The following news reports are provided to students enrolled in Prof. Weis' courses to encourage thought and discussion in those classes. Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the articles is unimportant. That you think about and factually evaluate them is.

Family Films Do 438% Better Than R-Rated Movies

March 14, 2008 WorldNetDaily -- More than 20 years of data is in – and the conventional wisdom is wrong.

The chances a Hollywood movie will win big at the box office are greatly enhanced by a family-friendly rating and strong moral content, defying the notion the entertainment industry is merely serving up what consumers want when they produce so many R-rated movies full of foul language, sex, drugs and immorality, shows a new study by the Christian Film and Television Commission, publishers of Movieguide.

According to the study, G-rated movies averaged nearly $92.2 million, more than 438 percent better than R-rated movies, making only $17.1 million.

"Our annual report to Hollywood shows once again, with relevant financial statistics, that people, including most moviegoers, want good to conquer evil, truth to triumph over falsehood, justice to prevail over injustice and beauty to overcome ugliness," explains Ted Baehr, the president of the group. "They also want to take their whole family to the movies more often…And they want to see their religious faith respected and celebrated."

Last year, seven films with a G or PG rating earned more than $100 million at the domestic box office, and three PG-rated films ("Shrek the Third," $322 million; "National Treasure: Book of Secrets," $216 million; and "Alvin and the Chipmunks," $213 million) were among the year's top 10 earners.

Only one R-rated film made the top 10, and it was No. 10, "300," with earning of $210 million. No. 11 on the list was G-rated "Ratatouille" with $206 million.s

31,000 Scientists Reject Global Warming Agenda
 

By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily May 19, 2008--More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains a great many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

Old Farmers Almanac: Global Cooling !

By David Tirrell-Wysocki Associated Press Writer  Sept. 11, 2008

DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.

Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend.

"We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years," Hale said.

For the near future, the Almanac predicts most of the country will be colder than normal in the coming winter, with heavy snow from the Ozarks into southern New England. Snow also is forecast for northern Texas, with a warmer than usual winter in the northern Plains.

Almanac believers will prepare for a hot summer in much of the nation's midsection, continuing drought conditions there and wild fire conditions in parts of California, with a cooler-than-normal season elsewhere. They'll also keep the car packed for the 2009 hurricane season, as the Alamanac predicts an active one, especially in Florida.

But Editor Janice Stillman said it's the winter foreasts that attract the most attention, especially this year, with much higher heating prices.

Newspaper Ad Revenue in Huge Plunge

By Jennifer Saba , Editor & Publisher Magazine

NEW YORK-- The newspaper industry has experienced the worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years.

According to new data released by the Newspaper Association of America, total print advertising revenue in 2007 plunged 9.4% to $42 billion compared to 2006 -- the most severe percent decline since the association started measuring advertising expenditures in 1950.

The drop-off points to an economic slowdown on top of the secular challenges faced by the industry. The second worst decline in advertising revenue occurred in 2001 when it fell 9.0%.

Total advertising revenue in 2007 -- including online revenue -- decreased 7.9% to $45.3 billion compared to the prior year.

There are signs that online revenue is beginning to slow as well. Internet ad revenue in 2007 grew 18.8% to $3.2 billion compared to 2006. The NAA reported that online revenue now represents 7.5% of total newspaper ad revenue in 2007 compared to 5.7% in 2006.

That growth could not stave off the losses in the print however. National print advertising revenue dropped 6.7% to $7 billion last year. Retail slipped 5% to $21 billion. Classified plunged 16.5% to $14.1 billion.

Where’s the Bottom for New York Times?

NEW YORK (AP) Tuesday Aug. 26, 2008  -- New York Times Co. said Tuesday that its July revenue from continuing operations fell 10.1 percent this year as advertising revenue slipped 16.2 percent.

Overall revenue dropped to $235.9 million in July from $262.3 million in July 2007, the publisher said.

The company's flagship The New York Times paper had 15.3 percent lower ad revenue. At its New England media group, which includes The Boston Globe, July ad revenue dropped 24.5 percent.

Newspapers across the country have seen revenue decline as advertisers shift spending online and circulation slips.

Total online ad revenue rose 0.9 percent in the company's News Media Group, and circulation revenue fell 0.5 percent.

For the year to date, total revenue from continuing operations has fallen 6.1 percent to $1.73 billion.

Researcher: Brainy Baby Videos May Inhibit Child Development

Aug. 7, 2008—Seattle Post Intelligencer By Paul Nyhan--It turns out that popular baby videos don't create geniuses, and may even hinder development.

University of Washington researchers warned in a report released Tuesday that Baby Einstein, Brainy Baby and other videos for infants may make a child slower in picking up vocabulary in the first two years of life.

Every hour babies spent watching videos, they understood an average of six to eight fewer words than a baby who didn't watch the programs, researchers found.

Babies who watched the videos scored 17 percent worse on language-skills assessments than babies who didn't, said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, co-author of the study.

"We don't think there is any evidence that it is good for development at all," said Andrew Meltzoff, another co-author of the study.

The hindering of development wasn't even. Overuse of baby videos may slow the growth of vocabulary among babies 8 months to 16 months old, but didn't have an effect on children from 17 months to 24 months.

"We would suggest quietly and (carefully) slip the DVDs and VHS in the top drawer and take out the pots and pans and lipsticks and keys and telephones that the children so adore playing with," said Meltzoff, co-director of the UW's Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences.

Baby Einstein said its products were designed to spur interaction between parents and their children, not as solitary experiences.

The UW findings are the latest in a growing body of work that questions the use and effect of television on young children. Earlier this year, university research revealed that 40 percent of 3-month-olds and 90 percent of 2-year-olds regularly watch TV.

Now, "evidence is mounting that (baby DVDs) are of no value and may in fact be harmful," Christakis wrote in a summary of the new study based on more than 1,000 telephone interviews with families in Minnesota and Washington.

It is thought that children learn more rapidly in their first few years of life than at any other time, Meltzoff said. These videos offer flat, unresponsive images when a child needs a parent's singsong voice and attention, he said.

In Ballard, Mary Beth Lambert used to wake up with her infant daughter and put on Baby Mozart for 10 or 15 minutes. Both Lambert and her husband work, and a little screen time allows them to get out of the house, do laundry or get dinner on the table.

"It was for us a way to have our child spend probably 10 to 20 minutes sitting quietly, so we could take a shower, do kind of what we needed to do," Lambert

"OK, it is not going to get her into Harvard," said Lambert, 38, who reads to her two daughters every night. "It was really more than anything to give me a break."

But UW researchers worry that many parents have misplaced confidence that the popular DVDs give their children a competitive edge.

Pew Poll: People Think News Media Politically Biased, Inaccurate

Aug. 9, 2008 (AP)--More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.

More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.

More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".

Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.

The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.

"Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America... a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight," Pew said in a report.

The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes itself as a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

Newsweek Explains Global Cooling Stories 30 Years Ago

By Jerry Adler  Oct 23, 2008 Newsweek—In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

More than 30 years later, that little story is still being quoted regularly—as recently as last month on the floor of the Senate by Republican Sen. James Inhofe, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the self-proclaimed scourge of climate alarmists. The article's appeal to Inhofe, of course, is not its prescience, but the fact that it was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future. Even by the time it appeared, a decades-long trend toward slightly cooler temperatures in the Northern hemisphere had already begun to reverse itself—although that wouldn't be apparent in the data for a few years yet—leading to today's widespread consensus among scientists that the real threat is actually human-caused global warming. In fact, as Inhofe pointed out, for more than 100 years journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age. The implication he draws is that if you're not worried about being trampled by a stampede of woolly mammoths through downtown Chicago, you don't have to believe what the media is saying about global warming, either.

But is that the right lesson to draw?  How did NEWSWEEK—or for that matter, Time magazine, which also ran a story on the subject in the mid-1970s—get things so wrong? In fact, the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate." Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen—even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov—saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production. After all, Ice Ages were common in Earth's history; if anything, the warm "interglacial" period in which human civilization evolved, and still exists, is the exception. The cause of these periodic climatic shifts is still being studied and debated, but many scientists believe they are influenced by small changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (including its "eccentricity," or the extent to which it deviates from a perfect circle) and the tilt of its rotation. As calculated by the mathematician Milutin Milankovitch in the 1920s, these factors vary on interlocking cycles of around 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, and if nothing else changed they would be certain to bring on a new Ice Age at some time. In the 1970s, there were scientists who thought this shift might be imminent; more recent data, according to William Connolley, a climate scientist at the British Antarctic Survey who has made a hobby of studying Ice Age predictions, suggest that it might be much farther off.

Time Mag Circulation Spirals Downward; Newsweek Almost Ties

 Forbes Magazines-- Aug. 13, 2008 --Time magazine remains the nation's largest newsweekly, but its lead over archrival Newsweek has narrowed considerably, according to circulation figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Time's total paid and verified weekly circulation during the six months ended June 30 stood at 3.4 million, down 17.1% from 4.1 million during the same period last year following a reduction in January in the magazine's rate base. Newsweek's circulation stood at 3.1 million, virtually unchanged from a year earlier.

Time spokeswoman Betsy Burton said the decline in circulation was in line with the magazine's expectations after it slashed its rate base--the average circulation level it guarantees advertisers--from 4 million to 3.25 million. The move was part of Time's plans to shift its ad sales efforts to audience measurements, as opposed to strict circulation measurements. The magazine has said the former will provide advertisers with more transparency and accuracy.

Also in January, Time began publishing on Fridays, rather than Mondays, and overhauled the magazine's design to place a greater emphasis on news analysis. Burton said the redesign has been well received by reader focus groups and said she didn't believe it was a factor in the magazine's circulation decline.

The first half of 2006 has been a challenging period of transition for Time Warner's Time Inc. unit. The subsidiary said in January that it would cut nearly 300 jobs, bringing its total headcount down to about 11,000. In March, it sold 18 smaller magazines, including Popular Science and Field & Stream, to Bonnier Group, a Swedish media conglomerate.

In conjunction with the rate base reduction, Time also pulled back on verified subscriptions--those subscriptions sold to doctor's offices, beauty salons and other public areas. Verified subscriptions at Time plunged 63.5% to 128,032 during the six months ended June 30, from 350,623 a year earlier.

But verified subscriptions were up sharply at other big Time Inc. titles. Sports Illustrated had verified subscriptions totaling 144,624 during the six months ended June 30, up 77% from 81,857 a year earlier, while verified subscriptions at Money skyrocketed more than ninefold to 214,760 from 20,866 a year earlier.

Other top 25 magazines notching circulation gains during the six months ended June 30 included O, The Oprah Magazine, up 4.3% to 2.4 million, and Hearst's Good Housekeeping, up 2.8% to 4.7 million. Losers included Gemstar-TV Guide International's TV Guide, down 12.2% to 3.3 million; Playboy, down 5% to 2.9 million; and Meredith's Ladies Home Journal, down 4.3% to 3.9 million.

Huh? Student Suspended for Drawing of Gun

August 22, 2008  WorldNetDaily.com-- A 13-year-old boy has been suspended for three days by an Arizona public school because he sketched a picture that resembled a gun, something school officials said they "absolutely" believed could pose a threat. According to a report by KPHO-TV in Phoenix, it's not the type of greeting the Mosteller family expected when they moved from Colorado Springs to Chandler, Ariz., a few weeks ago.

(Screen capture of the drawing from TV-5 in Phoenix is at the right)

"My son is a very good boy," Paul Mosteller told the television station. "He doesn't get into trouble. There was nothing on the paper that would signify that it was a threat of any form."

The principal at Payne Junior High School kept the actual drawing, and officials with the Chandler Unified School District declined to release any information about the situation.

"Federal privacy law forbids the school or district from discussing student discipline," the station was told.

Mosteller said her son was just idly drawing pictures, and ended up with a fake laser.

"He was just basically doodling and not thinking a lot about it," she said.

School officials who initially banned the student for five days lowered the penalty to three days after discussing the situation with the boy's father.

The drawing did not show blood or bullets. Nor did it show injuries or target anyone, the Mostellers said. It just resembled a gun.

Terry Locke, a spokesman for the district, told the AP the sketch was "absolutely considered a threat," and threatening words or pictures are punishable.

Consumers Shift to Paid Entertainment, Media

Aug. 8, 2008 (AP)--A study finds that U.S. consumers are increasingly shifting their attention away from traditional, advertising-supported media in favor of entertainment such as the Internet, video games and cable TV, which consumers pay for.

 As a result, the boom in online advertising is expected to continue, with all Internet advertising spending — including ads on Web sites of traditional media outlets — overtaking print newspaper advertising in 2010 as the largest advertising category, according to a report released Tuesday by Veronis Suhler Stevenson, a media investment firm

From 2001 to 2006, the average amount of time spent by the typical consumer on paid media has jumped 19.8 percent.

Over the same period, overall time spent with traditional or ad-supported media — such as broadcast television, radio and newspapers — declined 6.3 percent, the study found.

 The study expects total Internet advertising to grow an average of 21 percent through 2011, including online-only outlets such as Yahoo Inc. and Google Inc. as well as digital revenues from traditional media outlets such as newspaper publishers and TV broadcasters.

In 2010, that would put overall online ad spending at $54 billion, overtaking print-only newspaper advertising as the largest advertising category, which is expected to stand at $51.5 billion that year.

At the same time, the study also predicted rapid growth in the amount of digital advertising that newspapers would take in, jumping from $3.2 billion last year to $7.7 billion in 2010.

As of 2006, ad-supported media still had a 53.8 percent share of the total amount of time people spent with media, versus 46.2 percent on for-pay media, which include the Internet, cable and satellite TV, movies seen in theaters, books and recorded music.

At the same time, the study found that the total amount of time spent on all types of media actually declined slightly last year for the first time since 1997, dipping 0.5 percent to an annual total of 3,530 hours.

Leo Kivijarv, vice president of research at PQ Media, a media research consulting firm that worked on the report, said the slight decline came after several years of growth amid rapid adoption of new kinds of hardware and services such as high-speed Internet connections, satellite TV and digital video recorders.

Americans Short on Facts, Survey Shows

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Aug. 16, 2008. Three quarters of Americans can correctly identify two of Snow White's seven dwarfs while only a quarter can name two Supreme Court Justices, according to a poll on pop culture released on Monday.

According to the poll by Zogby International, commissioned by the makers of a new online game on pop culture called "Gold Rush," 57 percent of Americans could identify J.K. Rowling's fictional boy wizard as Harry Potter, while only 50 percent could name the British prime minister, Tony Blair.

The pollsters spoke to 1,213 people across the United States. The results had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.

Just over 60 percent of respondents were able to name Bart as Homer's son on the television show "The Simpsons," while only 20.5 percent were able to name one of the ancient Greek poet Homer's epic poems, "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey."

Asked what planet Superman was from, 60 percent named the fictional planet Krypton, while only 37 percent knew that Mercury is the planet closest to the sun.

Respondents were far more familiar with the Three Stooges -- Larry, Curly and Moe -- than the three branches of the U.S. government -- judicial, executive and legislative. Seventy-four percent identified the former, 42 percent the latter.

Twice as many people (23 percent) were able to identify the most recent winner of the television talent show "American Idol," Taylor Hicks, as were able to name the Supreme Court Justice confirmed in January 2006, Samuel Alito (11 percent).

So, ‘It’s Just Harmless Entertainment’?

Some recent statistical observations on television:

- A new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 75% of the 1,505 adults polled from March 17-21 would like to see tighter enforcement of government rules on broadcast content, particularly when children are most likely to be watching; 60% want broadcast TV indecency standards extended to cable TV; and 69% want higher fines for media companies.

- In a recent (03.20.05) Time Magazine Poll 53 percent of respondents said that they think the FCC should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows depicting sex and violence. 68 percent believe the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers' moral standards. 66 percent said there is too much violence on open-air TV, 58 percent said too much cursing and 50 percent said there is too much sexual content on TV. 49 percent say FCC regulation should be extended to cover basic cable.

- ABC's Desperate Housewives is the most popular broadcast-network television show with kids aged 9-12 according to Nielsen stats. It airs at 10/9. (Jan. 05)

- According to Nielsen the top TV shows for 12-17 year old girls were: American Idol, The O.C., Will & Grace, and One Tree Hill. The top TV shows for 12-17 year old boys were: The Simpsons, Malcolm, and The O.C.

- 2004 Super Bowl: Nielsen estimates that 6.6 million kids 2-11 were watching at about the time that CBS's little halftime fiasco developed when Justin Timberlake ripped off a piece of Jackson's bodice, exposing her right breast to the nationwide audience. Another 7.3 million teens 12-17 were tuned in at that time as well.

- On December 10th, 2003, Fox failed to bleep the f-word and the s-word during the Billboard Music Awards.

Some more stats:

• Estimated number of TV homes: 209.6 million

• Average time kids spend watching TV each day: 4 Hours

• Children spend more time watching television than in any other activity except sleep. - Huston and Wright, University of Kansas.  "Television and Socialization of Young Children."

• 54% of kids have a TV in their bedroom.

• 44% of kids say they watch something different when they're alone than with their parents (25% choose MTV)

• 66% of children (ages 10 to 16) surveyed say that their peers are influenced by TV shows

• 62% say that sex on TV shows and movies influences kids to have sex when they are too young

• 77% say there is too much sex before marriage on television

• 65% say that shows like The Simpsons and Married… With Children encourage kids to disrespect parents.

• Witnessing repeated violent acts can lead to desensitization and a lack of empathy for human suffering

• Television alone is responsible for 10% of youth violence. - Leonard Eron, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Michigan

• According to the American Psychiatric Association, "The debate is over… For the last three decades, the one predominant finding in research on the mass media is that exposure to media portrayals of violence increases aggressive behavior in children."

• A majority of parents say they are "very" concerned about the amount of sex (60%) and violence (53%) their children are exposed to on TV. After being read arguments on both sides of the issue, nearly two-thirds of parents (63%) say they favor new regulations to limit the amount of sex and violence in TV shows during the early evening hours, when children are most likely to be watching (35% are opposed). - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.

• A majority (55%) of parents say ratings should be displayed more prominently and 57% say they'd rather keep the current rating systems than switch to a single rating for TV, movies, video games, and music (34% favor the single rating). - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.

• About half (52%) of all parents say most TV shows are rated accurately, while about four in ten (39%) say most are not. - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.

• Many parents don't understand what the various ratings guidelines mean. For example, 28% of parents of young children (2-6 years old) know what the rating TV-Y7 means (directed to children age 7 and older) while 13% think it means the opposite (directed to children under 7); and only 12% know that the rating FV ("fantasy violence") is related to violent content, while 8% think it means "family viewing." - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.

• Fifteen percent of all parents have used the V-Chip, which was required to be included in all TV sets over 13 inches after January 2000; one in four (26%) haven't bought a new TV since then, 39% have bought a new TV, but don't think it includes a V-Chip, and 20% know they have a V-Chip, but haven't used it. Among those who have a V-Chip and know it, 42% have used it. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of parents who have used the V-Chip say they found it "very" useful. - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.

• When read the competing arguments for subjecting cable TV to the same content standards as broadcasters, half of all parents (52%) say that cable should be treated the same, while 43% say it should not. - Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/23/04.

• A study of 1792 adolescents ages 12-17 showed that watching sex on TV influences teens to have sex. Youths who watched more sexual content where more likely to initiate intercourse and progress to more advanced noncoital sexual activities in the year following the beginning of the study. Youths in the 90th percentile of TV sex viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiation that was approximately double that of youths in the 10th percentile. Basically, kids with higher exposure to sex on TV were almost twice as likely than kids with lower exposure to initiate sexual intercourse. - Study Conducted by RAND and published in the September 2004 issue of Pediatrics.

• 46% of high school students in the United States have had sexual intercourse. Although sex is common, most sexually active teens wish they had waited longer to have sex, which suggest that sex is occurring before youths are prepared for its consequences. 1 case of an STD is diagnosed for every 4 sexually active teens.

• In a sample of programming from the 2001-2002 TV season, sexual content appeared in 64% of all TV programs. Those programs with sexually related material had an average of 4.4 scenes per hour. Talk of sex is more frequent (61%) vs. overt portrayals (32%). 1 out of every 7 programs includes a portrayal of sexual intercourse.

• Portrayals that included sexual risks (stds or becoming pregnant), abstinence or need for sexual safety was depicted in 15% of the shows with sexual content. Hence, sexual content on TV is more likely to promote sexual activity among US adolescents that it is to discourage it.

• Factors positively associated with initiation of intercourse among virgins are: Watching Sex on TV, having older friends, getting low grades, engaging in deviant behavior. Positive factors for virgins to abstain are: parental monitoring, parent education, living with both parents, having parents who would disprove of adolescent sex, being religious, and having good mental health.

• "In a recent national survey conducted by Nielsen (4/29/04), 78% of American families who had recently been part of the Nielsen 'People Meter' panel wanted more shows 'without profanity or swear words.'

• "In a national opinion poll conducted for TV Guide (8/2/03), 57% of TV viewers said they 'noticed an increase in offensive material on television lately.'"

• "In a national opinion poll conducted for Common Sense Media ("New Attempt to Monitor Media Content," NY Times, 5/21/03), 64% of parents with at least one child between the ages of 2 and 17 believed media products in general were inappropriate for their families.  Only one in five parents 'fully trusted' the industry-controlled rating systems.

• "In a national survey by Public Agenda ("Parents feel they’re failing to teach values," USA TODAY, 10/30/02), 'about 90% [of parents] say TV programs are getting worse every year because of bad language and adult themes in shows that air from 8 to 10 p.m.'

• Over 1,000 studies - including a Surgeon General's special report in 1972 and a National Institute of Mental Health report 10 years later - attest to a connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children. Studies show that the more "real-life" the violence portrayed, the greater the likelihood that it will be "learned." ^- American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement, Volume 95, Number 6 - June 1995

• By age 18, a U.S. youth will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence. - American Psychiatric Association

• The average youth living in the U.S. watches television 25 hours a week and plays computer games an additional seven hours. - National Institute on Media and the Family, 1998 study

• Media violence may cause aggressive and antisocial behavior, desensitize viewers to future violence and increase perceptions that they are living "in a mean and dangerous world." - American Academy of Pediatrics

• Children younger than 8 "cannot uniformly discriminate between real life and fantasy/entertainment… They quickly learn that violence is an acceptable solution to resolving even complex problems, particularly if the aggressor is the hero." - ibid

• "Violence is like the nicotine in cigarettes.  The reason why the media has to pump ever more violence into us is because we've built up a tolerance.  In order to get the same high, we need ever-higher levels… The television industry has gained its market share through an addictive and toxic ingredient." - Lt. Col. David Grossman quoted in The Arizona Republic, May 27, 1999 by Tim Madigan, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, A18.

• Two overviews of existing studies conducted by the Surgeon General's office in 1972 and 1982 called television violence "a contributing factor to increases in violent crime and antisocial behavior." - May 9, 1999.  The New York Times.  Lawrie Mifflin. "Many Researchers Say Link is Already Clear on Media and Youth Violence."

• "Not every child who watches a lot of violence or plays a lot of violent games will grow up to be violent.  Other forces must converge, as they did recently in Colorado.  But just as every cigarette increases the chance that someday you will get lung cancer, every exposure to violence increases the chances that some day a child will behave more violently than they otherwise would." - Ibid  Attributed to L. Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

• "A steady diet of violent content over time creates a culture that tells kids that violence is the accepted way we solve our problems." - Ibid - Attributed to Kathryn C. Montgomery, President of the Center for Media Education.

• Television violence can lead to imitation

• The cumulative impact of violence-laden imagery can lead to a "mean-world" perspective, in which viewers have an unrealistically dark view of life. - The Christian Science Monitor, November 18, 1996

• Television reaches children at a younger age and for more time than any other socializing institution except the family. - Ibid

• Research has shown that "mindless" television or video games may idle and impoverish the development of the pre-frontal cortex, or that portion of the brain that is responsible for planning, organizing and sequencing behavior for self-control, moral judgment and attention. - American Academy of Pediatrics - Understanding TV's effects on the developing brain, Jane M. Healy, Ph.D.  (From May 1998 AAP News)

• Children often behave differently after they've been watching violent programs on television.  Children who watched violent shows were more likely to strike out at playmates, argue, disobey authority and were less willing to wait for things that children who watched nonviolent programs. - American Psychological Association, Family and Relationships -Get the Facts: Children and Television Violence

• Reducing the amount of time grade-school children spend watching television games and watching television can make them less aggressive toward their peers. - Stanford Report, January 14, 2001 -Limiting TV viewing reduces aggression in children, study says by Krista Conger

• In considering decisions about contraceptives, STDs and sexual health choices, teens are almost as likely to get their information from TV (60%) as from a health care provider (62%). - Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/23/01

• 86% of Britons feel their government should step in to regulate sexually explicit television and magazine images aimed at children, according to a BBC poll of more than 1,000 people. While the strongest support came from 55- to 64-year-olds (92%), a surprising 78% of 18- to 24-year-olds also believe tougher restrictions are necessary to discourage adolescent sex. Britain is currently experiencing a surge in STDs (up 57 percent from 1995) and HIV cases (up 20 percent from last year), along with a rising rate of teenage pregnancies. [Telegraph.co.uk, 9/7/04 stats]

Risk-Taking Doesn’t Slow Until 26 Years Old

By Elizabeth Williamson

The Washington Post  Feb. 1, 2008--By most physical measures, teenagers should be the world's best drivers. Their muscles are supple, their reflexes quick, their senses at a lifetime peak. Yet car crashes kill more of them than any other cause -- a problem, some researchers believe, that is rooted in the adolescent brain.

A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 26, a finding with implications for a host of policies, including the nation's driving laws.

"We'd thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were reached by age 18, maybe earlier -- so this threw us," said Jay Giedd, a pediatric psychiatrist leading the study, which released its first results in April. That makes adolescence "a dangerous time, when it should be the best."

The research has implications beyond driving: Attorneys cited brain development studies as the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether juvenile offenders should be eligible for the death penalty. The court is expected to reach a decision by midyear.

Teenagers are four times as likely as older drivers to be involved in a crash and three times as likely to die in one, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

While society and tradition have placed the point of intellectual maturity, the "age of reason," years earlier, the study -- an international effort led by NIH's Institute of Mental Health and UCLA's Laboratory of Neuro Imaging -- shows it comes at about age 26.

As important, Giedd said, is the study's finding that the brain matures in a series of fits and starts. While it remains to be proven, he said, this "may be a key to when the brain is most receptive" to learning certain skills, such as driving.

The findings imply that many life choices -- college and career, marriage and military service -- often are made before the brain's decision-making center comes fully online. But for young adults, "Dying on a highway is the biggest risk out there," Giedd said. "What if we could predict earlier in life what could happen later?"


Temple's Steinberg said the NIH/UCLA research supports his theory that teen recklessness is partly the result of a critical gap in time -- starting with the thrill-seeking that comes in puberty and ending when the brain learns to temper such behavior. Since children today reach puberty earlier than previously, about age 13, it is thought that the brain's reasoning center doesn't reach maturity for a much longer time period.

College Faculties Overwhelmingly Favor One Point of View

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff -Tuesday, March 29, 2008--College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field of study within the university," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."

Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools.

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of "possible discrimination" against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, "the most likely conclusion" is that "being conservative counts against you," he said. "It doesn't surprise me, because I've observed it happening."

Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."
 

Teens Who Watch TV Wrestling More Violent

Aug. 7, 2008-Raleigh, North Carolina - By Margaret Lillard Teenagers who watched professional wrestling on TV were more likely to behave violently than other children, researchers reported on Monday - and girls seemed to be more influenced than boys.

Those findings were part of a study suggesting that teenagers who watched television wrestling shows like RAW and Smackdown had a tendency toward violence, including carrying weapons and fighting on dates.

The researchers also found that students who were most likely to fight on dates after they had been drinking or using drugs were the ones who watched wrestling most often.

"It's yet more evidence that, when it comes to kids and media, learning happens," said Kimberly Thompson, a professor at Harvard University's School of Public Health. "Parents have to pay attention to what's in their kids' media diet, and what they're seeing and experiencing."

The study, based on data collected seven years ago, was published on Monday in the August issue of Paediatrics. A team led by Robert H. Du Rant, a professor of paediatrics, social science and health policy at Wake Forest's Baptist Medical Centre, surveyed about 2 000 students in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County public high schools in the autumn of 1999 and again in April 2000. Just over half the group was male.

"Is this data dated? The answer is no," Du Rant said. "If you look at the Nielsen ratings (for wresting) on cable TV, over the years, they have not changed."

It found that 63 percent of the boys and 35 percent of the girls watched wrestling during the survey periods, and 25 percent of the boys and nine percent of the girls watched six or more times. The study found that for both sexes, a greater frequency of watching wrestling was associated with higher rates of problematic behaviour.

Du Rant said girls who watched wrestling six or more times over the two-week period had a 170 percent higher chance of starting a date fight than those who did not watch wrestling. For boys, there was a 77 percent higher rate of initiating a fight among those who watched wrestling.

"It's something that people just don't expect," Thompson said. "The perception is that girls just aren't aggressive."

Both Du Rant and Thompson, who was not involved in the study, said the research should serve as a warning to parents. While parents can identify wrestling broadcasts as entertainment, children are less likely to place the shows in that context.

"This teaches an adolescent that it is okay to use violence to resolve conflicts and that women deserve abusive treatment," Du Rant said.

Degrading Lyrics Have Effect, Survey Shows

August 7, 2008 -- A RAND Corporation study issued today presents the strongest evidence yet that sexually degrading lyrics in music encourage adolescents to more quickly initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities.

The study found that the more time adolescents spend listening to music with sexually degrading lyrics, the more likely they are to initiate intercourse and other sexual activities. This holds true for boys and girls as well as for whites and nonwhites, even after accounting for a wide range of other personal and social factors associated with adolescent sexual behavior.

Researchers found that only sexually degrading lyrics – many quite graphic and containing numerous obscenities – are related to changes in adolescents' sexual behavior. These lyrics depict men as sexually insatiable, women as sexual objects, and sexual intercourse as inconsequential. Other songs about sex do not appear to influence youth the same way.

“These portrayals objectify and degrade women in ways that are clear, but they do the same to men by depicting them as sex-driven studs,” said Steven Martino, a RAND psychologist who led the study. “Musicians who use this type of sexual imagery are communicating something very specific about what sexual roles are appropriate, and teen listeners may act on these messages.”

The study, titled “Exposure to Degrading Versus Non-Degrading Music Lyrics and Sexual Behavior among Youth,” is published in the August issue of the journal Pediatrics.

With funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, RAND researchers surveyed 1,461 adolescents ages 12 to 17 from across the nation in 2001, asking them about their sexual behavior and how often they listened to music by various artists. The participants were followed up one and three years later.

Adolescents typically listen to 1.5 to 2.5 hours of music per day, which does not include the amount of time they are exposed to music through music videos. Studies show that about 40 percent of popular songs contain references to romance, sexual relationships, and sexual behavior. One earlier study suggested a link between adolescents' exposure to sexual content in music and their sexual behavior, but that earlier effort had several shortcomings, according to RAND researchers.

In the RAND study, information about listening habits was combined with the results of a scientific analysis of lyrics' sexual content to determine the frequency and type of sexual content the adolescents were exposed to during the time they spent listening to music.

Researchers found that adolescents who listened to a lot of music containing objectifying and limiting characterizations of sexuality progressed more quickly in their sexual behavior than did adolescents who listened to less of this kind of music.

Because teenagers have more unplanned pregnancies and are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases, increasing rates of sexual activity among this population has serious public health implications. Federal statistics show that about 750,000 teens around the country become pregnant each year, and an estimated 4 million contract sexually transmitted diseases.

In addition, exposure to sexually degrading music may also have worrisome implications for what boys and girls come to expect from their future relationships.

“It may be that girls who are repeatedly exposed to these messages expect to take a submissive role in their sexual relationships and to be treated with disrespect by their partners,” Martino said. “ These expectations may then have lasting effects on their relationship choices. Boys, on the other hand, may come to interpret reckless male sexual behavior as ‘boys being boys' and dismiss their partners' feelings and welfare as unimportant.”

Working Parents Give Kids 19 Minutes a Day

By BECKY BARROW, London Daily Mail  July 19, 2008

A typical working parent spends just 19 minutes a day looking after their children, official figures revealed yesterday.  The startling research shows the devastating impact that working full-time has on children who hardly see their parents.  With less than 20 minutes spent with their parents every day, this is only enough time to eat a quick breakfast together or have a couple of bed-time stories.

The Office for National Statistics looked at nearly 4,950 people over the age of 16 in Britain to find out what they do all day.  The findings make grim reading for working parents who already worry that they spend too much time at work - and too little at home.

Parents who work full-time spend just 19 minutes every day "caring for [their] own children", according to ONS's "Time Use Survey", published yesterday.  A further 16 minutes is spent looking after their children as a "secondary activity", but this means that they are doing something else - such as the weekly supermarket shop - at the same time.

The findings come at a time when record numbers of women are working as huge mortgages and soaring household bills force them to earn a living.  Official figures show that 12.6million women have a job, compared to just 8.5million in the 1970s.

The ONS looked specifically at working women in Britain and what they do during a typical 24-hour period to create a typical "Diary of a Working Mum".  They sleep less and work more than any other "type" of woman - and still have to do about two-and-a-half hours "domestic work" every day, it reveals.

A typical working woman gets nearly 40 minutes less sleep every night than a full-time mother who gets more than nine hours sleep every night.  This is because she gets up earlier to travel into work every day, or spends time every night doing a long list of domestic chores before going to bed.

On average, a working woman toils at work for over five hours a day, although this figure appears low because it includes holidays and weekends when no work is done.

Recent research showed that most mothers with young families would prefer to stay at home and look after their children.  A survey of working mothers found that just six per cent wanted to work full-time, according to Prima magazine.  Half wanted to combine bringing up their children with a part-time job, while more than a quarter wanted to be a full-time mother.

They were asked: "In an ideal world, what would you like to be?" Twenty- six per cent said they wanted to be a "housewife and mother". The most popular response, given by 50 per cent, was to be a "mum who works part-time".

Maire Fahey, editor of Prima, said: "In the 1980s, we thought we could have it all and aspired to high-flying careers and happy families.  "But the cracks are starting to show. Family life is suffering and something has got to give."

The new ONS survey shows that life is also extremely tough for fathers with young families, particularly those whose youngest children is under the age of four.  They sleep less, works more and do more "domestic" work than any other "type" of man, such as one with older children or one with no children.

A typical father whose youngest child is under four gets less than eight hours sleep a night and does more than three hours of domestic chores every day. They are also working more than one hour a day longer than their male colleagues who do not have children.

Overall, the ONS found that a typical person's 24-hours is mostly spent sleeping, working and watching television, which are the top three activities.  A woman will spend 8.3 hours asleep, 2.4 hours watching television, DVDs or videos and 2.2 hours working.  A man will spend eight hours alseep, 2.8 hours watching television, DVDs or videos and 3.5 hours working.

Just 24 minutes in 24 hours is spent reading, a figure which drops to just 10 minutes for younger people.

Soaking Up the Media Full-Time 'Job' for Kids

By Miranda Hitti, WebMD Medical News

Mar. 10, 2007 -- Many American kids are growing up with media as a constant companion.

"Young people today live media-saturated lives, spending an average of nearly 6.5 hours a day with media," says a new Kaiser Family Foundation report. That equals about 44.5 hours per week, as much as a full-time job, says the report.

Kids' Media Use

The study looked at a wide range of media including TV, music, computers, and video games. TV and music were the top media sources among kids and teens. Interactive media came next, followed by reading. Here's how each source ranked, with participants' average daily hours:

     TV: 3 hours (nearly 4 hours with DVDs, videos, and prerecorded shows)

     Music: 1.4 hours

     Computers: 1 hour (not counting schoolwork)

     Video games: 49 minutes

     Reading : 43 minutes (books, magazines, newspapers not required for school)

When it comes to TV, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends no more than one hour of quality TV or videos for older children per day, and no screen time for children under 2 years.

The Kaiser Family Foundation's report is based on a national sample of 2,000 children aged 8-18 years. Participants filled out anonymous written questionnaires detailing their media use on the previous day. Additional information came from media diaries kept for a week by nearly 700 young people.

Researchers included Stanford University communication professor Donald F. Roberts, PhD, who has studied children and media since the 1960s. Roberts has also served as an educational consultant for some children's TV programs and helped develop the rating and parental advisory system adopted by the computer game industry.

How Many Media Devices Are in Kids' Homes?

The children and teens in the study had many ways to access the media. The typical participant lives in a home with:

     3.6 CD or tape players

     3.5 TVs

     3.3 radios

     2.9 VCRs/DVD players

     2.1 video game consoles

     1.5 computers

Almost one in four live in homes with five or more TVs. In 63% of the kids' homes, TV usually stays on during meals. TV is left on most of the time -- even if no one is watching it -- in half (51%) of the kids' homes, says the report.

Race, Class Gaps

Most children of all major ethnic and socioeconomic groups had Internet access at home. However, some gaps remain.

For instance, 80% of white participants had Internet access at home, compared with 61% of black youth. In addition, about half (54%) of kids going to school in communities with average incomes of less than $35,000 per year go online daily, compared with 71% of those from communities with an average income of more than $50,000 per year.

Wired Bedrooms

Many of the participants had media equipment in their bedrooms.

     68% had a TV

     54% had a VCR/DVD player

     49% had a video game player

     31% had a computer in their bedroom

Media Multitasking

Kids and teens often dabble in more than one type of media at a time, says the report. For instance, they may play music while reading, or go online while also keeping an eye on the TV.

"Given that about a quarter (26%) of the time young people are using media, they're using more than one medium at a time, they are actually exposed to the equivalent of 8.5 hours a day of media content, even though they pack that into less than 6.5 hours of time," researchers write.

The Foundation says it's not sure how multitasking affects kids. "Kids are multitasking and consuming many different kinds of media all at once," says Drew Altman, PhD, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, in a news release. "Multitasking is a growing phenomenon in media use and we don't know whether it's good or bad or both."

How Do Kids Divide Up Their Time?

Here's how the participants spent the rest of their time on an average day:

     Hanging out with parents: 2 hours, 17 minutes

     Hanging out with friends: 2 hours, 16 minutes

     Physical activity: 1 hour, 25 minutes

     Hobbies or other activities: 1 hour

     Talking on the phone: 53 minutes

     Doing homework: 50 minutes

     Working at a job: 35 minutes

     Doing chores: 32 minutes

Most Participants Say They're Happy, Active

"Contrary to most expectations, it does not appear that spending time with media takes away from the time children spend in other pursuits," says the report. "In fact, it seems that those young people who spend the most time using media are also those whose lives are the most full with family, friends, sports, and other interests," the report notes.

Most of the kids reported being largely happy and well adjusted. However, the 18% who ranked lowest in "contentedness" spent more time with media (nine hours and 44 minutes of total daily media exposure, compared with about eight hours for other kids). That doesn't mean that the media is to blame for those participants' discontent.

The study also showed no difference between the amount of time the kids said they spent in physical activities between heavy and light TV users. That was also true for those spending the most time with all media and those spending less time with media.

However, other research has indicated that media may be linked to kids' weight problems, inactivity, violence, and other issues.

Results suggest that families may watch TV together. Is that quality time? The study isn't sure.

"It's unclear how much real interaction occurs between parents and their children when they're watching TV together," says the study. "Young people who live in homes where the TV is left on during meals or is simply left on most of the time are less likely to say they talk to their parents about problems than other kids."

Rules Aren't Always Established

Just more than half (53%) of the participants said their families had no rules about TV watching. Another 46% said their families have some rules, but only 20% said those rules are enforced most of the time.

Of the study's youngest participants -- aged 8-10 years -- 55% said there were TV rules in their homes.

It can be tough to keep up with kids' media use. Not sure where to start? The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) offers these tips for parents:

     Make a media plan. Schedule media times and choices in advance.

     Set media time limits. Try using a timer.

     Set family guidelines for media content. Check content ratings and parental advisories. Help children and teens make appropriate choices.

     Be clear and consistent with children about media rules.

     Keep TVs, VCRs, video games, and computers out of children's bedrooms. Instead, place those items where you can be involved and monitor use.

     Make media a family activity. Whenever possible, use media with your children and talk about what's presented.

     Encourage kids to ask questions about media messages. Discuss and compare media messages to the values you want your child to learn.

     Look for media "side effects." For instance, notice any increase in nightmares, aggressive behavior, poor school performance, increased eating of unhealthy foods, smoking, drinking, or drug use. Media may -- or may not -- be a factor, but it could help to be aware of all possible influences, including media.SOURCES: Kaiser Family Foundation, "Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-Olds." News release, Kaiser Family Foundation. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Media Guidelines for Parents."

SOURCES: Kaiser Family Foundation, "Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-Olds." News release, Kaiser Family Foundation. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Media Guidelines for Parents."

'Dumbing Down' Continues; 25% Grade 'Acceptable'

By Roddy Stinson, San Antonio Express-News 8.07.08

Tens of thousands of parents of schoolchildren and hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers learned from media reports last week that "the majority of Texas school districts and campuses in 2005 earned the rating of 'Academically Acceptable.'"

Most of the moms, dads and school-tax payers breathed a sigh of relief and shrugged off the "bad" news that a small percentage of districts and campuses "received the lowest rating of 'Academically Unacceptable.'"

Their peace of mind has doubtless lasted to this day, particularly if the reports they read or heard were incomplete and didn't provide details of the Texas Education Agency's ratings...

You might want to take a deep breath before continuing.

To "earn" a rating of "Academically Acceptable" on the 2005 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test, the students in a school district or at an individual campus had to achieve ...

     In reading and English language arts, a passing rate of 50 percent .

     In writing ... 50 percent.

     In social studies ... 50 percent.

     In math ... 35 percent.

     In science ... 25 percent.

In case the educational horror of those numbers didn't sink in ...

If half of the youngsters in a district or on a campus failed tests in reading, writing and social studies ... and 65 percent failed arithmetic ... and 75 percent failed science — the Texas education establishment deemed that district/campus "Academically Acceptable"!

And that is the sad state of public education after 21 years of "reform" and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars on every curricular stratagem, instructional gimmick and pedagogical pie-in-the-sky jugglery known to the high-dollar, multidegreed consultants, specialists and excogitative elitists who feed at the public-education trough...

No matter how much "time" Texans give the education establishment to become "exemplary" ... no matter how many dollars Texas taxpayers throw at the school system ... and regardless of how well Commissioner Neeley and her successors do Shirley Temple impressions ... the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of young people through formal schooling will be doomed to failure as long as public "accountability" is reduced to a shell game. (You think you see it, but you don't.)

A 25 percent passing rate in science ... a 35 percent passing rate in arithmetic ... and a 50 percent passing rate in reading and writing are not "academically acceptable" by any rule, measure or standard outside the world of educational bunko...

TV Viewing Can Turn Kids Into Bullies

By Kelli Miller, WebMD Medical News  Monday, April 04, 2007

The more television a 4-year-old watches, the more likely he or she will become a bully in grade school, according to a new study.

"We have added bullying to the list of potential negative consequences of excessive television viewing along with obesity, inattention, ADHD, and other types of aggression," the researchers write.

Frederick J. Zimmerman, PhD, of the University of Washington , Seattle , and colleagues analyzed surveys of 1,266 4-year-olds enrolled in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The researchers found that toddlers who watch more TV than average were 25% more likely to be called a bully by their mother.

The team looked at three potential predictors of bullying: parental emotional support (spanking, family mealtime, parent-child communication); early stimulation activities (recreational outings, reading, playtime); and the amount of TV watching, based on parental reports. Previous research shows that these three factors play a role in the development of bullies.

Bullying behaviors of kids aged 6 through 11 were also evaluated, with bullying determined by the mother's characterization of the child.

Thirteen percent of moms said their child was a bully.

However, the risk of bullying can be prevented. The study found that 4-year-olds who receive early emotional support and have a stimulating home environment are less likely to turn into grade-school bullies.

SOURCE: Frederick , J. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, April 2005; vol 159: pp 384-388.

Young Kids Can Learn to Kick the TV Habit

By Jennifer Warner, WebMD Medical News

June 30, 2007 -- Public education campaigns can help young children cut back on their daily TV time, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that a statewide campaign that included a "less TV' message aimed at preschoolers was effective in getting children to turn off the TV.

Before the campaign, 64% of the low-income families surveyed said their children watched two hours or less of TV a day. Six months later, that number rose to 71%.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children age 2 and older watch no more than one hour of television per day and, preferably, NONE. Decreasing the amount of television-watching time is often recommended as a way to reduce childhood obesity as well as address research which shows a dramatic increase in attention deficit/hyperactive disorder in children.

In the study, researchers surveyed about 10,000 clients and staff of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, before and six months after a statewide campaign in Washington.

The WIC is a federal program that provides food, nutrition counseling, and health information for low-income women and their children. WIC serves nearly half of all infants and one-fourth of all children aged 1 to 5 in the U.S.

The campaign included a "less TV" message as part of a larger program delivered by WIC to their clients and staff. The program included informational materials, such as posters and pamphlets, and group sessions to encourage WIC staff and clients to eat more meals together as a family and get more exercise.

Before the program, 65% of the participants said they never, or usually never, watched television during meals; six months later that number rose to 69%.

Among families in the WIC nutrition program, 64% said their children watched two hours or less of TV per day before the campaign. After the campaign, that number rose to 71%.

The study also showed that families that were nonwhite, had lower levels of education among the parents, and had more children were more likely to watch more than two hours of television per day and to watch TV during meals.

The results of the study may be applied to develop national policies for television -- reduction strategies as part of efforts to reduce the number of overweight children in the U.S. , they write. 

TV Program Link to Eating Disorders?

SHAN ROSS  The Scotsman, 8.23.07

An increasing number of middle-aged women are suffering from potentially life-threatening eating disorders as they strive to emulate the characters of Desperate Housewives, the cult American television series, according to a leading eating-disorder specialist.

Since the show, starring petite Teri Hatcher and her equally slim co-stars, became a hit, eating disorder clinics across the UK have seen an increase in older women suffering from anorexia and bulimia.

Clinics in Scotland report a fourfold increase in the number of women aged between 30 and 50 seeking treatment for anorexia.

Experts have said a "Desperate Housewives syndrome" has caused a significant rise in illnesses such as bulimia and anorexia normally associated with teenagers and younger women.

Dr Chris Freeman, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital, in an interview with Closer magazine, said: "Desperate Housewives is a very popular programme showing older women who are attractive and have rampant love lives.

"They're also thin and it puts pressure on women in their thirties, forties and fifties to think that it is possible to have this glamorous lifestyle and a great sex life if you're skinny," he added.

"I believe it's influencing women to have eating disorders. Lots of women diet and lose weight quickly, but they aren't obsessive and perfectionist enough to sustain it.

"They might discover that, if they make themselves sick after eating, they can keep their weight down. That's the start of an eating disorder," he said.

Students Sure Don't Know Their History!

By Tamara Henry USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Most U.S. high school seniors have a poor grasp of the nation's history, and their knowledge hasn't improved in seven years, says a new Department of Education report.

At a time when the United States is  under terrorist threat, seniors' ''truly abysmal scores'' on the 2003 U.S. History Report Card are alarming, said Diane Ravitch, historian and education professor at New York University and a member of the test's governing board. It's especially grim considering how close these students are to voting age, she said.

''Our ability to defend -- intelligently and thoughtfully -- what we as a nation hold dear depends on our knowledge and understanding of what we hold dear,'' Ravitch said during the presentation of the report. ''That can only be achieved through learning the history we share, and clearly, far too many high school seniors have not learned even a modest part of it.''

Performance on the exam was scored as basic, proficient (at grade level) or advanced; ideally, all students should perform at grade level or better. The Education Department  defined ''basic'' as ''the bottom of the achievement ladder.''

On the test:

57% of seniors could not perform even at the basic level.

2% performed at the basic level.

10% performed grade-level work, and

1% were advanced or superior.

Scores among seniors were essentially the same as in 1994, when this version of the test was first given.

''This is unacceptable,'' the report said. ''History is a critical part of our nation's school curriculum. It is through history that we understand our past and contemplate our future.''

Unqualified teachers are cited as one reason for the poor performance. Education Department statistics show 54% of junior and senior high school students in 1999 were taught history by teachers who neither majored nor minored in the subject, and a new study soon to be released shows similar results. The only subject worse than history is physical science, where 56% of students have teachers out of field.

The federally mandated test was administered to 29,000 fourth-, eighth- and 12th-graders at 1,100 public and private schools. Fourth- and eighth-grade students did better than seniors, but not by much:

• 8% of fourth-graders performed at grade level or above in 2003, 49% performed at basic and 33% below. In 1994, 17% were at grade level or above, 47% at basic and 36% below.

• 17% of eighth-graders were at or above grade level, 48% at basic and 36% below in 2003. In 1994, 14% were at grade level or above, 48% at basic, 39% below.

• In fourth grade, both white and black students had higher average scores in 2003 than in 1994. Black students' scores improved more than whites'.

• The average score for senior Hispanic students improved over 1994, narrowing the gap with whites.

Fewer Americans Have Heroes Today

Americans pay plenty of attention to celebrities and personalities but, gratefully, they don't consider them heroes.

A Harris Poll confirms that Americans increasingly cannot identify persons whom they admire for their character, values, convictions or actions. This is a dramatic change from American society historically. Heroes have served as ideals toward which people can strive to become better citizens, neighbors, community members, leaders...human beings. Here are the survey results:

More than half of Americans responding to a new survey could name no public figure alive today they consider heroic. About 1 in 6 had no hero at all. The Harris Interactive poll of 1,022 Americans was conducted in 2004 in cooperation with U.S. News (and World Report).

Among those who named a hero, the top vote-getters were:

Jesus Christ (51 responses, 6 percent)
Martin Luther King Jr. (45 responses, 4 percent)
Colin Powell (38 responses, 4 percent)
Ronald Reagan (34 responses, 4 percent)
Mother Teresa (32 responses, 3 percent)
Abraham Lincoln (27 responses, 3 percent) 
John F. Kennedy (25 responses, 2 percent)
John Wayne (22 responses, 2 percent)
Michael Jordan (20 responses, 2 percent)
President Bush (17 responses, 2 percent)

Additionally, nearly a quarter of the Americans polled (24 percent) say they have recently crossed somebody off a list of heroes, mostly because of “unethical conduct.” The most-mentioned former heroes were: Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, O.J. Simpson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Do you have any heroes? Who do you use to set your sights for accomplishment, personal or professional?

Myth of 'Self-Esteem' Coming Into Question

By Lynn Woolley

Washington Times, Aug. 13, 2008--The family psychologist John K. Rosemond tells the story of a banner placed over a mirror in an Alabama elementary school. It says "You are now looking at one of the most special people in the whole wide world." You've probably seen this type of thing if you've visited your child's school. It's part of the education fad of "self-esteem."

On the other hand, if you visit the locker room of your local middle school or high school, you're much more likely to see a sign that reads "school pride." Have you ever thought about why the academic side of the school stresses self-esteem while the athletic department promotes pride?

The dictionary definition may be helpful. One of the definitions given for "self esteem" is "self-conceit." For "pride," however, the definition is more precise: "a reasonable or justifiable self-respect."

A winning football coach worries little about self-esteem. He selects his starting lineup based on what accomplishments his players have made in past games or how well they've done in practice. Only when his team is ahead by 40 points with time running out does he think about putting his second- or third-stringers into the game.

The thought process is different over on the academic side. Since the '60s, education "experts" have determined that students must feel good about themselves, regardless of their accomplishments. Under this point of view, if a student does poorly on a test, then the test must be biased; it certainly couldn't be the result of poor preparation by the student. This type of muddy thinking has also led to such disasters as "whole language" programs and social promotion.

Over in the losing locker room after the big game, the coach is raising heck with his players. He's telling them that they will be running more track, doing more push-ups and working on the basics of blocking and tackling. He's telling them that there's another game next Friday, and that they've got one week to get their act together. He talks about pride, all right, but he doesn't mention anything about anyone being "special."

The fact is that very few students are special. Only a few will grow up to become president or invent some new life-saving drug. With rare exceptions, schoolkids are "gifted and talented" only in the minds of their own parents. Even on the football field, only a small number of players will be offered college scholarships, and fewer still will move to the professional ranks.

Meanwhile, what's going on in the winning locker room? That coach is most likely bragging to his kids about the way they executed the plays and worked as a team. He's talking about that clutch reception and about the big hole the line opened up for the winning touchdown. He's telling his team to have pride in what they accomplished.

But in the classroom, sadly, accomplishments mean less. Students who are told they are special for no reason at all may come to believe it, and that is a recipe for disaster. As John Rosemond points out, few people would want to hang out with adults who genuinely believe they are special. Why, then, do we teach this to our children?

Back in his college days, a certain columnist got called on the carpet by his biology teacher. "You’re going to make a D this semester," she announced. "The second semester is harder. I don't want to see you back in my class." As you might expect, this was not nurturing to this young man's self-esteem, his pride, or anything else. But it was a challenge. He not only enrolled in the second semester of biology, he achieved a 90 average.

The point here is simple. If public schools are to succeed, they, too, must challenge; they should learn from the football coach. Young students require a solid grasp of the basics (blocking and tackling in football; reading and writing in class) before they can move on to higher skills.

If Johnny can't read, it may be because Johnny has too much self-esteem and not enough phonics. Let's stop telling him that he's special, and let him take pride in what he can accomplish. .

Do Not Adjust Your Set. This Station Has Not Yet Begun It's Broadcast Day. Normal Broadcasting is from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday Thru Friday, noon to 11:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.

--Actual Television Test Pattern  From WMAQ Television, Chicago, September, 1953 (below)