4 ms·

On the other hand, Kids in Netflix only homes are probably not exposed to news and world events that does not come from Facebook and Twitter and other filtered

On the other hand, Kids in Netflix only homes are probably not exposed to news and world events that does not come from Facebook and Twitter and other filtered media. They are probably not exposed to opposing or uncomfortable opinions and views. Those Netflix only homes should at least get PBS.

pasquinelli 9y ago
yeah, that was my first thought too. pbs only would be much better: free, not tailored for binge watching, and the cartoons actually end at some point-- on the regular pbs channel at least.
kaybe 9y ago
I'd argue that news is not for kids, unless it is specifically tailored to them (eg the German public kids TV channel has special kids news (and no ads)). It is easier to learn about the world's problems from less explicit sources. News can be worse than horror films, which are at least known to be fictional.
- manishsharan 9y ago
  I would take a more nuanced approach: I agree that Kindergardeners are probably better off without news. But maybe 2nd graders and up should be exposed to the news . Most of the images on evening newscasts are normally sanitized ; they are definitely not at par with horror films. Filtering out images of hunger, poverty and suffering will lead to a ignorance and denial about these issues when they grow up.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Well, try explaining for a 2nd grader the concept of nuclear weapons, and why people seem afraid of NK having them.
- xxpor 9y ago
  I'm not really sure what you mean. It's actually frustrating how tame the news is, at least in the US. If they actually showed the effects of war, the public would be able to be more rational about the consequences. I actually grew up watching PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    I grew up watching newsround, which is aimed at 10-15 year olds. There's a massive difference between that and say the Ten oClock news, but there a massive difference between the one, six and ten. I would expect the Ten to have far more in depth and gruesome stories than newsround. 10 year olds don't need to know the minutiae of human trafficking.

pasquinelli 9y ago

yeah, that was my first thought too. pbs only would be much better: free, not tailored for binge watching, and the cartoons actually end at some point-- on the regular pbs channel at least.

kaybe 9y ago

I'd argue that news is not for kids, unless it is specifically tailored to them (eg the German public kids TV channel has special kids news (and no ads)). It is easier to learn about the world's problems from less explicit sources. News can be worse than horror films, which are at least known to be fictional.

manishsharan 9y ago
I would take a more nuanced approach: I agree that Kindergardeners are probably better off without news. But maybe 2nd graders and up should be exposed to the news . Most of the images on evening newscasts are normally sanitized ; they are definitely not at par with horror films. Filtering out images of hunger, poverty and suffering will lead to a ignorance and denial about these issues when they grow up.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Well, try explaining for a 2nd grader the concept of nuclear weapons, and why people seem afraid of NK having them.
xxpor 9y ago
I'm not really sure what you mean. It's actually frustrating how tame the news is, at least in the US. If they actually showed the effects of war, the public would be able to be more rational about the consequences. I actually grew up watching PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
- isostatic 9y ago
  I grew up watching newsround, which is aimed at 10-15 year olds. There's a massive difference between that and say the Ten oClock news, but there a massive difference between the one, six and ten. I would expect the Ten to have far more in depth and gruesome stories than newsround. 10 year olds don't need to know the minutiae of human trafficking.