Background image

terug

The Listener, November 4, 1982

 When I was a child it was Enid Blyton's books that met with strong moral objections from
 parents and other opinionated adults. For the past 20 years or so, it has been television. By the
 time I came to have a child myself - my daughter Jessica is now five - I had become familiar with
 the whole range of critical comment, though I was not personally involved in the debate.
5 It did not take me very long to sort out where I stood, and for the present I feel entirely
 relaxed about it, though I suspect that I may have to look at the situation again when Jessica
 reaches adolescence.
 We are extremely fortunate in that she is by nature a physically energetic child, with an
 inquiring mind, who usually has a good many other things she wants to do during out-of-school
10 time. But she does enjoy, and get a great deal out of, her viewing, and she also , like me, has her
 lazy side. And, just because she is articulate and bright, and reads well, it is easy to forget that
 she is very young and impressionable, and easily frightened. So there do have to be a few rules.
 In general, she may not watch more than an hour and a half of television on any one day,
 though I rarely have to enforce this, because she rarely wants to watch for longer. She is not
15 allowed to watch programmes intended only for adults, the news and also Newsround; the latter
 is aimed at children but seems to me to include more than its fair share of the world's wars and
 woes.
 However, parenthood means compromise. And if my daughter is watching a program that is
 not specifically aimed at young children but which is very suitable for family viewing - like a
20 naturalist series - I watch with her, so that I can try to explain any difficulties over vocabulary,
 answer simple questions, and be on hand to punch the Off button at any particularly
 red-in-tooth-and-claw moments.
 What I have come to appreciate very much over the past three years or so of being exposed to
 a good deal of the television output for small children from most channels is that the sort of
25 programmes I would choose to have are precisely those that are available, and that the ones I am
 uneasy about are few and far between.
 I recently met a father of three children who said that the only television they might watch was
 'educational', But his attitude omitted to take notice of something very important: sometimes
 children simply need to relax, and they also need television which stimulates nothing other than
30 laughter. When my daughter comes home from school at four o'clock after a day during which
 she has been physically and mentally active, she needs to have a story told to her, as in Jackanory,
 or to see other children letting off steam running obstacle races or playing silly watergames. We
 Are the Champions. These programmes do not come under my heading of rubbish; in fact all
 children need some of that, too. Peter Dickinson's famous essay 'On Rubbish' applies to
35 children's television as much as to children's books, its main point being that if they are ever to
 learn discrimination, they must have access to the banal and the trivial, as well as to the good.
 An academic friend for whose good sense I usually have much respect would not let his
 children have a television set until they had learnt to read , on the grounds that if they did, they
 wouldn't. But my daughter learned to read at four with great ease, and will now, from time to
40 time, choose a book rather than a television program. To make reading the pill and television
 the jam is likely to lead to resistance to the former and addiction to the latter.
 The main anxiety I do have about television is that it trivializes, reduces all experience, all
 news, all human achievement to the lowest common denominator. That is why control needs to
 be exercised over the number of hours a young child watches , why the quality and suitability to
45 its age and stage of development must be supervised. And why, if the child is to become a fully
 rounded person, it needs to have a great many other things besides television in its world.
 
 The Listener, November 4, 1982

The following is from a letter to the Editor which appeared in the next issue of THE LISTENER.

 Sir: I very much enjoyed the articles in THE LISTENER for 4 November, on children and
 television. That is, apart from the one by Susan Hill, which really annoyed me.
 At the age of five I was probably very like her daughter Jessica. I, too, was fairly bright and
50 found reading very easy, but I cannot pretend to believe that Jessica will be as 'grown-up' as I
 am at the ripe old age of 13. I do not watch a great deal of television now, but I watched
 children's programmes for an ave rage of an hour and a half a day when her age. Mum sometimes
 watched with me, but never stopped me watching anything that was designed for children.
 Certainly never Newsround, which I vaguely remember starting - I was three at the time - and
55 which I watched enthusiastically until I was about ten years old. What harm did it do me? The
 news given was simple, interesting and gave an awareness, however slight, of what was going on
 outside my cozy middle-class home. Jessica, and all the other children like her, will never have
 this until their 'caring' parents stop treating them as lumps of nervous fragile jelly, and start
 thinking of them as future adults.
 
 Ruth Keily
Bristol