Before you read on, I must admit a huge personal bias: I am a strong supporter of comprehensive sex education in public schools. While I believe that stressing abstinence is important, I value freedom of information over my personal beliefs about what the right choice is. Besides, when it comes to sex education, decisions should be based on health issues, not value systems (at least when we're talking about public funds).
A new study released in the November issue of the American Academy of Pediatrics has found a "prospective link between exposure to sexual content on television and the experience of a pregnancy before the age of 20." In interviews with the Washington Post, lead researcher Anita Chandra noted that in TV depictions of sex (or activities such as kissing that imply a sexual relationship) rarely display topics such as STD protection or other risks involved in sexual activity.
My reaction to this study is the same as my reaction to many studies that have linked video game violence to school shootings or other violence in children: the problem isn't the media, it's personal responsibility. I don't argue that media, especially those that focus on visuals such as television or certain Internet sites, have a huge influence on public opinion on all levels. Republicans wouldn't care about a "biased" Oct. 13 Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin if they didn't think the image would sway voters away from the McCain ticket. Responsible voters are looking at issues and their interpretation of a candidate's ability to do the job, not their ability to remove facial hair.
The same responsibility should fall on media consumers when it comes to sexual or violent content. I know that when I watch Grey's Anatomy, I'm not watching a realistic depiction of a Seattle hospital. I watch the show for personal enjoyment and a way to relax in someone else's storyline, not for a dose of reality. However, the controversy comes when we're talking about children (and yes, teenagers are children). As an avid supporter of the First Amendment, can I also say that censorship in the name of childhood development and socialization is ok? I struggle with this line a lot, because I think the core of the issue is not who is doing who on TV, but rather why Sally and Jimmy feel that their lives would be bettered by emulating the characters they see on television. I don't have an answer, or even a clear argument, except to say that blaming media for teenage pregnancies (as many of the abstinence-supporting sources in the WA post article do) is not the solution.
Other sites that have covered the study: The Spokesman-Review (from the AP), Los Angeles Times, FOX news, China Daily, New York Times, a CBS affiliate (this one includes a quiz titled "test your pregnancy know-how", which is a blog commentary in and of itself). As a side note, this story makes an interesting media study on how the same information gets turned into totally different stories, especially in regards to leads and headlines.
Posts
1 comment:
Agree completely. I also think media literacy studies beginning in primary school would be a great mechanism for teaching the critical thinking skills upon which personal responsibility is built in later life.
I found your blog via the Media All Stars group, so I know you're familiar with the idea that advertising is a seduction. Everyone needs to think "what's this person's angle and where do I fit in?" when viewing any kind of media, but if consumption precedes education, I'm not sure that's possible. The same question applies to sexual situations.
Surely media education would be less divisive than other forms for young students. The economic crisis may prompt parents to teach kids more about the psychology of buying in to brands and ideas alike, and if so I think we'll all be the better for it.
Post a Comment