© Pierre Maré,
2004 - 2007
Offbeat 131
Spongebob Squarepants is about the only television show that I watch regularly at the moment. My daughter and I seem to agree that it is fun. I suspect that she gets a kick out of the bright colours and interesting characters. For my part, I enjoy the easy human values and witty ‘slice-of-life’ scenarios that speak, I suppose by design, to adults who watch television with their kids at nine on a Sunday morning.
The fact that it is shown at a time when both of us are in the lounge, and the television is on, is a bit of a bonus.
Dramatically, it is about on par with the sitcoms. The fact that it contains bright colours and interesting characters makes it a bit more bearable. My daughter obviously knows a good thing when she sees it. If the idea that a sea sponge who lives in a pineapple at the bottom of the sea in a place called Bikini Bottom is irksome, just substitute the words ‘dentist’, ‘luxury apartment’, ‘mid-sized town’ and ‘Bikini Bottom’ in the scenario, and everything will begin to make more sense.
There are a couple of other kids shows that are mildly diverting, but nothing worth watching regularly.
My exposure to the inevitable kids shows over the festive season leads to an interesting parallel, aside from the trite banality of sitcoms, animated or otherwise.
The main difference between kids’ shows and adult shows is the fact that kids shows are generally animated. The fact that a show is animated tends to reduce the force of the ratings. For instance, live action gore will be shown on screen in an adult show, pushing the ratings upwards. In a kid’s show, that gore will not feature. It will probably be off-screen, with some sound effects. As a result the rating will shift downwards. But note that both will be violent.
Now for the parallel… Although both the shows differ in their visual depiction of violence and their ratings, both feature the concept of violence. Does this make sense?
It would appear that the problem is not the actual phenomenon of violence, but the depiction of violence. The proposition seems to be something along the lines of, “It’s quite acceptable for adults to see violence, but we don’t want kids to see it, so we will leave it to their imaginations.”
Whoever worked that proposition out was never exposed to the imagination and instincts of a child. There is a reason that children are not given weapons, and it is not just the concern about self-injury.
In effect, what is happening is that the makers of many kids shows are feeding the concept of violence to children in a far more effective way than it does to adults. Adults see violence and are hopefully grossed out. Children have to work through it using their imaginations, allowing it to filter into their neural pathways.
Then there is the idea of ‘good and bad’. Adult shows make the basic assumption that people know the difference between good and bad and probably hope that politicians with global ambitions don’t watch for inspiration. Children’s shows make the very same assumption concerning kids. However the additional assumption is that parents sit down and explain the difference to their children.
It’s a reasonable assumption, yet a trifle unrealistic. Many parents either don’t have the time, or make the reciprocal assumption that kids’ shows will do the explaining. So nobody really wins.
Now here’s a question. If you came home from a night out to find the babysitter explaining an act of violence in graphic detail to a thrilled child, would you allow that baby sitter into the house again?
Television is an electronic babysitter, and it is not teaching kids anything that can reasonably give us confidence about the future. Kids are growing up violent because they are learning that violence is not only a normal part of life, but also that it is an acceptable solution for anyone and anything that fails to please.
Forget about the dangers for children on the street. The most frightening threat to children is right there in the lounges of most households.
