Are Fairy tales/cartoons an effective.....

[Dragoon Fighter]

Are Fairy tales an effective medium when it comes to teaching morality? What about Cartoons? I know full well nothing replaces a good parent that raises a kid "correctly" (I know it is not a concrete term so that it is hard to define with out a long list of specific opinionated points). Now in a home void of morals or proper up bringing, is the child responsible? Can one point to the cartoons or Fairy tales as a method to teach right from wrong to thoughts with no other method of learning right from wrong? Are toughs even effective mediums to learn such lessons? Should we try to introduce Fairy tales and the like to children for the reason of teaching them right from wrong or is strait up telling them better? What is your opinion and why?

 

[Dre89]

People who make the cartoons, like the people in the media, aren't the people with authority to teach about morality.

If a child's only education of morality came from Bugs Bunny, he would adopt a moral system that is controversial in certain circles, not to mention he'd be dressing up like a girl and kissing other boys on the lips (which I guess fals under the 'controversial' part).

 

[abhishekh]

I personally think using instead of just straight out telling children that x is bad and y is good, that you should instead ask questions and make the kids themselves arrive at the conclusion themselves, so they actually know why what they're doing is good or bad.

 

[Dre89]

But kids don't have the maturity to make decisions themselves. This is wh kids are such brats nowadays, because they've been given too much freedom in these sorts of issues.

 

[Dabuz]

Cartoons are a good tool to teach morality, by tool, i mean one resource that should be used but not the only resource. Cartoons are made for the entertainment of kids, kids and people in general have a very easy time deriving values and morals from something they enjoy, cartoons being such, and cartoons (at least, ones of nickelodeon and cartoon network, anything on the likes of comedy central is meant for teens which have already developed their morales) are often very deliberate in showing right from wrong. Pop in an episode of the fairly oddparents (The name was something like that) and watch it to the end, guaranteed the episode will be based around one morale issue (cheating, lying, stealing) and in the end, timmy (the protagonist) will somehow get in trouble for breaking a morale which was very obvious in his situation, but in the end, timmy will pretty much always say he was wrong for doing X and will never do X again, it is very effective purely because situations like this are very entertaining to children.



Now, some people will say this isn't effective or it should be a parent's responsibility, but, there is a good reason why such cartoons have lasted for so long, no person is perfect, some people have more morale's than others, and it is very common for people to teach not only their good morale's and values, but negative morale's and values (racism, stealing, ect.) If only the parents were teaching kids these things, then every kid would be almost identical to their parents in there values and belief in right and wrong.

Dre: you pointed out that people who make cartoons, like people in the media, don't have the authority to teach values, but what gives other people parents more right to teach values? There are parents who have stolen, killed, are racist, ect. there are also people in the media who have done that stuff.

Also, Dre, you picked an over-exaggerated example, no cartoon will teach a child it is morally correct for a boy to dress up as a girl and kiss other boys, a cartoon may do it for the attempt of comedy, but, cartoons have always made it clear in some way that a child shouldn't do that, normally by showing how comedic it is.

Some kids have maturity, some don't, some are brats, some aren't, all kids cannot be generalized like that, because there are just as many who are brats and immature as there are mature nice children



/ends rant

 

[Sucumbio]

People who make the cartoons, like the people in the media, aren't the people with authority to teach about morality.

If a child's only education of morality came from Bugs Bunny, he would adopt a moral system that is controversial in certain circles, not to mention he'd be dressing up like a girl and kissing other boys on the lips (which I guess fals under the 'controversial' part).

That's why you pay attention to WHICH cartoons your kids are watching. There are good ones and bad ones. WB cartoons or ones like Tom and Jerry are actually quite sadistic in nature, hence why The Simpson's Itchy and Scratchy satire is so funny. But there are plenty of wholesome cartoons with a strong moral fiber running through it. GI Joe comes to mind.

"And that's one to grow on."

 

[vVv Rapture]

Dabuz in the PG and using a font color I never could read and still can't! Blasphemy!

Cartoons are a good tool to teach morality, by tool, i mean one resource that should be used but not the only resource. Cartoons are made for the entertainment of kids, kids and people in general have a very easy time deriving values and morals from something they enjoy, cartoons being such, and cartoons (at least, ones of nickelodeon and cartoon network, anything on the likes of comedy central is meant for teens which have already developed their morales) are often very deliberate in showing right from wrong. Pop in an episode of the fairly oddparents (The name was something like that) and watch it to the end, guaranteed the episode will be based around one morale issue (cheating, lying, stealing) and in the end, timmy (the protagonist) will somehow get in trouble for breaking a morale which was very obvious in his situation, but in the end, timmy will pretty much always say he was wrong for doing X and will never do X again, it is very effective purely because situations like this are very entertaining to children.

Here's the thing though, and you are perfectly right about moral-based episodic content (ala Fairly Oddparents, etc), but just because something is based on morals doesn't mean that something will teach them.

As you said, these things tend to be mostly entertainment, but because they are kids, they are more likely to take it for just that: entertainment. Since kids truly only watch cartoons for the entertainment value, the chances of them taking away a moral lesson from it is rather low. If anything, the "moral" value of the show just happens to be there because of the general storylines of each episode.

Now, some people will say this isn't effective or it should be a parent's responsibility, but, there is a good reason why such cartoons have lasted for so long, no person is perfect, some people have more morale's than others, and it is very common for people to teach not only their good morale's and values, but negative morale's and values (racism, stealing, ect.) If only the parents were teaching kids these things, then every kid would be almost identical to their parents in there values and belief in right and wrong.

Not really following this logic here, since cartoons usually survive not based on lesson teaching at all...but production values, viewer numbers, etc.

And yeah, it'd be great for parents to teach them all of these things to a "t", but it's not always possible. Parents work, kids have their lives, etc. And not everything a parent knows is something that needs to be taught to kids, especially parents that aren't fit to be parents in the first place.

 

[Dabuz]

Dabuz in the PG and using a font color I never could read and still can't! Blasphemy!



Here's the thing though, and you are perfectly right about moral-based episodic content (ala Fairly Oddparents, etc), but just because something is based on morals doesn't mean that something will teach them.

Well, you are completely right that kids don't watch TV for the morale's, but the morale's are entwined into stories meant to entertain kids, consciously and subconsciously, a child will remember the most basic points of a story (Timmy stole, got caught, got detention until he gave back what he stole...then gave what he stole back, got out of detention, the end) if a child remembers even that basic of a plot progression, then that child will understand the morale lesson, im not saying a single cartoon will cut and dry teach a morale, because morale's are taught by reinforcement, but, they will reinforce (or rarely, be the first experience) of a morale, especially since a lot of cartoons have episodes which all teach the same concept, but in slightly different ways.

As you said, these things tend to be mostly entertainment, but because they are kids, they are more likely to take it for just that: entertainment. Since kids truly only watch cartoons for the entertainment value, the chances of them taking away a moral lesson from it is rather low. If anything, the "moral" value of the show just happens to be there because of the general storylines of each episode.

since a lot of what i said in the first part of my response can be stated here, i'll just add that children remember things that entertain them very well, so, like stated above, they will understand the plot better and how morale's affected the plot (consciously or subconsciously)

Not really following this logic here, since cartoons usually survive not based on lesson teaching at all...but production values, viewer numbers, etc.

yeah, but parents often play a big part in this as well, since some still control what their child watches, they help to promote shows they find very good for children (teaches good morale's) while being able to kill shows that they believe to be inappropriate for their children (teaches bad or no morale's) obviously popularity is important, but if parents prevent children from watching the show, popularity won't matter as much, and either the show will be cut or changed.

And yeah, it'd be great for parents to teach them all of these things to a "t", but it's not always possible. Parents work, kids have their lives, etc. And not everything a parent knows is something that needs to be taught to kids, especially parents that aren't fit to be parents in the first place.

exactly, this is a good reason why cartoons are so effective, they fill in the spaces that a parent can't fill, by providing a broader horizon of morale's

yes, some parents teach things to kids that shouldn't be taught, cartoons actually make up for this in some ways



replies in quote in red

 

[abhishekh]

But kids don't have the maturity to make decisions themselves. This is wh kids are such brats nowadays, because they've been given too much freedom in these sorts of issues.

They're not making decisions themselves.

They're learning the same thing, except they're going to be more likely to actually stick to it and follow it if they figure out right and wrong from themselves, even if you're just guiding them in that direction.

Also HUUGE generalization.

 

[Sucumbio]

abhishekh, please disable your sig when you post in the PG.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Well, you are completely right that kids don't watch TV for the morale's, but the morale's are entwined into stories meant to entertain kids, consciously and subconsciously, a child will remember the most basic points of a story (Timmy stole, got caught, got detention until he gave back what he stole...then gave what he stole back, got out of detention, the end) if a child remembers even that basic of a plot progression, then that child will understand the morale lesson, im not saying a single cartoon will cut and dry teach a morale, because morale's are taught by reinforcement, but, they will reinforce (or rarely, be the first experience) of a morale, especially since a lot of cartoons have episodes which all teach the same concept, but in slightly different ways.

I'll agree with this. I do think this comes in levels, however and is based on maturity. All of what you said probably applies to older children (ages 7-11) rather than anything younger because anything before that tends to be on the line of "it doesn't really matter what is on the TV as long as the thing is on."

But yes, you make a good point assuming the aforementioned.

yeah, but parents often play a big part in this as well, since some still control what their child watches, they help to promote shows they find very good for children (teaches good morale's) while being able to kill shows that they believe to be inappropriate for their children (teaches bad or no morale's) obviously popularity is important, but if parents prevent children from watching the show, popularity won't matter as much, and either the show will be cut or changed.

It depends. Parents rarely "promote" shows unless they are part of some sort of group, and a majority of parents are not. It basically comes down to "you can watch this, but not that," but one child not watching a show doesn't hurt ratings. Needless to say, obviously the number is much larger, but usually shows of these kinds of age levels and maturity tend to end because the show has become unpopular as a whole or has just run its course.

For example, Spongebob is easily one of the most popular cartoon shows of our time to the point that people of all ages watch the show. So, even if it became less popular with kids, that doesn't mean the show itself will tank. That may not be the case with Spongebob, but if it were to happen (and the chances of it happening are very unlikely because of its encompassing popularity in the first place), it wouldn't necessarily "kill" the show. The whole age group would have to stop watching for that to happen.

 

[Dabuz]

It depends. Parents rarely "promote" shows unless they are part of some sort of group, and a majority of parents are not. It basically comes down to "you can watch this, but not that," but one child not watching a show doesn't hurt ratings. Needless to say, obviously the number is much larger, but usually shows of these kinds of age levels and maturity tend to end because the show has become unpopular as a whole or has just run its course.

while you are completely right about lack of actively supporting/ non-supporting parents and the fact that so few parents support or don't support a show makes each individual parent and child negligible; the parents that will go to the news and get their opinions get published or talk about their concern in a community of other parents (very rare to find such a parent) can possibly start a movement concerning the show if they have very valid points and garner enough support. Not many if any writers will want to run that kind of risk when they can easily slap good morale's on the show to prevent any stir of controversy.

For example, Spongebob is easily one of the most popular cartoon shows of our time to the point that people of all ages watch the show. So, even if it became less popular with kids, that doesn't mean the show itself will tank. That may not be the case with Spongebob, but if it were to happen (and the chances of it happening are very unlikely because of its encompassing popularity in the first place), it wouldn't necessarily "kill" the show. The whole age group would have to stop watching for that to happen.

Spongebob doesn't have enough (if any) controversy regarding it's content for such a thing to happen, also, if Spongebob hypothetically tanked, it would keep tanking because just about every show that starts tanking keeps tanking unless the show redefines itself, this is why a lot of shows may seem good or have an OK start, but get canceled in the next few months once their ratings start to drop a little, because they will rarely rise. (Family guy is the only show that really breaks the rule, because it was going to be canceled, but one very very high rated episode was what prevented it form being canceled, actually it was the last scheduled episode originally.)

BTW, when I say tanking, I don't mean like a couple of low rated episodes, but I mean like a at least a month or two of low rated episodes.

 

[vVv Rapture]

while you are completely right about lack of actively supporting/ non-supporting parents and the fact that so few parents support or don't support a show makes each individual parent and child negligible; the parents that will go to the news and get their opinions get published or talk about their concern in a community of other parents (very rare to find such a parent) can possibly start a movement concerning the show if they have very valid points and garner enough support. Not many if any writers will want to run that kind of risk when they can easily slap good morale's on the show to prevent any stir of controversy.

Possibly is the key word. Anything can possibly happen. In this case, it isn't very likely.

It is possible that I could start an anarchist revolution in the United States or use provolone cheese instead of American cheese on my grilled cheese sandwich. Doesn't mean the likelihood increases.

Spongebob doesn't have enough (if any) controversy regarding it's content for such a thing to happen, also, if Spongebob hypothetically tanked, it would keep tanking because just about every show that starts tanking keeps tanking unless the show redefines itself, this is why a lot of shows may seem good or have an OK start, but get canceled in the next few months once their ratings start to drop a little, because they will rarely rise. (Family guy is the only show that really breaks the rule, because it was going to be canceled, but one very very high rated episode was what prevented it form being canceled, actually it was the last scheduled episode originally.)

BTW, when I say tanking, I don't mean like a couple of low rated episodes, but I mean like a at least a month or two of low rated episodes.

Actually, Family Guy was technically canceled two times. Futurama also came to an end. Both shows are now active.

 

[Dabuz]

Possibly is the key word. Anything can possibly happen. In this case, it isn't very likely.

It is possible that I could start an anarchist revolution in the United States or use provolone cheese instead of American cheese on my grilled cheese sandwich. Doesn't mean the likelihood increases.

the point is, a single parent can have such a power as to get a show changed/ removed, it won't always happen, but it can happen, like your anarchist revolution or change of cheese (even though changing cheese is probably more likely then that revolution, unless you really hate cheese )

Actually, Family Guy was technically canceled two times. Futurama also came to an end. Both shows are now active.

Stuff like that is not very common, also, in futurama's case, it was originally canceled because Matt Groening, the head write, wanted to work on simpsons (he also directed that show, along with half the futurama team). Futurama was only picked up again because Matt Groening garnered interest due to the simpson's gradual loss in ratings (originally he stopped working on futurama because he wanted to have more time to make simpson's ratings increase). I could not find the reason for the second cancellation of family, but i know that DVD sales were very high and so were ratings so fox brought it back anyway.

 

[Namaste]

Honestly I don't think any one thing could correctly teach a sense of right and wrong, but I don't see why Fairy Tales/Cartoons, or stories in general, that are aimed for children with a message behind it wouldn't be an effective method. It's the same way that we as human beings sometimes just glance over a tragedy/message unless we have a way to relate to it, such as not really caring too much about the troubles in Africa until you see a picture of a disfigured gang-**** victim. Some kid might say "bah, ugly people are dumb", but then feel real sad for Shrek or Quasimodo