fact" was probably the wrong word to use; my point is that if you want to advocate some moral/political/whatever point, you should base your arguments in reality, not just make up fiction to support yourself.

"So if there was an episode of some kids TV about what to do with a criminal, between death penalty and prison and in the conclusion they chose to send him to prison because it was cheaper (factually correct) and that killing him would breach his human rights as while he is a criminal he is still human (factually correct).

Would you agree with that?"

Would I agree with what? The conclusion the show reaches or the use of a childrens television show to impress a political opinion on children?

You omit what the "criminal" did. You do not say how long he would be imprisoned for the purposes of cost comparison. Human rights can never be factually correct or incorrect.

Children do not make decisions about capital punishment. If you wish to influence their future views, wait until they are old enough to understand, and give them honest, open arguments for your view. Using a television show to try and impress your political opinions on them at an age when they are too young to really grasp the subject is both manipulative and dishonest.

So basically South Park is the best child aimed TV Show ever since it does give (for the most part) a fair view of both sides. Good know.

On a more serious note, I have a feeling this is all back draft from the 1990s push for morals in TV, in which case, that period of time failed to allowed people to fairly give both sides of the argument. Granted, some topics will always be considered too violent or too sex related for kids to see, but like all forms of media, all opinions should be allowed, preaching to the choir or not.

If you want to make a serious point, write an essay, publish a pamphlet, whatever, just present it in a way that is based on serious logical argument.

By wrapping up morals in works of fiction, they lose all real meaning as arguments, and start edging into outright deception. When you're embedding a political/moral idea in a work of fiction, you stack the deck in your own arguments favor. In the fictional world you create, of course your moral is going to be right, because the world is built around making it right.

It is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt to try to make a serious, real-world point through fiction.

I disagree with this idea because it implies that fiction only exists to entertain. It can't have any content more serious or personal then what the author thinks will keep the audience interested. I'd rather fiction do what it is meant to do, be a device to make people feel. If you want to use it to make people feel more sympathetic to your beliefs go right ahead. Let them judge it based on what they think and the quality of your own argument. Don't just declare an act forbidden because it has the potential for abuse/sloppy handling.

"I disagree with this idea because it implies that fiction only exists to entertain. It can't have any content more serious or personal then what the author thinks will keep the audience interested. I'd rather fiction do what it is meant to do, be a device to make people feel. If you want to use it to make people feel more sympathetic to your beliefs go right ahead. Let them judge it based on what they think and the quality of your own argument. Don't just declare an act forbidden because it has the potential for abuse/sloppy handling."

I do not argue that fiction only exists to entertain, though I would agree with the statement that it should only exist to entertain.

The problem is not trying to make people "feel" (that, in fact, would still just be entertainment). The problem is trying to make arguments about real things by using fiction as evidence. It's inherently biased and dishonest.

There is not a potential for "abuse/sloppy handling", there is a certainty of it, whether the author intends it or not.

If people can't push forth their ideals in any sort of fiction you just end up with bland crap. Without some underlying ideal that the work functions under all you end up with are reports of fictitious events.

Dude, you've just ignored several centuries worth of literature that had a point behind it. Yes, it's fiction to push a point, but at least fiction allows us to view a hypothetical reality and comment on it. The view point of the author may be different from yours, but it's still a setting upon which you can argue and debate about. It allows for messages and room to keep your own.

And what's your opinion on non-fiction? Like autobiographies or recollections from wars. Many of them have a message behind them.

"If people can't push forth their ideals in any sort of fiction you just end up with bland crap. Without some underlying ideal that the work functions under all you end up with are reports of fictitious events."

Reports of fictitious events is all that fiction is anyway. The usual goal is to provide a certain emotional response (be it suspense, horror, humor, excitement, or whatever), or to provide a mental exercise (the usual attraction of literature enthusiasts to "serious" fiction).

Either way, it's just a report of events that didn't really happen for the purpose of providing someone with amusement. Some people also use it to make serious arguments, but what's the point of couching them in fiction if you are not just trying to piggyback manipulation on entertainment?

I see nothing wrong with stories demonstrating morals. If they're demonstrating idiotic morals, then chances are it's also an idiotic story.

That said, I think the most interesting thing I watched in this regard (wish I could remember what it was, really long time ago) went through a myopia of bad decisions all around, then ended with the protagonists trying to draw one of their usual morals from it and they couldn't come up with one because everything was so fucked up. It was actually kinda refreshing, if for no other reason than to deliver the most important lesson of all: sometimes shit happens and there's not much to learn from it.

edited 28th Feb '11 12:16:38 PM by Pykrete

"By wrapping up morals in works of fiction, they lose all real meaning as arguments, and start edging into outright deception. When you're embedding a political/moral idea in a work of fiction, you stack the deck in your own arguments favor. In the fictional world you create, of course your moral is going to be right, because the world is built around making it right."

Only if you fail at writing.

I agree with that opinion when you're talking about something like Atlas Shrugged or Captain Planet that is a very deliberate Author Tract. I don't see any general problem though with a work having a message.

Either way, it's just a report of events that didn't really happen for the purpose of providing someone with amusement. Some people also use it to make serious arguments, but what's the point of couching them in fiction if you are not just trying to piggyback manipulation on entertainment?

To give an example, to show the effects of something in a way people can relate to better then a bunch of pure data. Any time you interact with others you try to manipulate them into doing what you want, why should fiction be any different?

Really whenever you tell a story the author will have some meaning or moral behind it, even if it's not the point or even in focus. I don't think it's possible for a story to be created without having any themes in it.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:03:56 PM by Alkthash

The Tropeless Tale?

Yeah, it probably applies as a moral is a trope, but more so, morals inevitably result from the actions that were used to fix the conflict. Unless you really go out of your way to remove that there's any moral to the story (in which case, the moral is there's no true moral behind stuff), most stories in fiction and events in real life have a moral people can get from them. The morals obtained from the same story may vary, but it's there and results from the conflict that made that story be there in the first place.