Has children's TV got worse?

Shows such as Arthur play a huge role in forming the moral code of millions of children.

 Has children’s TV got worse?

We all have fond recollections of our childhoods: places we visited on holiday, friends we knew at school, and, of course, the television programmes that narrated our adolescence. But are the children of today faring worse when it comes to digital entertainment?

---

Most parents will tell you that the quality of TV that their child watches has waned since their own childhoods, with more than 20% of parents of 3–15 year olds reporting they were disturbed by something their child saw pre-watershed in 2013 alone. Parents often feel that contemporary television is poisoning and corrupting the innocent minds of their children. Are these parent’s trepidations justified, and has modern children’s television deteriorated to a dangerous and damaging degree of inadequacy; or is nostalgia playing a part in their perceptions of modern TV?

Ever since the first demonstration of a colour television, by John Logie Baird on 3rd July 1928, suspicions and doubts have surrounded television, and, in particular, the effect it has on the development of prone children below the age of 5. The 55,000 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a report into the impact of television on children; they concluded that those under 2 years should watch no television whatsoever, and older children should be strictly constrained to no more than 2 hours each day, as any higher can cause developmental problems such as ADHD. This report was well-publicised, with many parents shocked at the apparent harm that television can cause. Since then, with the advent of shows such as Arthur and Sesame Street, which do ample to promote good values, numerous parents have rethought their opinions, and recognized television as a supportive, educational medium; which, like most things in today’s society, should be enjoyed as part of a balanced lifestyle. However, do modern shows sufficiently promote these key values which we wish to intrinsically inspire in our children?

Some critics would argue that shows such as Rugrats, which aired between 1991 and 2004, demonstrate that television programmes endorsing unscrupulous principles existed prior to the turn of the century. Opponents of the show will tell you that, featuring child neglect, binge eating and theft, Rugrats unmistakably implanted dishonest morals and standards in the children that watched it. However, Rugrats noticeably observed these issues ironically, plainly questioning the benefits of its character’s poor behaviour; mocking the very same actions that faultfinders of the show accuse it of promoting. Characters are almost always punished for their errors; thieves would always give back what they stole, apologise, and then pay back their debt in alternate ways. At a glimpse, Rugrats may have appeared to be a show focused on trivialising misbehaviour, but any regular viewer of the show, no matter how young, can plainly see that it aims to teach children to question behaviour; not only that of others, but also of themselves, in order to use this information to make better decisions become better people. Whilst wicked or evil characters may have enjoyed momentary snatches of joy and elation, the moral characters would persevere and eventually find longer-lasting happiness. As a result, Rugrats came to be a fun, entertaining and amusing way for children to develop their understanding of the world. The programme lasted over a decade; engraining itself irreversibly in the hearts of many viewers of the show.

On a statistical level, it is clear that the quality of programming has degenerated. It is impossible to claim that children’s television is anything better than inexcusable when a child, who watches just 2 hours of cartoons per day, will have been exposed to over 10,000 violent incidents in only a year. The Parent’s Television Council issued a report containing statistics about the excess of violence, innuendo and verbal abuse. The findings of this work revealed that violent activity is far more common than the unassuming parent would expect. This research found that children are exposed to over 7.86 violent incidents per hour on television specifically produced for them. An example of this would be The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers. A study by the National Coalition on Television Violence, which has operated since 1980, found that Power Rangers was the most violent TV program they had ever reviewed, with over 200 acts of violence per hour; higher than all the adult shows they had reviewed at the time. Surely our children deserve better?

Johnny Ball, famed for popularizing maths and science amongst the children of the 70s and 80s with shows such as Think of a Number and Playschool, certainly believes children’s television can, and must, do better; he considers modern children’s television to have been “dumbed down”. His presenting always focused on making education entertaining, and in an interview with performing arts magazine, The Stage, he expressed the view that current presenters fail to mix education and entertainment, and rather focus on entertainment, leaving the education to ‘experts’ who they then scorn. Ultimately, his views, coupled with psychological research, point to the fact that current TV does nothing at all to promote positive brain development amongst children. Studies have shown that the damage of television is the exchange of interaction with parents and friends in return for simulated interaction with television characters. As a result of this, children’s presenters are encouraged to interact with the camera often. Conversely, according to Johnny Ball, current presenters “in shows like Blue Peter… talk to each other as though the kids are not there so it feels like you are looking in through the window at someone else’s party”. Described as “trivial”, and accused of failing to provide “enough mental stimulation”, contemporary children’s television certainly appears to be less beneficial than the programming provided by Ball; enthusiastically viewed by children throughout the 80s. TV today is simply not good enough.

The idea of bringing back old, well-loved TV shows has long been controversial, with many viewers of the originals both eager for their children to experience their nostalgia and sentimentality, whilst also apprehensive that the shows are brought back to the same standard as the originals to do them justice. Many remakes attempt to modernise themselves, using CGI to pique the interest of young children; parents often oppose this, finding CGI versions of Thomas the Tank Engine, Bob the Builder, The Wombles and The Teletubbies to be tacky and poor quality. Often CGI versions are rushed, not featuring the well-written, moral reinforcing episodes of the originals. Recently, a remake of classic children’s television favourite, The Clangers, aired on Cbeebies, a subsidiary brand of the BBC targeted specifically towards younger children. The announcement of this remake was met with approval from parents, excited that their children could experience a program from a bygone era. However, when it came to air, reviewers from the Telegraph criticised it as lacking “that slightly sad pungency” of the original. “It’s another example of how children’s TV has become sanitised, just like so much else in children’s lives”, they continued, evaluating the failings of current television.

Parents have come to expect that television will be empty, soulless and emotionless; it does not have to be this way. What is required from parents is a strong united movement, encouraging today’s broadcasting companies to change the way they produce television for the vulnerable children of today. Children’s television should promote positive development in the children who watch it. Clearly, modern programming is an abysmal attempt at this; children’s presenting in general is inadequate to encourage social and emotional expansion in children. It is clear that television is currently failing our youngest, most vulnerable generation, and only with the whole-hearted support of parents can this issue be addressed.