media
24 Jul 2009
Video Killed The Radio Star And Made Kids Fat
Do we really need more kids' TV? It's time to consider a dedicated national children's radio station, writes Ainslie MacGibbon
So, let us get this straight. Just over a year ago Kevin Rudd invited 1000 of Australia’s best and brightest to the 2020 Summit "so that Government could shake the tree to see what ideas were out there in the Australian community about our country … out to the next decade and beyond."
Sounds ambitious.
But which coconut did the Government decide to run with? A dedicated television station for children. This is perplexing.
Do we really need to add more media to our children’s lives? They are developing in a world where they can watch television in the car to and from school, focus on the electronic whiteboard all day, then retreat for playdates with Nintendo and Playstation. Playground games such as skipping and pat-a-cake will soon be made into a Wii game, so only virtual friends will be necessary.
But what children crave, and need most, is time with a parent or other trusted adult — not cursory glances over a laptop or nods meted out while texting, but undivided and active play. Regrettably, these days this is harder to give than it sounds, and so children are learning to live without it. But as the adults who are selecting and devising replacements for such contact, let us do it intelligently.
There is a place for television — which promotes visual literacy. But, like anything, it is best in moderation. And that’s where we fall down. A television set is on in Australian households for an average of 4.9 hours per day and 28 per cent of households have the TV on for an average of six or more hours per day, according to a recent Newspoll study.
In June 2009 the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released A Picture Of Australia’s Children 2009. The report says that far too many children spend more than the recommended time of two hours a day (of non-educational) "screen time". It goes on to cite evidence from the CSIRO that "children who engage in more than two hours of screen time per day are more likely to be overweight; be less physically active; drink more sugary drinks; snack on foods high in sugar, salt and fat; and have fewer social interactions".
The University of Washington Medical School recently published a study finding that television reduces adult-child conversations and concludes that this "may help explain why early exposure to television has been associated with language and cognitive delays".
And this is why a television station dedicated to children is so perplexing.
During children’s peak viewing times almost every channel already has children’s programming scheduled. Between ABC1 and ABC2, children’s programs are aired from 6am right through to 6pm. But children’s peak viewing times have experienced bracket creep. Peak times can now run until 9pm. And this is where ABC3 comes in.
If children are going to watch television until 9pm it is positive that there is a commercial-free, "quality" option — which is what the ABC is promising. But is this the direction we really want to go in? The 2020 Summit aimed at "harnessing the best ideas for building a modern Australia ready for the challenges of the 21st century". Is this really the best we could come up with?
Let’s try thinking outside the box for just a moment. What about a radio station for children? Almost 20 per cent of the Australian population is under 15 years of age. There are hundreds of radio stations in Australia. And the market share for children? Zero.
Radio is evolving with the new media — it is just a quieter revolution. Over the past two months, digital radio has become available in most Australian capital cities. Digital radio offers improved sound, reception, a pause and rewind capability and scrolling text.
There is a growing body of research that children are arriving at school with poor listening skills and stunted imaginations. Perhaps exposure to a different medium — one without a screen — could help.
Radio can be a shared experience: it has always been about communicating, networking and reaching people. Listening to stories together enables opportunities for discussion later. Without a visual, the language is more descriptive, the vocabulary is thoughtful. Imaginations are exercised. And you can do something else, like build Lego or make dinner, while listening. Radio can be interactive.
Marketing departments have convinced parents that the optimum is having a screen and headset for each child. This is not an "advancement", nor is it creative. Give us an alternative — say, a quality children’s radio station — and we will listen. In numbers that will slide ratings.
According to Nielsen Media Research, every household in Australia has a radio — the average per household is actually 5.1 radios. And 8 out of 10 adults listen to radio every week. It is hardly a dying medium. The only way to ensure its death is not by offering radio at all. Since the birth of radio there have always been programs for children and families. Until this generation.
There are radio stations for children in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and many European countries. Fun Kids, a UK radio station for children, won "Digital Station of the Year" in May 2009 at the prestigious Sony Radio Academy Awards.
Radio programming for children could include songs, stories, age-appropriate current affairs, jokes, homework help and interviews with role models. During school hours it could be tailored for the pre-school set with songs, talking through an activity or craft and uninterrupted soothing music for sleep time. It is also a platform for Australia’s excellent children’s writers, like Morris Gleitzman, Andy Griffiths and Paul Jennings. Sales of audio books from these writers, and others, have significantly increased. Kids can’t get enough of reading these stories, or listening to them.
Our television viewing used to be punctuated by calls to "Life. Be in it". The catch was you had to "be in it" by participating, not watching. Helpful suggestions paraded across the screen: surfing, sailboarding, scootering, canoeing, skiing, bushwalking, snorkelling, horseriding, photography, reading, even T-shirt printing. Maybe Norm should make a comeback for this generation.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
So true, great ideas!
Who wants their kids watching MORE TV?!? We’ll never be able to get our kids to play, or do anything constructive or imaginative if they have an endless flow of “favourite” TV shows.
The argument isn’t TV vs radio, but the playback device. Whilst it is a bigscreen plasma TV instead of say, something like video glasses, you’re going to have a problem.
http://www.myvu.com/ ?
Why do we need more TV for children? We already have Foxtel with children’s programming and plenty of options on free to air TV. The author is right - we need more radio or other forms of stimulation that involves interaction between adults and children not another “babysitting” device. Listening helps stimulate the imagination and that is something we are seriously lacking with our children.
There’s more potential bandwidth in visual than you can hope to get in audio.
And see Online Opinion,22 December, 2008. ‘ABC TV for children. The ABC is considering a special children’s television channel. Would it be worth its great costs?’
Radio can give children so much that they need, and for so much less than TV - and with no disadvantages.
The URL for the Online Opinion article on radio rather than a TV channel for children is at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8301.
JANE
We don’t need a dedicated Childrens’ TV Channel. There seems to be endless viewing opportunities at the moment.
On the other hand an ABC Childrens’ Radio Station would provide a plethora of different learning opportunities, reaching every household throughout Australia
Just as an example, when children listen to stories, it stimulates their imagination, by creating the scene and bringing the various characters to life.
Bring back the argonauts!
An extremely clever idea! Since I “killed my TV” when i moved to New York (it has been nearly 10 years now) I am constantly listening to NPR here (that’s America’s public radio network, a combination of local, national, and international programming, similar to the ABC, BBC, or CBC but with less government funding) and it has changed my view of radio. You make an excellent point. When you are listening to the radio, you can do lots of other things, and stay informed and entertained. I have many more hours back during the day.
Thank you for your suggestion. I hope the government has the foresight to listen to your suggestion.
If they took off all the children’s shows on ABC 1 and 2 they would have ample programs and the other stations could get on with showing grown up programs for when I have a sickie.
By all means have a children’s radio station but must it be at the expense of TV? It seems hypocritical to mock the 2020 summit for only coming up with a new TV station and then going a further decade or two back in time by suggesting a radio version of the same thing.
Some of the comments seem to have a nostalgic notion of kids gathered around the crystal set rivetted to the latest installment of ‘The Argonauts 2025’. This is rubbish. The problem is not with the format but with the hopeless programs offered in that format and the poor capacity amongst parents to mediate and discuss what the kids see.
One might just have easily gone to the future and not the past and recommended that the focus be on a national children’s website. Again the problem will be the lack of quality programming and the parent’s unwillingness to use any format as an active learning tool.
I’d rather see a ban on advertising (or at least a ban on advertising food and drink) during kid’s shows. Couple that with a ban on having lollies within 5 metres of the checkout. No different to the sort of harm minimisation we’ve adopted for tobacco.
Kid’s are not going to sit around listening to the radio
ABC3 hasn’t been launched to try and convince kids to watch TV. It’s been launched to make sure that if a kid wants to sit down and watch TV, that there will be quality product for them to consume. Nourishing fare that hasn’t been designed to sell junk food or the newest toy.
Launch a radio station? Why? That’s wasted money. Radio doesn’t suit a kids lifestyle. You mention these award winning kids stations. What is their listenership like? Are there any surveys that reveal strong and positive engagement with their listenership?
Yes, kids should be out playing more. Yes, kids need a wealth of varied media sources (print, broadcast, and online). Childrens minds need to be stimulated. ABC3 is just a quality tool in the toolbox.
If a child does sit there watching the channel for hours on end, it’s not the fault of the service. That’s failing parental responsibility. Lets start focussing our ire there instead.
Let’s resource parents to go screen-free with their kids, so that children will do the work of childhood: playing. To my mind anything that enhances imagination is worthwhile; anything that strips imagination seems dubious.
Most television gives pictures which do not extend a child’s imagination, only provides them with takeaway, pre-sold images. At least radio does foster the imagination - it’s scenery is much better than the telly, because it happens in children’s minds.
Actually 2XX in Canberra - I live in Perth - has trailblazed with children’s programs at drivetime, when they’re being picked up after school by mum and dad and can listen in to stories commissioned. That’s community radio at its best.
But best of all - spaces, places, times to play in nature. Real nature. Real open time. Let children play and work with their imaginations. It starts with turning the telly off. Bye.
This article has a serious flaw. Misinformation that will keep kids, and you, unhealthy. That sugars and carbs cause obesity is well documented. That alone alone makes a mockery of the food pyramid that advises gorging on carbs all day. However when fats are included in the obesity guidelines, the author has unknowingly(?) stepped outside the science box. This misguidance will cause parents to avoid the nutritious, essential-to-good-health and non-fattening fats. In the cell, glucose, (blood sugar) is converted to energy in the mitochondria via the Krebs cycle. Excess sugar is converted to fat. Fat does not play a role in this conversion. A high fat, high protein low carb diet, of up to 10,000 calories a day, with some exercise, will end up with body-fat loss. With the false alarrms, less nutritious food are consumed. e.g. less/no butter is eaten. Butter synthesisies Vitamin B6 through the friendly intestinal bacteria. B6, alone, more so with with B12 and folic acid), reduce heart-disease causing homocysteine. Butter contains health giving: Omegas in perfect propoertion, conjugated linoleic acid, arichidonic acid, zinc and selenium. Eggs contain selenium and the amino acid l-cysteine, both heart protectors. Eggs also contain phosphotidyl serine and ph. choline, which the liver must have to be healthy. Red meats contain essential proteins, organic minerals. Their fats enable good absorbtion of the oil solutble vitamins. As neither dietary nor elevated blood cholesterol cause heart disease, then that is not an excuse to reduce saturated fats. (That makes statins a 24 billion dollar fraud)! Our one trillion+ cells` membranes are composed 40% of saturated fat. Our main hormones pregnenolone, DHEA etc need saturated fats as a precursor. And there is much more. These days of misinformation from poorly read writers, celebrity chefs, octors and dieticians, all ignoranrt of up-to-date science in health, requires you to take comand of your own health.