February 3rd, 2012

How Many Times Do I Have to Tell You Kids? Come Inside and Turn on the TV

Families gather for a Punch and Judy on a beach near Dorset, England

It seemed innocent enough. My husband and I thought we’d take our two year-old son to one of the nearby parks in our neighborhood in Rome, Italy for some fresh air and some TV-free, iPad-free, sans-electronic-glowing-screen-of-any-kind family fun. What could be more wholesome than watching a traditional Italian puppet show, run by Carlo Piantadosi’s family in the little red booth theater for over forty years atop scenic Gianicolo Hill?

Now don’t get me wrong. The show is absolutely charming. Charming, but also mind-numbingly violent. The star of the show is Neapolitan hand-puppet Pulcinella (known to English-speakers as Punch, of Punch and Judy fame). The show is in Italian, but you don’t need to speak the language to understand that every ten seconds or so, Pulcinella and the other characters are beating the crap out of each other with bats and other assorted objects. The babies and toddlers in the audience found this delightfully amusing (as did their puppet-show viewing predecessors hundreds of years ago), particularly the part where Pulcinella takes the fresh corpse of the puppet he most recently clobbered and turns it into a weapon to beat up another character who then also dies. My apologies if I’ve ruined the plot.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that babies not watch any television until they are at least two years of age. For older children, they suggest “no more than one to two hours per day of educational, nonviolent programs, which should be supervised by parents or other responsible adults in the home.”

We miraculously were able to keep our son Lukas away from television for his first 18 months of life and look warily towards our 8-week-old son Nico, wondering if we’ll be even half that successful. We’re not bad parents. Lukas watches hand-picked educational videos (Sesame Street, Mother Goose Club, etc) on an iPad and plays interactive age-appropriate games for about an hour or so a day. He gets more screen time on rainy days, weekends, when he’s sick, or when we’ve just plain run out of ideas. I realize that this is not horrible, and yet I always feel like somewhere out there are better parents doing better, more lofty things with their children such as finger painting, churning butter, or recreating the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with hand-colored macaroni noodles to the soundtrack of Rossini’s operas.

Imagine then, how smug I feel whenever I hear about children’s entertainment from the not-so-innocent days of long ago before glowing screens were invented. Steven Pinker, author of the book I’m currently reading, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined” argues that human beings are actually becoming less violent over time. In one section on children’s entertainment, he cites how nursery rhymes and Grimms Brothers’ type fairy tales were tabulated for violence in a recent study. Apparently, there were 52.2 incidents of violence on average for fairy tales and nursery rhymes, but only 4.8 incidents per modern television cartoon. Pinker also notes that popular forms of family entertainment in medieval Europe were to attend public hangings, view “witch” burnings, and to participate in pummeling caged accused criminals with stones, rotten food, and even excrement.

Does this mean that parents everywhere should just throw up their hands then and let their children watch as much television as they want because the nature of entertainment has evolved for the better? Well, no. Of course not. There’s still plenty of nastiness out there in TV-Land and on the internet that should be hidden from young eyes. That said, can we parents at least cut ourselves a little slack and stop beating ourselves up whenever we’ve run out of rainy day indoor activities and turn on the television in a moment of desperation?

The 1989 Ken Follet bestseller, “The Pillars of the Earth” about life in 12th century England begins with the line, “The small boys came early to the hanging.” I may not be the perfect 21st century parent, but at least the worst thing my small boys will see today is Elmo singing the alphabet song with Grover. Or if I turn my back, perhaps “The Jersey Shore.”

–Kristen Palana

Kristen Palana is a Professor of Digital Media at The American University of Rome. Visit her online at kpalana.com.

February 2nd, 2012

Nicholas Kristof’s “Baby Face” Blunder

Nicholas Kristof at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2010. Photo by Monika Flueckiger/World Economic Forum.

New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof is revered by the public for his work highlighting humanitarian issues, in particular the plight of women worldwide. Having won two Pulitzer Prizes, his journalistic integrity is fervently defended by his supporters.  However, due to the tenuous grasp that trafficking and prostitution have on the American socio-political arena, the issues at hand are often misunderstood, and his philosophies remain largely unquestioned.  Specifically, in writings which highlight the worst abuses within the sex industry, at times Kristof creates the perhaps unfair characterization that all sex workers are victims.  While he is adept at constructing a compelling narrative for his loyal readers, his writing style and manipulation of statistics distort the public understanding of prostitution.

In Kristof’s January 25 op-ed for the New York Times, he introduces us to a 13-year-old girl, whom he refers to as “Baby Face, because of her looks…” She was forced into selling sex by her pimp, who posted ads to clients on the website Backpage.com. Kristof’s decision to call her “Baby Face” is disconcerting, because it only further victimizes her. While Kristof’s intention was undoubtedly to elicit an emotional response from reader over the young girl’s ordeal, is their outrage worth using a nickname that a pimp or john would have given her? It would have been better to allude to her by some generic name. Instead, Krisof relies on sensationalism to get his point across. The emphasis on her youth reduces her to an object, something she has already endured at the hands of her pimp and the johns he sold her to.

In addition, Kristof quotes Lauren Hersh, a Brooklyn prosecutor who asserts that “The average age where a girl is forced into prostitution is 12 to 14.” This statistic is from a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, and the research methodology has proven to be flawed. Emi Koyama, a sex worker activist explains how “[t]he major problem with [this] data is that it is based on survey of minors who engage in prostitution. Since the study does not include anyone who is over the age of 18, it is natural that the average age…at which respondents entered prostitution is below 18.” According to Ronald Weitzer of George Washington University, “[c]ontemporary studies have reported varying percentages of individuals who started selling sex when they were minors. These studies…have documented that only a minority began to prostitute before age 18 and an even smaller percentage before 14.”

Obviously, there’s a problem here – Kristof is just one of many journalists that includes the age 12-14 statistic in their articles. This distorted knowledge has become widespread, and the misappropriation of statistics does little to assist those who are truly victims truly in need of assistance because resources are not properly utilized as a result. It only serves to fuel media sensationalism. The prominent use of the Internet in the sex industry is, in part, a consequence of anti-prostiution sentiment. It provides an environment for artifice and deceit, something that those who force individuals into selling sex rely on. While we must obviously do what is necessary to combat those who utilize the internet to force individuals into selling sex, we must also acknowledge that the media needs re-evaluate how they approach the issues arising from the sex industry.

–Caitlyn Garcia

Caitlyn Garcia is a student at William Paterson University, double-majoring in French language & literature and political science.

February 1st, 2012

Does media use make girls less happy?

A recent study suggests that heavy media use makes girls less happy. The Stanford study of North American girls ages 8-12 points out the lack of face-time and interpersonal interaction associated with this media use. While I know the importance of empirical research, my first thought was, is this something people don’t already assume? Perhaps not. And while a few sites criticized the research for its methodology, my befuddlement led me to ask another question. Other than a lack of interpersonal interaction, what about media use could possibly make girls less happy?

Having been a twelve-year-old girl myself during the years of AIM, I know how media and online interaction drove my self-worth. And I know how things have evolved.  The use of new media by kids 8-12 is growing exponentially and, according to the Stanford study, kids are watching multiple screens at once. YouTube and Google are verbs for most American ten-year-olds and today the tween years are a huge marketing target. From Hannah Montana to Winx Club to iCarly, television doesn’t offer the best role models for young girls. On the Internet, the girl-positive sites are often difficult to find. Unless kids are looking specifically for empowering spaces, girls are bombarded with challenges to define themselves as women much too early. Their bodies are being sexualized and their brains are being sidelined. The more media they consume, the more girls are given images that tell them their self-worth should revolve around other people’s perceptions of their body.

Sure, the Stanford study tells us we should nurture face-time and interpersonal interaction for girls. It’s something that’s important for all humans. Regardless, kids are going to use media and that’s why education is so important. We aren’t going to change the system in one day so that girls can feel empowered through their media use. It’s not possible. But there is empowerment through media literacy. If we educate children to be able to contextualize stereotypes that affect their self-image, there’s less chance they’ll recreate them or rely on them in their own lives, and as adults. And who knows? Maybe they’ll find spaces online that will inspire that positive interpersonal interaction we know they’re missing.

–Emily Breitkopf

Emily is a contributing writer for The LAMPpost. You can find more of her writing on her blog, “Kids and Gender.”

January 31st, 2012

First-ever Digital Learning Day is tomorrow!

Tomorrow, February 1, is the first-ever Digital Learning Day! Hosted by the Alliance for Excellent Education, the day features events all over the country to inspire and showcase innovations in the world of digital media, technology and education. (Shout-out to Hive Learning Network NYC, of which The LAMP is a proud member, and our partner MOUSE, for their participation.) The website alone is a treasure trove of toolkits, blogs and ideas for bringing new media into the classroom for enhanced teaching and learning, but–in our humble opinion–the standout event is the National Town Hall webcast featuring United States Education Secretary Arne Duncan and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. These two don’t get together in public very often, and with interactive options allowing people across the country to chat during the Town Hall and submit questions, this is a rare opportunity to discuss the intersection of education and technology the nation’s top decision-makers in those areas. Click here to register for the Town Hall, and be sure to check out the DLD website for more information!

January 30th, 2012

LAMPlatoon Super Bowl 2012 Ad Preview

In just six days, one of the greatest spectacles in professional sports will commence when the New England Patriots meet the New York Giants for Super Bowl XLVI. And, thanks to the power of media, we don’t have to wait for the best part–the commercials.

A few teasers are already starting their leaks, along with the various finalists from the Doritos Crash the Super Bowl contest. The big ones right now appear to be “The Bark Side” by Volkswagen (below) and the extended Honda ad featuring Matthew Broderick as an adult Ferris Bueller-type. But there are others–like the Doritos finalists, a new E*Trade baby ad, an Eskimo who trades in his dog sled for a Suzuki, and the Audi “Daylight” commercial taking on the neverending teen vampire craze.

One of the most popular ads to come out of last year’s Super Bowl was Volkswagen’s “The Force,” and I have to say it looks like they may have done it again. Maybe my favorite thing about “The Force” is the way it proves that ads don’t have to be insulting or over-the-top to get our attention and do their job. LAMPlatoon doesn’t want to just take apart ads that are offensive; the project aims to pull back the curtain on how all commercials–vomit-inducing or not–try to persuade us and create want. There’s a way to do it without relying on negative stereotypes or statements which are just barely true, and I’m hopeful that the rest of the Super Bowl ads we see pop up over the next week follow in the footsteps of Darth Vader.

–Emily Long

Follow The LAMP on Twitter: @thelampnyc

Follow me on Twitter: @emlong

January 27th, 2012

Must Read: Citizens Inundated

I live in New York City, which means I’ve been more or less spared from the political ad barrage facing those who live in swing states, or states with an early primary. Of course I’ve kept up with the drama, though, as the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case is felt, so I was really excited to find this report out yesterday from Free Press, titled Citizens Inundated.  It’s the first comprehensive report (at least that I’m aware of) which gathers ad-spend metrics, notes from journalists on the ground, policy debate and recommendations for the future–all in an easily-digestible 12 pages.

The Colbert/Stewart Super PAC experiment is certainly enlightening in its own way, but don’t let that be the only source of information for the depth of inanity within the Supreme Court decision, or the threat it poses to a free and open democracy. Even if you’re like me, and not getting the political ad onslaught, you are/will be impacted by Citizens United. Just wait til the GOP primary comes to your hometown.

–Emily Long

Follow The LAMP on Twitter: @thelampnyc

Follow me on Twitter: @emlong

January 23rd, 2012

Are Lego LadyFigs building blocks for stereotypes?

LEGO Friends Emma's Splash Pool kit, featuring LadyFigs

The Lego petition is an interesting one. How many toys have been made that reinforce these gender stereotypes for children without such a vocal complaintfrom this many consumers? What is it about Legos that makes them different enough to inspire a petition signed by thousands? The creators of the petition, Bailey Shoemaker Richards and Stephanie Cole, run an movement called SPARK that works to end the sexualization of girls. It wasn’t until their petition that I’ve seen a unified criticism of gendered marketing discussed in mainstream spaces. What is it about Legos that brought us here?

For many adults now raising children, childhood was filled with the basic brick Legos. I remember my big red bucket of Legos. My sisters and I would dump it out and build and pretend for hours. Why don’t we expect children to do this today with the simple bricks? It seems the market is consistently trying to create fantasy worlds for them, trying to provide characters that will help them construct an identity. Yet so few of these characters are positive role-models for children.

Screenshot from the online Lego store

The new Lego LadyFigs are a case in point. They’re a a feminized response to “minifigs,” the little people that come with their kits. The Lego Friends kits they come with are already assembled and allow the LadyFigs to brush their hair, sing in a club, shop with friends, even lounge in the pool with a drink. The toy demonstrates Lego’s expectations for how girls play and it’s undeniably offensive. Sure, some kids want to play with pink things that have a hair brush and some want to play with black and grey things that crash but the problem happens when we polarize these types of play into gender categories.

I heard an interview with co-creator of the #LiberateLegos petition, Bailey Shoemaker Richards, on NPR where she did an excellent job bringing to surface the fact that this is not a “war on pink” as many consider it to be. It’s the way that pink has been used to reinforce gender stereotypes that limit girls’ ways of being. It was interesting to hear the comments she was asked to respond to during the segment, many of which seemed to miss the point that gendered marketing is marginalizing for children and adults.

Search the Lego website and you’ll find -under “categories” in the product section- a section for girls, not one for boys. The Lego company not only assumes their products are inherently made for boys but creates a separate category for “girls,” reinforcing the marginalization that happens when maleness is viewed as normative. When we frame toys through the gender binary, a tool that marketers use constantly, we restrict the ways children play with them. As we’ve discussed before, this isn’t just an issue only Lego faces. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle that petitions like this draw vital attention to. Now if we could only petition the whole market….

–Emily Breitkopf

Emily is a contributing writer for The LAMPpost. You can find more of her writing on her blog, “Kids and Gender.”

January 19th, 2012

Fotoshop by Adobé

We are in love with this video by filmmaker Jesse Rosten, who made it when he noticed before and after photos in a beauty product infomercial that had clearly been altered. Major thumbs up to Jesse for recognizing harmful media practices, and actually doing something about it (not to mention, exercising his Fair Use rights before they potentially fall into jeopardy). What have you made lately?

Fotoshop by Adobé from Jesse Rosten on Vimeo.

Click here to learn how you can join LAMPlatoon, and be part of our project to take on big media.

January 18th, 2012

Why The LAMP opposes SOPA/PIPA

SOPA/PIPA are bad for education. Having the ability to access a variety of information sources is a critical part of the learning process, and should Congress pass this legislation, it is entirely possible for the United States to be plunged into a China-like black hole with no place for challenge, controversy or democracy. SOPA/PIPA would cripple media literacy organizations like The LAMP, which rely on using and accessing copyrighted material to hone critical thinking skills, creativity and interaction with media technologies and messages. (Yes, we do fall under Fair Use, but if people are confused now about their Fair Use rights, imagine what will happen if SOPA/PIPA pass; the ensuing legal knot could also take years to unravel.) In short, SOPA/PIPA would effectively shut down not only The LAMP, but it would also hinder scholars, teachers, researchers, schools, universities and any other person or institution working in education who benefits from an open Internet.

Even though it’s black today (or perhaps because it is), stop by Wikipedia to check out their call to action. Share this article. Join the conversation, learn more and take a stand and show Congress you care about an open Internet.

January 17th, 2012

Human trafficking and the Super Bowl: Is the media making it worse?

T-shirt design from a 2010 effort to end human trafficking at the Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl is less than three weeks away, and while fans are anticipating a showdown on the football field, Indiana state lawmakers are anticipating an influx of women and children trafficked into the state for the purpose of selling sex. Earlier this month, a Senate committee unanimously approved a bill to toughen the state’s laws against human trafficking. Various news outlets have lauded Indiana state lawmakers’ efforts, and the discourse is all the same – the exigency, the indignation. Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime that must be stopped, at any cost. However, there is little questioning on behalf of much of these news outlets regarding the legitimacy of these claims, which rely on a language of fear and misleading, confusing definitions of human trafficking.

An example of such language is in this press release found on the state’s website, which asserts that human trafficking “…include[s] the recruiting, harboring or selling of a person, especially a child, for purposes of prostitution, commercial sex acts, forced labor or involuntary servitude” and with the Super Bowl approaching, “…the disturbing reality is that such gatherings in other states have drawn criminal rings that traffic young women and children into the commercial sex trade (emphasis added).” To back up this claim, they include information regarding numerous arrests for prostitution during last year’s Super Bowl in Texas, adding that these arrests included a victim of human trafficking.

The problem here is that prostitution is not equal to human trafficking. Suggesting that the terms ‘prostitution’ and ‘human trafficking’ are interchangeable, while maintaining the belief that human trafficking is defined by the sexual exploitation of individuals, further marginalizes those who have made a consenting decision to sell sex.  As a result, prostitutes are placed somewhere on a spectrum between criminal and victim—after all, selling sex in most of the US, be it consensual or non-consensual, is against the law. Thus an individual arrested for prostitution may be referred to as either a ‘trafficking victim’ or in some cases even as a ‘trafficker’, when this is often not the truth. Equating a consenting individual as a ‘victim’ on par with those who have been forced into sexual servitude is simply another means of control. It perpetuates anti-prostitution sentiment that has existed for centuries, but under the guise of humanitarian efforts. How can there be effective anti-trafficking laws when there is a failure on behalf of so many legislators, anti-trafficking groups, and the media to identify it?

There has been little press following last year’s Super Bowl in Texas questioning the legitimacy of claims that large sporting events result in an influx of trafficking victims. One exception is this piece from The Dallas News, reporting that FBI agent Robert Casey Jr. “…saw no evidence that the increase would happen, nor that it did. ‘In my opinion, the Super Bowl does not create a spike in those crimes,’ he said. ‘The discussion gets very vague and general. People mixed up child prostitution with the term human trafficking, which are different things, and then there is just plain old prostitution.’”

The media hype surrounding the Super Bowl provides an outlet for such misconceptions to persist in the minds of the general public, and the ensuing anti-trafficking legislation provides law enforcement even more opportunity to further target all sex workers, not just those who are assumed to have been trafficked against their will. The legalization of sex work, which may include providing workers with health benefits and a safe work environment, could prevent the continuous marginalization of those consenting to sell sex. To refer to all sex workers as ‘victims’, not just those who have been trafficked against their will, is to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that anti-prostitution laws have contributed to much of the issue. In addition, the legalization of sex work could very well lessen the ‘need’ for trafficking individuals. There must be better resources to assist those who are trafficked against their will. Using a broad definition of ‘victim’ may help boost funding for anti-trafficking organizations, and it may help sensationalize stories for news outlets. However, in the end, this media frenzy does little to confront an already complicated issue.

–Caitlyn Garcia

Caitlyn Garcia is a student at William Paterson University, double-majoring in French language & literature and political science.

Grassroots.org
Creative Commons License