Rhymes o' the times...
I came across some "research" recently, and initially I didn't know whether it was seriously intended or not. At first glance, it seemed on the level, albeit kooky...
According to a pair of Canadian researchers (as reported on the Canadian medical Association's Web site), many age-old nursery rhymes contain a common subtext that trivializes a child's view of serious injuries, a frequent theme in these bedtime staples.
Also, they suggest, such trauma-laced nursery rhymes send children the wrong messages about the need for urgent and appropriate treatment following injuries.
Take Humpty Dumpty, for instance. As you'll recall, he sat on a wall, had a great fall, and we all know what happened after that - all the king's men couldn't patch poor Humpty up. On the plus side, this is one of the few rhymes where the accident "victim" receives any post-trauma attention or care at all. But on the negative side of things, the study's authors suggest that this rhyme improperly characterizes the king's horses and men as appropriate "first responders," citing their lack of medical or EMS training.
Humpty's not the only one on trial here, either. Remember Jack and Jill? They went up the hill to fetch a pail of water, but poor Jack fell down and "broke his crown" (sustained a skull fracture, the study suggests). He receives no care whatsoever.
Also, the fact that Jill's condition remains unspecified - despite the fact that she most certainly must have suffered injuries when she came "tumbling after" - indicates a serious bias against women in the medical dialogue, the authors maintain.
Other offenders include "It's raining, it's pouring," where the old man bumps his head, then goes to bed (a bad idea in the event of a concussion), "Ring around the rosie" (when they all fall down) and "Rock-a-bye baby," in which a child is unsafely cradled high among tree limbs before falling, cradle and all.
It's absurd that the do-gooders are studying this, isn't it? I thought so too, until...
To my relief, about halfway through this "study," I realized that it was clearly intended to be humorous - and it is. The authors even went so far as to write a hilarious "medically sound" nursery rhyme that would instill in children the proper perspective on injuries, injury prevention, and subsequent medical treatment. When read in its entirety, anyone would see the farcical nature of this "research." It's funny stuff.
But what's NOT so funny is the fact that some mainstream media sources seized on the study and presented it as evidence of the dangerous subtexts kids are absorbing from harmless nursery rhymes.
The normally credible BBC News ran a headline for this story that screamed: "Nursery rhymes put kids 'at risk'"
After an alarming lead sentence about Canadian researchers' conclusions that nursery rhymes are sending "dangerously inaccurate messages" to children, the story outlines the "concerned" authors' assertions that the actions of characters in these popular bedtime rhymes might actually be skewing kids' perceptions about injuries and necessary medical care.
The story contains just one thin reference to the notion that the study may be tongue-in-cheek, and it's buried down in the fourth paragraph!
This is so illustrative of the kind of shameless "health reporting" that goes on every single day in the mainstream press. At best, it's shamelessly sensationalist - at worst, horribly misleading. And people wonder why I'm always railing against the popular media...
It's because they're a bunch of liars and truth-distorters!
I wish I could put them all to bed (without supper), and here's the nursery rhyme I'd read to them:
Rock-a-bye BBC, and others of your stock,
When your hot air blows, it's all just a crock,
When the truth breaks, your credibility will fall
And down'll come your networks, ratings and all!
No mistaking the "subtext" in that one, huh?
No rhymes, just reason,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD
According to a pair of Canadian researchers (as reported on the Canadian medical Association's Web site), many age-old nursery rhymes contain a common subtext that trivializes a child's view of serious injuries, a frequent theme in these bedtime staples.
Also, they suggest, such trauma-laced nursery rhymes send children the wrong messages about the need for urgent and appropriate treatment following injuries.
Take Humpty Dumpty, for instance. As you'll recall, he sat on a wall, had a great fall, and we all know what happened after that - all the king's men couldn't patch poor Humpty up. On the plus side, this is one of the few rhymes where the accident "victim" receives any post-trauma attention or care at all. But on the negative side of things, the study's authors suggest that this rhyme improperly characterizes the king's horses and men as appropriate "first responders," citing their lack of medical or EMS training.
Humpty's not the only one on trial here, either. Remember Jack and Jill? They went up the hill to fetch a pail of water, but poor Jack fell down and "broke his crown" (sustained a skull fracture, the study suggests). He receives no care whatsoever.
Also, the fact that Jill's condition remains unspecified - despite the fact that she most certainly must have suffered injuries when she came "tumbling after" - indicates a serious bias against women in the medical dialogue, the authors maintain.
Other offenders include "It's raining, it's pouring," where the old man bumps his head, then goes to bed (a bad idea in the event of a concussion), "Ring around the rosie" (when they all fall down) and "Rock-a-bye baby," in which a child is unsafely cradled high among tree limbs before falling, cradle and all.
It's absurd that the do-gooders are studying this, isn't it? I thought so too, until...
To my relief, about halfway through this "study," I realized that it was clearly intended to be humorous - and it is. The authors even went so far as to write a hilarious "medically sound" nursery rhyme that would instill in children the proper perspective on injuries, injury prevention, and subsequent medical treatment. When read in its entirety, anyone would see the farcical nature of this "research." It's funny stuff.
But what's NOT so funny is the fact that some mainstream media sources seized on the study and presented it as evidence of the dangerous subtexts kids are absorbing from harmless nursery rhymes.
The normally credible BBC News ran a headline for this story that screamed: "Nursery rhymes put kids 'at risk'"
After an alarming lead sentence about Canadian researchers' conclusions that nursery rhymes are sending "dangerously inaccurate messages" to children, the story outlines the "concerned" authors' assertions that the actions of characters in these popular bedtime rhymes might actually be skewing kids' perceptions about injuries and necessary medical care.
The story contains just one thin reference to the notion that the study may be tongue-in-cheek, and it's buried down in the fourth paragraph!
This is so illustrative of the kind of shameless "health reporting" that goes on every single day in the mainstream press. At best, it's shamelessly sensationalist - at worst, horribly misleading. And people wonder why I'm always railing against the popular media...
It's because they're a bunch of liars and truth-distorters!
I wish I could put them all to bed (without supper), and here's the nursery rhyme I'd read to them:
Rock-a-bye BBC, and others of your stock,
When your hot air blows, it's all just a crock,
When the truth breaks, your credibility will fall
And down'll come your networks, ratings and all!
No mistaking the "subtext" in that one, huh?
No rhymes, just reason,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD