10 ms·

Mr. Rogers vs. the Superheroes

120 points by axiomdata316 8y ago

caro_douglos 8y ago
I've always been fascinated by how some children's book authors are able to bring up story lines which tap into feelings that arise at various ages (i.e death, divorce, etc). I watched Mr Roger's growing up but really had no idea everything seen was a smartly curated way to make children more empathetic and analytical.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  Honestly, I think most of society has a big blind spot on child education. I would wager most of society reckons child education - whether a book writer, media creator or a school teacher - is a pretty basic and run of the mill sort of job/thing to do. But more and more I'm seeing that it's a profession and an area that really requires a lot more thought and need for well trained professionals being given space to do their thing just like any other professions. Unfortunately, I really don't think people give them much respect, and/or funding for that matter.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The great problem was the discovery of "pester power": children are particularly susceptible to advertising. That's why children's media tends to have selling toys as a primary objective, unless it's some sort of state-funded low-budget Reithian production.
    - kasey_junk 8y ago
      Or if it’s books.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        I doubt that print would be immune from such advertising. Particularly kids books that often contain pictures.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        Print takes fewer people and less money to produce than a cartoon
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        The incentive to make as much money as possible is still there. These ideas have been common in comic books for a century.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        I think the point is that a principled author can easily choose to write a different book.
        bunderbunder 8y ago
        It definitely happens, and there are a lot of really bad children's books whose primary purpose is to fit into merchandising empires out there. But the ratio of quality work to crap is much higher in children's books than in other media. Especially if you stick to children's books that aren't attached to toys or other media. Compare, for example, anything Disney, where the books are often just a long series of nonsequiturs with barely any narrative structure, let alone emotional depth, to anything by Philip Stead.
  - Taylor_OD 8y ago
    Do you have other suggestions for media for children? I've got a niece and nephew I'd love to be able to point in the right direction.
    - tcbawo 8y ago
      Commonsensemedia.org has many resources and parent-driven (and child-driven) reviews.
lifeisstillgood 8y ago
This is especially true today. I have seen a critique of Marvels infinity war where (spoilers) Thanos needs to "sacrifice that he loves the most" to gain a special stone. So he throws his daughter off a cliff, and cries as he does. He "loved" her. People have pointed out that for an abused child sitting watching with her abuser, this reinforces the idea that the person who is harming her actually loves her ... a repulsive idea and perhaps as damaging as jumping off a roof with a towel. I guess "with great power comes great responsibility" PS not being American Mr Rogers is a mystery to me - can anyone recommend a documentary / example ?
- kbenson 8y ago
  > People have pointed out that for an abused child sitting watching with her abuser, this reinforces the idea that the person who is harming her actually loves her Maybe. But maybe the story that the abuser doesn't care about the victim isn't actually accurate, even if it is more useful for resolving the problem. I think it's entirely possible that a large class of abuse happens from abusers that do love and care about the victims, but are so screwed up in their own mind that they can't help themselves. That does lead to the interesting question, does continually asserting to the victim that the abuser doesn't care lead to helping the issue faster than asserting that they might care, but by allowing the situation to continue it harms both the victim and the abuser, and the best way to improve both their lives is to be separated? Not that helping the abuser is the main goal, but if it helps to extricate the victim faster, that's a net win, and just because the abuser is not someone most people would find pity for doesn't mean they don't deserve some help fighting their own demons too. Not that I think that's necessarily true, but it would be interesting to know whether this is one more case where the common knowledge "best thing to do" is sub-optimal.
  - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
    I flatly disagree - i think the word "love" has connotations of protection and putting their best interests first whatever is going on in the mind of a paedophile it is not love.
cjcole 8y ago
'His feelings extended to programming of any kind, including advertising and entertainment watched by very young children. In a speech given at an academic conference at Yale University in 1972, Fred Rogers said, “The impact of television must be considered in the light of the possibility that children are exposed to experiences which may be far beyond what their egos can deal with effectively. Those of us who produce television must assume the responsibility for providing images of trustworthy available adults who will modulate these experiences and attempt to keep them within manageable limits.”' Seems quaint, if not positively prehistoric.
- PostPost 8y ago
  Children (by definition) are not fully developed human beings. It should be obvious that care should be taken in their development, and that there should be some burden of responsibility on those creating things specifically targeted at children. This is backed up by years of data. For instance, fast food ads aimed at children can have lifelong impacts on obesity and consumption habits: http://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx http://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx
- nathan_long 8y ago
  You call this "quaint" if not "prehistoric". Yet you neither demonstrate that this view is old, nor explain why an old view is necessarily a wrong one. The fact that, in 2018, much commercially-produced entertainment runs counter to Rogers' views says nothing about whether he was correct.
- chc-sc 8y ago
  Not at all, this is totally on point
- dropit_sphere 8y ago
  Fortunately these new modern children are jaded and hip to the game. Drop one in a prison and they'd take over the joint in no time.
nikkiofearth 8y ago
This reminds me of Mr.Dressup
juanuys 8y ago
The bit in the article about extending children's attention spans: > explains that Rogers deliberately lengthened scenes as the theme week progressed, so that the children would get used to an environment that extended their attention spans as they became more and more familiar with the story line. I wish more content creators would do this. I'm amazed at how many jump-cuts there are in even the most innocent-looking children's programs (e.g. "Peppa Pig" here in the UK).

120 points by axiomdata316 8y ago

I've always been fascinated by how some children's book authors are able to bring up story lines which tap into feelings that arise at various ages (i.e death, divorce, etc). I watched Mr Roger's growing up but really had no idea everything seen was a smartly curated way to make children more empathetic and analytical.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
Honestly, I think most of society has a big blind spot on child education. I would wager most of society reckons child education - whether a book writer, media creator or a school teacher - is a pretty basic and run of the mill sort of job/thing to do. But more and more I'm seeing that it's a profession and an area that really requires a lot more thought and need for well trained professionals being given space to do their thing just like any other professions. Unfortunately, I really don't think people give them much respect, and/or funding for that matter.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The great problem was the discovery of "pester power": children are particularly susceptible to advertising. That's why children's media tends to have selling toys as a primary objective, unless it's some sort of state-funded low-budget Reithian production.
  - kasey_junk 8y ago
    Or if it’s books.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      I doubt that print would be immune from such advertising. Particularly kids books that often contain pictures.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Print takes fewer people and less money to produce than a cartoon
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        The incentive to make as much money as possible is still there. These ideas have been common in comic books for a century.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        I think the point is that a principled author can easily choose to write a different book.
        bunderbunder 8y ago
        It definitely happens, and there are a lot of really bad children's books whose primary purpose is to fit into merchandising empires out there. But the ratio of quality work to crap is much higher in children's books than in other media. Especially if you stick to children's books that aren't attached to toys or other media. Compare, for example, anything Disney, where the books are often just a long series of nonsequiturs with barely any narrative structure, let alone emotional depth, to anything by Philip Stead.
- Taylor_OD 8y ago
  Do you have other suggestions for media for children? I've got a niece and nephew I'd love to be able to point in the right direction.
  - tcbawo 8y ago
    Commonsensemedia.org has many resources and parent-driven (and child-driven) reviews.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

This is especially true today. I have seen a critique of Marvels infinity war where (spoilers) Thanos needs to "sacrifice that he loves the most" to gain a special stone. So he throws his daughter off a cliff, and cries as he does. He "loved" her. People have pointed out that for an abused child sitting watching with her abuser, this reinforces the idea that the person who is harming her actually loves her ... a repulsive idea and perhaps as damaging as jumping off a roof with a towel. I guess "with great power comes great responsibility" PS not being American Mr Rogers is a mystery to me - can anyone recommend a documentary / example ?

kbenson 8y ago
> People have pointed out that for an abused child sitting watching with her abuser, this reinforces the idea that the person who is harming her actually loves her Maybe. But maybe the story that the abuser doesn't care about the victim isn't actually accurate, even if it is more useful for resolving the problem. I think it's entirely possible that a large class of abuse happens from abusers that do love and care about the victims, but are so screwed up in their own mind that they can't help themselves. That does lead to the interesting question, does continually asserting to the victim that the abuser doesn't care lead to helping the issue faster than asserting that they might care, but by allowing the situation to continue it harms both the victim and the abuser, and the best way to improve both their lives is to be separated? Not that helping the abuser is the main goal, but if it helps to extricate the victim faster, that's a net win, and just because the abuser is not someone most people would find pity for doesn't mean they don't deserve some help fighting their own demons too. Not that I think that's necessarily true, but it would be interesting to know whether this is one more case where the common knowledge "best thing to do" is sub-optimal.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  I flatly disagree - i think the word "love" has connotations of protection and putting their best interests first whatever is going on in the mind of a paedophile it is not love.

cjcole 8y ago

'His feelings extended to programming of any kind, including advertising and entertainment watched by very young children. In a speech given at an academic conference at Yale University in 1972, Fred Rogers said, “The impact of television must be considered in the light of the possibility that children are exposed to experiences which may be far beyond what their egos can deal with effectively. Those of us who produce television must assume the responsibility for providing images of trustworthy available adults who will modulate these experiences and attempt to keep them within manageable limits.”' Seems quaint, if not positively prehistoric.

PostPost 8y ago
Children (by definition) are not fully developed human beings. It should be obvious that care should be taken in their development, and that there should be some burden of responsibility on those creating things specifically targeted at children. This is backed up by years of data. For instance, fast food ads aimed at children can have lifelong impacts on obesity and consumption habits: http://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx http://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx
nathan_long 8y ago
You call this "quaint" if not "prehistoric". Yet you neither demonstrate that this view is old, nor explain why an old view is necessarily a wrong one. The fact that, in 2018, much commercially-produced entertainment runs counter to Rogers' views says nothing about whether he was correct.
chc-sc 8y ago
Not at all, this is totally on point
dropit_sphere 8y ago
Fortunately these new modern children are jaded and hip to the game. Drop one in a prison and they'd take over the joint in no time.

nikkiofearth 8y ago

This reminds me of Mr.Dressup

juanuys 8y ago

The bit in the article about extending children's attention spans: > explains that Rogers deliberately lengthened scenes as the theme week progressed, so that the children would get used to an environment that extended their attention spans as they became more and more familiar with the story line. I wish more content creators would do this. I'm amazed at how many jump-cuts there are in even the most innocent-looking children's programs (e.g. "Peppa Pig" here in the UK).