<doc.id=1022.a3>
<title> The need of increased parental involvement </title>
Ginia Bellafante has in Time Magazine the 24th of July, 1995 published an article called "Locking out the Violence" in which she describes the growing support for an anti-violence chip installed in television sets to regulate the degree of violence showed on TV. This precaution is needed, according to those in favour of the idea, to prevent gratuitous violence from reaching young viewers who have difficulties separating fantasy from reality. In the light of this discussion is it relevant to question whether parents are able to control how their children spend their time out of school or not? Isn't this proposition just a sign that parents have accepted that their children are brought up in front of the television? It is relevant to question if parents want someone else to be responsible for the kind of information reaching their children? Is it not up to parents to decide what's appropriate to look at or not and why should the government or individual broadcasters make that judgement?

Many studies have shown that children spending a lot of time in front of the TV have trouble questioning what the teachers are trying to each them since they are so accustomed to receive information they don't understand. These children also have trouble staying concentrated for a longer period of time i.e. more than half an hour since they are used to shorter sequences of information. It is also a fact that many American children at the age of eighteen have spent more time in front of the TV than in school. All these facts indicate that parents have accepted that their children spend a lot of their spare time in front of the TV and they clearly can't control how their children spend their time outside of school. This situation refers to how it is in America today but it gives us a hint about how the situation may be in Sweden in a couple of years as a result of the increased number of channels. 

As a parent, I imagine, television sometimes can be a relief the way it catches children's attention. It is, however, important to remember that it reduces children's imagination as they from an early age are used to never being bored. TV reduces children's physical activity and it also reduces children's ability to read. A rainy day is rather spent in front of the TV instead of reading a book. The idea of installing an anti-violent chip in television sets makes it possible for parents to reduce their control even more as the shows their children are looking at are guaranteed to be of a certain quality. The basic problem is nevertheless solved by this action. Parents need to get involved and take responsibility for how their children spend their time outside of school. A child need to be stimulated physically, emotionally and intellectually but it can't be responsible for providing the stimuli itself. By allowing your child to spend many hours a day in front of the television without parental guiding you put too much responsibility on your child. As a parent you need to be in control and it is therefor essential that not too much responsibility is laid on your children.

The kind of information reaching children at an early age needs to be of good quality since young children can't separate reality from fantasy. One major information source is the television. It is up to parents to see to that their children, especially the very young ones, aren't exposed to shows not aimed for children. The government or individually broadcasters can't be held responsible for the kind of information reaching individually children. Again, parents need to realise the great responsibility they put on their children if they let them watch programs they can't vouch for. An anti-violent chip is no solution, instead parents need to get more involved in their children's choice of programs and they do have to realise that parental guiding is essential.
</doc>