Television and Children
The current issue of the Columbia Journalism Review provides independent confirmation of positions taken by two of the favorite people in my life – Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l and my youngest son, Akiva .
It did not take Rav Moshe, the greatest halachic decisor of the last generation, too long to weigh in concerning television. In its earliest years, when sitcom families still had two parents, and their children brushed their teeth, made their beds, and lived in houses surrounded by white picket fences, you could also not find too much salacious material on the airwaves. There was suggestion, to be sure, but nothing explicit. So Rav Moshe’s objections to the new medium did not focus on titillation, but on values. How, he asked, can you watch something that turns murder into something frivolous?
Decades later my children found themselves in what was called the “Yiddish track” in their day school. Although theirs was (at the time) the only haredi school in town, the parent body evidenced a much more varied continuum of behavior than in the analogous schools in Flatbush. The administration would have liked to ban TV at home as a condition of enrollment, but they would have lost half the school. On the other hand, there was pressure to segregate the kids from the “better” homes (i.e. ones without TV) so that they could achieve more of their potential without being subject to the educational drag of children from less spiritually rarified families. (The assumption was a gross generalization, but it harbored a good deal of truth.)
The administration came up with a ruse. They formed a Yiddish track, knowing that none of the families who really valued TV would live with such an anachronism. It worked. None of the children enrolled in this track had televisions at home, and the track did turn out to be the “A” track of the school. They didn’t do all that much teaching in Yiddish either, and were able to drop the ruse altogether after a few years. It was sort of comical while it lasted – the young sons of Iranian rabbis who were often a large portion of the class proudly declaiming their Rashis in Hungarian Yiddish. Go figure.
One artifact of this arrangement was not so funny. The children from the different tracks merged on the basketball court. My son and his friends volunteered without any prodding that they could see the effects of television on their friends who indulged in that vice. Those children were more rude, aggressive, and their language was – shall we say saltier than that of the kids in the non-TV track. Of course no one conducted a controlled experiment, but it was intriguing to hear the children offer this social commentary on their own.
An article in the Columbia journal decries the manner in which the New York Times covers pop-culture, but says little about the growing concern with the effects of that culture upon society. Here are a few paragraphs that both Rav Moshe seemed to adumbrate, and with which my son Akiva will agree:
How might pop culture be covered differently? One place to begin looking for an answer is Orlando, Florida, which is in the heart of the Bible Belt and has a burgeoning population of evangelical Christians. Mark I. Pinsky has covered religion for the Orlando Sentinel for ten years, and he says he has been struck by how many evangelicals “feel besieged by a toxic popular culture. It’s public enemy number one. They see it as hypersexual and ultraviolent, and out of their control. These people are stuck in middle-class or lower-middle-class tract houses, and they can’t get away from it.”
Interestingly, Pinsky, the author of a forthcoming first-person book titled A Jew Among the Evangelicals, says he often finds himself in agreement with the evangelical critique of pop culture. He has a seventeen-year-old son and a fourteen-year-old daughter, and they are not allowed to watch TV on school nights. “I don’t believe kids hear or see something and then go out and do it,” he observes. “I don’t think that if they see a murder on TV, they’re going to go out and kill somebody.” But the literature “does suggest a desensitizing and normalizing of behavior that takes place,” he says, adding, “A friend gave me a DVD of Deadwood. I have no problem with my son watching that. But I won’t let him watch a dumb sitcom. We’re not prudish people at all, but I won’t let the stupidity on such shows seep into their minds. It’s attitudinal. Twelve-year-olds who watch TV begin talking like thirty-year-olds to their parents. You can see it immediately.”
Pinsky referred me to a recent article by a fellow Sentinel reporter, Linda Shrieves, about “sitcom kids” — children who mimic the behavior they see on TV. “Though most TV watchdog groups fret about violence and sex on television,” Shrieves wrote, “some parents say they’re increasingly concerned about TV’s attitude problem. From cartoons to sitcoms, the stars are now sassy children who deliver flip one-liners, put down authority figures and revel in a laugh track. And their attitudes are contagious. Formerly polite kids are smart-aleck, eye-rolling and harrumphing, just like the kids on television.” Douglas Gentile of the National Institute on Media and the Family was quoted as saying that “psychologists love to slice it up many different ways, but it boils down to this: Kids copy what they see on TV.”
“My son and his friends volunteered without any prodding that they could see the effects of television on their friends who indulged in that vice.”
Well, I agree with your larger theme, that tv has insidious effects. But surely you don’t believe the kids offered this without any prodding! The whole separate track is prodding! Kids are not stupid, they understood that the no tv track was “better” and they echo the social commentary of the parents who set up the separate tracks in the first place. Now both the parents and the kids may be correct in tehir perceptions, but the idea that the kids offered this insight independently stretches credulity. Anyone who has ever been a kid remembers offering such “insights” calculated to win favor with parents whose biases and expectations are well understood.
I make this point b/c you point to the downside of elitism and separation from the general culture – a willingness to consider oneself superior, to look for the negatives on the other side. I would not want my kids to have a tv or watch much, but I’m not sure I’d let them join a “more spiritually rarified” track in a two-track school either. Arrogance and selfcongratualtion that can result from considering yourself on a “spiritually superior track” is not necessarily any better for the soul than exposure to tv or salty language.
The problem is not television. It’s bad television. If you restrict your kid to watching DVDs, and only get them educational DVDs, television can be a good influence.
So far it seems to be working in my family, but since the oldest is not three yet, I don’t know how it’ll work when the kids are older.
I’ve seen kids from what used to be Toras Emes’ Yiddish Track and they are sometimes wilder and more misbehaved than the kids from the regular parts. It has nothing to do with Television.
There is some truth in all the comments I’ve read tonight, but I disagree with the general gist of them. I’ve heard that I’ve been further challenged on other blogs, and I’d like to write a defense. Actually, I think that some of the people have been so affected by TV that they can’t tell what damage it does—either that or they have very guilty consciences and are trying not to face reality. My comments on the quality of kids in both classes were not, I think, said to impress my parents, although I can understand why people said that. I disagree with the concern of elitism; I think that although there was tension between the two classes, it wasn’t one sided. Most of the kids in the ‘television track’, although there were many exceptions, displayed no real desire to put effort in their Gemarah studies, but to the contrary, they ridiculed and put down the kids that did. This past year in school, when Toras Emes combined the classes, the subjects of conversation in my classroom changed drastically. Among the favorites were movies, last night’s big show on cable, and girls. Needless to say, there were some kids who were very happy with the new arrangement, and I saw some kids with great potential being swept away into a world they had never known before, their efforts no longer in learning. And if you are looking for the top kids in the grade in terms of middos, they can usually be found at the top of the non-television track. Aside from the issue of the damage TV does in what’s displayed, boys are much more likely to be learning b’chavrusah in their spare time if they’re not worried that their sedder will coincide with their favorite show.
Akiva, coming from someone who watched T.V. and did not go to Toras Emes as a child, I see the way that the kids from the so-called “Yiddish track” interact with the normal kids, and it is all based on the individual. There are some guys from the so-called “Yiddish Track” that now watch movies, talk about girls, music etc.. and there are bochurim that didn’t go to the Yiddish Track that are masmidim in High School and don’t care for that stuff whatsoever. It doesn’t depend on one’s exposure to T.V. as much as it depends on the individual’s up-bringing such as the way his parents influenced him. It is perfectly normal to see a person who can learn a lot and well, yet watches T.V.
(I was the anonymous from comment 3)
Anybody who has taken an honest look at the reports will have no doubt of the effects of TV. Lawrence Kelemen produced a terrific article on the subject: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/tvkelemen.htm. At the bottom of that article there are more resouces such as the article published by SCIAM / Scientific American on TV.