Cartoons, Children, Regulation and Censorship
Schroeder posted with a link to a PDF of a new study on violence and other questionable content in today's cartoons. Link to his post here.
The following started out as a reply to his entry but I ended up ranting at some length so rather than inflict him with it, I'm posting it here. ;)
They consider "suck" to be bad language? Wow. That sucks. Er, I mean...
"Programs containing no verbally abusive language include . . . Tom & Jerry on the Cartoon Network"
Er...duh. Assuming they're talking about the vintage T&J cartoons from back in the day, most of those had no dialogue. o_0
"Programs containing no example of this behavior [i.e. problematic attitudes and behaviors] include . . . Lilo & Stitch on the Disney Channel."
Wow, I wonder what episodes they reviewed to come to that conclusion? I adore that show, but Lilo definitely has an attitude problem and issues with authority. Heh. And Nani lies to her boss all the time. Not to mention the ambiguity of Pleakley and his crossdressing. *snerk*
"Programs containing no offensive or excretory content include . . . Rugrats"
*blink* Rugrats? RUGRATS??? Again, I have enjoyed watching that show in the past, but looking at it from the context of this study, what are these researchers smoking? There are diaper references constantly, as well as spit-up, drool, potty-training, and other bodily functions. Heck, there's a diaper gag in the opening credits! o_0
Furthermore, they list vomit, drool, burping, flatulence, nasal mucous and defecation as problem areas in the "Offensive/Excretory Content" list, yet mysteriously omit urination. Apparently you can pee, but none of those other things. Riiiiight.
"What is different about the violence in today's cartoons [compared to the golden age Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd cartoons]? First, the animation techniques employed today are far superior and more realistic than those used in they heyday of Tom & Jerry."
More realistic? Have these people seen the deformed, almost abstract animation styles so many of the "hip" new cartoons have? I hate it, personally, but the weirder-looking the better seems to be the attitude of most of the new shows on Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon.
Apparently it's unacceptable to even mention that homosexuals exist in animated form. There's just so many things wrong with that idea that I won't even bother to get into it.
They seem to have a chicken-or-the-egg issue with children using "rude and disrespectful" language on the playground. They posit that children pick up this parlance from the media, specifically cartoons, but do not address the possibility that the cartoons are simply reflecting the zeitgeist of the times. Do children call each other "losers" and "dorks" because they hear the language in cartoons, or do the cartoons use the language because it's how kids think?
If these researchers think that sort of verbal abuse between classmates is something new, I can personally vouch for their error. I received plenty of those sort of tongue-lashings in the 1980s, when Rainbow Brite and My Little Pony were the big thing on Saturday morning. And I don't recall Indigo Violet telling Rainbow Brite to "Shut up, loser, you suck." Heh.
The study also claims that violence in today's cartoons is more graphic. That's a blatant generalization. The violence in some of today's cartoons is more graphic than that from the 1930s-1950s, but by no means all.
The most fundamental problem I see with this study is the blind lumping of all cartoons into the same category. A cartoon like "Clifford the Big Red Dog" is NOT anywhere near the same thing as "Batman: The Series." They're made for different audiences and age groups.
It boils down to this ridiculous assumption that so many people still have that just because a show is done with animation instead of live action it must be meant for children. If the influx of anime has done nothing else for American pop culture, I would hope it would hammer through some people's thick skulls that animation can be made for all age groups, from the most saccharine preschool fare to the most perverse erotica, but, more importantly, everything in between. Compelling stories with emotional depth and, for lack of a better term, literary merit, can be told extremely well in animated form. There are moments in Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame and Mulan that are just as, if not more, profound as many live-action films in their observation of the human condition.
On a final note, I can't help wondering how these same critera would be applied to the Bible. King David sent a guy into battle knowing he'd get killed so he could steal his wife. Jesus clashed with authority figures constantly. John the Baptist was hardly one to toe the line and bow to society's expected norms.
Violence? Got that in spades: cities being leveled, plagues killing children, soldiers hacking parts off people, slaves being beaten, etc. etc. etc. And don't forget the detailed descriptions in Exodus and other places on how to properly butcher an animal and use its various innards and blood in rituals and such.
Sexuality? Song of Solomon aside, there are plenty of bedroom hijinks in there. I seem to remember someone hiding out in a tent, pretending to be someone's spouse, in order to sleep with them. Polygamy? Sure, got that. Elizabeth wasn't shy about the fact that she was past menopause when she conceived John the Baptist. Oh noes! Mention of human reproductive processes! TEH HORROROZ!
Having ranted and said all this, though...there does need to be a line drawn as to what children should and should not be exposed to, in cartoons, other media, or real life. But the parents should be the ones to draw that line, not busy-body special interest groups who fly into a tizzy because a character that we're obviously not even supposed to like says something nasty to the heroine, or a superhero kicks a villain in the gut to keep him from pressing the Big Red Button of Doom.
Bottom line, that study is full of sweeping generalizations and hypersensitivity, and although the content of children's programming is a valid area of concern, this sort of hysterical nitpicking obscures the real issues.
Ah, that felt good. I miss writing essays sometimes--not that I'm chomping at the bit to go back to school or anything. ;)
And I'm in an inexplicably bitchy mood tonight. It's not hormones, so I don't know what my problem is. Guess I'm just out of sorts because I have to work and do other stuff to function as a human being while I still feel rather crappy from my stoopid sinuses. Worked today, and I work tomorrow. Bleh.
Thanks to everyone who said nice things to my previous entry about my battle with my sinuses. ;)
The following started out as a reply to his entry but I ended up ranting at some length so rather than inflict him with it, I'm posting it here. ;)
They consider "suck" to be bad language? Wow. That sucks. Er, I mean...
"Programs containing no verbally abusive language include . . . Tom & Jerry on the Cartoon Network"
Er...duh. Assuming they're talking about the vintage T&J cartoons from back in the day, most of those had no dialogue. o_0
"Programs containing no example of this behavior [i.e. problematic attitudes and behaviors] include . . . Lilo & Stitch on the Disney Channel."
Wow, I wonder what episodes they reviewed to come to that conclusion? I adore that show, but Lilo definitely has an attitude problem and issues with authority. Heh. And Nani lies to her boss all the time. Not to mention the ambiguity of Pleakley and his crossdressing. *snerk*
"Programs containing no offensive or excretory content include . . . Rugrats"
*blink* Rugrats? RUGRATS??? Again, I have enjoyed watching that show in the past, but looking at it from the context of this study, what are these researchers smoking? There are diaper references constantly, as well as spit-up, drool, potty-training, and other bodily functions. Heck, there's a diaper gag in the opening credits! o_0
Furthermore, they list vomit, drool, burping, flatulence, nasal mucous and defecation as problem areas in the "Offensive/Excretory Content" list, yet mysteriously omit urination. Apparently you can pee, but none of those other things. Riiiiight.
"What is different about the violence in today's cartoons [compared to the golden age Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd cartoons]? First, the animation techniques employed today are far superior and more realistic than those used in they heyday of Tom & Jerry."
More realistic? Have these people seen the deformed, almost abstract animation styles so many of the "hip" new cartoons have? I hate it, personally, but the weirder-looking the better seems to be the attitude of most of the new shows on Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon.
Apparently it's unacceptable to even mention that homosexuals exist in animated form. There's just so many things wrong with that idea that I won't even bother to get into it.
They seem to have a chicken-or-the-egg issue with children using "rude and disrespectful" language on the playground. They posit that children pick up this parlance from the media, specifically cartoons, but do not address the possibility that the cartoons are simply reflecting the zeitgeist of the times. Do children call each other "losers" and "dorks" because they hear the language in cartoons, or do the cartoons use the language because it's how kids think?
If these researchers think that sort of verbal abuse between classmates is something new, I can personally vouch for their error. I received plenty of those sort of tongue-lashings in the 1980s, when Rainbow Brite and My Little Pony were the big thing on Saturday morning. And I don't recall Indigo Violet telling Rainbow Brite to "Shut up, loser, you suck." Heh.
The study also claims that violence in today's cartoons is more graphic. That's a blatant generalization. The violence in some of today's cartoons is more graphic than that from the 1930s-1950s, but by no means all.
The most fundamental problem I see with this study is the blind lumping of all cartoons into the same category. A cartoon like "Clifford the Big Red Dog" is NOT anywhere near the same thing as "Batman: The Series." They're made for different audiences and age groups.
It boils down to this ridiculous assumption that so many people still have that just because a show is done with animation instead of live action it must be meant for children. If the influx of anime has done nothing else for American pop culture, I would hope it would hammer through some people's thick skulls that animation can be made for all age groups, from the most saccharine preschool fare to the most perverse erotica, but, more importantly, everything in between. Compelling stories with emotional depth and, for lack of a better term, literary merit, can be told extremely well in animated form. There are moments in Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame and Mulan that are just as, if not more, profound as many live-action films in their observation of the human condition.
On a final note, I can't help wondering how these same critera would be applied to the Bible. King David sent a guy into battle knowing he'd get killed so he could steal his wife. Jesus clashed with authority figures constantly. John the Baptist was hardly one to toe the line and bow to society's expected norms.
Violence? Got that in spades: cities being leveled, plagues killing children, soldiers hacking parts off people, slaves being beaten, etc. etc. etc. And don't forget the detailed descriptions in Exodus and other places on how to properly butcher an animal and use its various innards and blood in rituals and such.
Sexuality? Song of Solomon aside, there are plenty of bedroom hijinks in there. I seem to remember someone hiding out in a tent, pretending to be someone's spouse, in order to sleep with them. Polygamy? Sure, got that. Elizabeth wasn't shy about the fact that she was past menopause when she conceived John the Baptist. Oh noes! Mention of human reproductive processes! TEH HORROROZ!
Having ranted and said all this, though...there does need to be a line drawn as to what children should and should not be exposed to, in cartoons, other media, or real life. But the parents should be the ones to draw that line, not busy-body special interest groups who fly into a tizzy because a character that we're obviously not even supposed to like says something nasty to the heroine, or a superhero kicks a villain in the gut to keep him from pressing the Big Red Button of Doom.
Bottom line, that study is full of sweeping generalizations and hypersensitivity, and although the content of children's programming is a valid area of concern, this sort of hysterical nitpicking obscures the real issues.
Ah, that felt good. I miss writing essays sometimes--not that I'm chomping at the bit to go back to school or anything. ;)
And I'm in an inexplicably bitchy mood tonight. It's not hormones, so I don't know what my problem is. Guess I'm just out of sorts because I have to work and do other stuff to function as a human being while I still feel rather crappy from my stoopid sinuses. Worked today, and I work tomorrow. Bleh.
Thanks to everyone who said nice things to my previous entry about my battle with my sinuses. ;)