At what approximate age does it become appropriate for 'children' to be exposed to newspaper content? On one hand, it's important that children gain some realistic perspective and understanding of the world around them, but with the amount of blunt sexuality, violence, cultural / religious / political strife being delivered in overtly graphic fashion in each and every published edition, seems like a lot for kids to absorb and process without scaring or upsetting them. I understand that each child's developmental maturity willl play a deciding factor on a case by case basis, but I'm curious to know how other members have handled the scenario of little Bobby/Suzy asking to have a graphic image or explicit headline in the daily rag explained once stumbled upon. Thoughts?
"Children" and Newspapers - What's the Appropriate Age?
- Thread starter demien2k5
- Start date
The really amazing point is that you are proposing to keep newspapers away from kids.
Do you have it in mind that children can be harmed by what they read in newspapers?
From your comment about Bobby or Suzy asking for an explanation, I can't help thinking the real reason you want to stop your kids reading newspapers is that they might ask embarrassing questions. You are pretending you are trying to protect your children from harm, when really you are trying to protect yourself from embarrassment.
There is nothing a child can know that can do the child harm. If you've got some evidence (or even a hint of a slight possibility) to the contrary, please share it.
Do you have it in mind that children can be harmed by what they read in newspapers?
From your comment about Bobby or Suzy asking for an explanation, I can't help thinking the real reason you want to stop your kids reading newspapers is that they might ask embarrassing questions. You are pretending you are trying to protect your children from harm, when really you are trying to protect yourself from embarrassment.
There is nothing a child can know that can do the child harm. If you've got some evidence (or even a hint of a slight possibility) to the contrary, please share it.
As a youngster in school we used to do current events a couple of times a week. For this you brought in a newspaper article that caught your attention and you gave the class a synopsis on it. It was then posted on the current events board. Youngsters should be exposed to real news and should know what's going on in the world today, I think that is something that is lacking in today's youth, they are oblivious to the goings on around them and in the world in general. They are the you tube generation, thinking that what happens on YT is fo' real and fall prey to misinformation in general.
The sooner the better. Yes the world is a scary place, but the longer you try to shield it from them the more harm it will do. Why don't you try discussing any given event he/she reads on in more familiar terms to the child. I mean, I can't stand the bible right now, but my great grandmother gave me a pretty good synopsis as to what's going on there when I was 6, without making me into a christian fanatic.
I think it's more about wanting to protect the child's innocence to some degree. I'm a believer that not every in your face issue needs to be addressed, discussed and/or explained to younger children. Trying to explain incidents of murder, rape, pedophilia, some aspects of race & culture can be hard to understand for younger minds, and while not trying to avoid the inevitable, I somehow feel like directly exposing them to such topical current events is akin to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It's hard enough for kids to grow up in today's society, and they are indeed bombarded each day from every side with similar aspects of life - not sure providing them with an explicit itinerary of life's misery as published in most newspapers is the best course of action...
Perhaps you might consider changing newspapers. The Post, the Globe and the Star do a pretty good job of keeping the sensational pictures out of their papers, and we want kids reading and asking questions don't we? It's when they don't ask about stuff that we're in trouble. And let there be no mistake, whether we're afraid to answer, or they're afraid (or too smug) to ask are equally dangerous.
Just don't let them substitute mindlessly watchingTV 'news' for reading and engaging with the events and opinions. WE should all give thanks that in Toronto we still have so many newspapers worth reading, and the Sun for a giggle. Many North American cities are not so so fortunate. The recent campaign in the US made amply clear that sound bites discourage thought.
If we think the events recounted in the papers are too unpleasant, we'd better spend more time at City Hall and in Community meetings, which will also benefit the kids we drag along.
Just don't let them substitute mindlessly watchingTV 'news' for reading and engaging with the events and opinions. WE should all give thanks that in Toronto we still have so many newspapers worth reading, and the Sun for a giggle. Many North American cities are not so so fortunate. The recent campaign in the US made amply clear that sound bites discourage thought.
If we think the events recounted in the papers are too unpleasant, we'd better spend more time at City Hall and in Community meetings, which will also benefit the kids we drag along.
I went through that too. I was probably 10 years old. Prior to that, I never read the newspapers.
Whether I'm better for it, I don't know.
Thinking back to my grade school newspaper reading, I don't recall reading anything particularly disturbing. I'm sure there were awful things in the newspapers. I probably didn't fully understand what I was reading. I don't recall any incidents, but I presume the teacher was filtering what news stories were discussed.
So here's an actual example of situational dilema - although I don't live in Canada, I do visit the GTA frequently for various reasons, and own a variety of properties in and around the GTA. Each have dailies delivered there. Not long ago the entire family was there and the story of an Afghan man being tried for allegedly brutally stabbing his wife to death in a fit of cultural pride and anguish was the story of the day as the actual trial approached. Each paper did its best to cover the story in depth complete with mugshots of the accused, murder scene shots, etc. The pictures and headlines caught the attention of my 8 year old as I read. A very difficult conversation that left her rather shaken. Each day in our american papers at home, the rags are filled to brim with similar shock and awe. I could be having the same disturbing conversations of suffering and brutality with my children each and every day. IMO the impact on their youth and general state of mind would be considerable. But if I'm reading correctly, some here say it's still the right thing to do, although not sure why exactly. Is this really what is being suggested or am I that thick? What I'm really after is what age you believe your children are able to handle this stuff, an in the interim the papers are off limits...for the record, I live in a pretty conservative republican State and slow paced and a city where the local sheets are pretty tame for the most part .
I think this is a perfect time to use these opportunities for educating your child on how to critically think about situations that are in the news. I don't think that young people should be censored especially from the news but that is your decision to make as a parent. However, there will be situations that your child will be faced with having those situations in front of him/her and you are not there. Newspaper stories usually only present half the picture and that half is always not an accurate representation of events or peoples especially people who come from culturally different backgrounds. I am not saying it is okay to go and stab your wife because a culture accepts violence against women as the norm. What I am suggesting is that you can tell your child that these stories in the news are mostly there for one purpose: to sell a newspaper and the articles that gain the most $$. Go through the newspaper if you want and talk about why certain stories are included and why others are not or why only one perspective of a story is including and others are not. You can talk about why violence against women is bad or why murder is bad or why rape is bad and so on and so on. Then maybe talk about the stories that should be included
turn it into a space for positive reflection! If I had children, that's what I would but I don't have children lol so I guess this is a complicated situation that can be approached from any angle.
Xo
I remember when I was 10 and in Grade 5 we had to cut articles out of the newspaper to discuss current events. Mind you, back then there wasn't as much violence and nonsense in the news.
reading newspapers in grade 5 isn't that bad.. I remember my boarding school getting to see half hour of NEWS on tv every evening.
its folds better than what they show on tv these days... honey bo bo.. sister wives... toddlers and tiaras fuckkk! I'd kill myself rather than expose my kids to such shows
its folds better than what they show on tv these days... honey bo bo.. sister wives... toddlers and tiaras fuckkk! I'd kill myself rather than expose my kids to such shows
Back in those happier, more civil times in the past, when conservatives were asserting their right to keep schools separate and unequal by bombing church meetings and killing children in Alabama, I think it was very important that children were encouraged to bring newspaper accounts to scholl and discuss them in class.
Of course, today it would be YouTube vids of burning, writhing bodies and hysterical soundbites from bystanders juiced up by network hairdos rabid for ratings. In class, the entire 'discussion' would be about calming their adrenalin-fuelled horror-movie responses, and thought would probably never enter into it.
If the child is curious and reads the news, they're old enough to start learning about the real world.
My problem is that the child would be curious if we drove by a car wreck, complete with dead bodies on the side of the road; curious about hardcore porn if it were readily playing on the living room tube, and curious about murder, streetwalking and rape if we were forced to live in the projects. But for the sake of innocence, I steer clear of road kill and wrecks, I keep porn behind appropriate boundaries, and don't take late night drives through the projects just for fun. Yes, when life takes an 'in your face' turn we must address it with our kids - its unavoidable, but for me, it makes sense to censure what kids see and read as necessary. What I'm trying to figure out is what age folks believe young minds can begin to handle such heady modern day subject matter without emotional risk or damage...
"Children" and Newspapers - What's the Appropriate Age?
Like a puppy, children should eliminate waste on newspapers for their first few weeks.
Two months old is an appropriate age to introduce them to diapers, and by eighteen months, they should have enough mobility and muscle control to do their business outside.
Like a puppy, children should eliminate waste on newspapers for their first few weeks.
Two months old is an appropriate age to introduce them to diapers, and by eighteen months, they should have enough mobility and muscle control to do their business outside.
Just wondering, at what age should I introduce my child to things that might cause them emotional damage?
