Mama, pass the remote

Granted, the middle of the Stanley Cup playoffs is not the ideal time for me to dispute the merits of television.

Let's just say that the regular thundering of Don Cherry from the family room and never getting a crack at the remote - even for a glimpse of Dancing with the Stars - can make a person a mite testy.

Apparently though, my teenage sons are in good company when it comes to over-the-top TV consumption. This week, two studies revealed they're starting young these days. According to the May issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 40 per cent of babies age three months old watch TV. Can't you just picture legions of the barely-born, strapped into bouncy chairs and pointed at the telly?

Not only that, another study published in the U.S. journal Pediatrics found that 20 per cent of children younger than age three have televisions in their bedrooms. No doubt this is good news for BabyFirstTV, the U.S. satellite channel aimed at infants and slated to be available in Canada this summer.

Experts like the American Academy of Pediatrics discourage television for kids under two, citing the importance of face-to-face interaction and evidence that it increases the risk of attention problems. But they are up against a formidable opponent - companies peddling DVDs with names like Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, which equate screen time with baby smarts. In other words, they give mom and dad the perfect excuse to use TV as babysitter.

As a parent, I have, on more than one occasion, appreciated the value of tot television. Sometimes it's the only way to a) wash the three days worth of dishes piled in the sink b) run to the bathroom to assist your toilet-training preschooler or c) read the paper for 20 minutes with your cup of tea. Just don't go telling me it's the sure path to Harvard.

As for those developmental experts advising parents to watch TV with their infants or toddlers, what can they be thinking? If you're sitting down with the little ones, why not sing, or read a story, or build a castle out of blocks. The days of being glued to hockey playoffs will come soon enough. Trust me.

Digital dissemination

One of the most striking aspects of the unspeakable events that unfolded yesterday at Virginia Tech University is where students turned amid the crisis: To their cellphones and laptops, to Facebook, blogs and forums. Grief, fear and anger haven't changed, but the myriad ways to express and share them sure have.

As this Star story explains, within minutes of the shootings, the rituals of grief exploded online like roadside memorials. Students searched for injured friends, posted eyewitness accounts and pictures, and sent urgent messages to their families that they were safe.

There are huge benefits to the community instantly coming together to mourn and watch the story unfold, especially for anxious loved ones far away. The downside is that online speculation spreads as fast as a computer virus. And it can be wrong. As demonstrated when several people were incorrectly named as the suspected gunman.

For those of us who, in a crisis, might not even remember how to text message, it makes the digital divide seem wider than ever. It also highlights the need to be fluent in the evolving modes of communication that are second nature to our kids as early as grade school.

For a glimpse at how the digital news spread and the discussion unfolded, check out the blog Threat Level over at Wired magazine or read Al Tompkins' column at Poynter online.

Why say the tough stuff, when you can text it instead?

A story in today's Star provides an interesting glimpse into how youth these days are relying on their keyboards to deliver awkward messages to one another.

They break up via text messages. They come out about their sexual orientation on Facebook. They test the first "I love you" in a new relationship by saying it on email.

The upside to all this: they don't have to actually witness the impact of their words on another person.

As one 25-year-old says, "It feels so much less vulnerable. You have something to hide behind."

But since when was "hiding" part of a healthy relationship? And isn't being vulnerable part of what close friendships and intimacy are all about?

Another woman, 23, explains why she dumped a short-term boyfriend through a cellphone text message. "Breaking up face-to-face sucks. I think it just would have been awkward."

In other words, it was easier for her. I would love to have read how he felt about it. So much for empathy. So much for sensitivity to the feelings of others.

I find this trend unsettling, as if these young adults think shortcuts and taking the easy way out are perfectly okay, as long as it serves their own needs.

But then again, maybe this is just the generation gap talking. Maybe I just don't get this wave of kids who grew up online and how they have adapted the way they conduct their relationships.

We know that kids and adults alike frequently write things on blogs and social networking sites that they wouldn't say aloud. But often that's under the guise of pseudo-anonymity or an online persona. There has been very little research, however, on people using technology to resolve issues with real-life friends and partners.

In the meantime, I think it bears thinking and talking about. Especially with our kids.

What do you think? How would you help teens distinguish between their standard online chatter and the messages best delivered in person in the offline world?

Plug into what the kids are up to

The following also appears in the Life Section of today's Toronto Star, as part of a regular monthly column.

Cathy Wing has her own MySpace page. She uses MSN every day and logs on regularly to the popular Neopets.com website to check out the virtual creatures.

Hardly unusual pastimes these days. Except that Wing is a 52-year-old mother of two, whose daughters find all this rather hilarious. Not to mention that no way are either of them going to sign up as one of her "friends" on the MySpace social networking site. As if.

Ah, yes. There are few things more amusing to many teens than the notion of their parents trying to be au courant. Especially when they know full well that, most of the time in cyberspace, the adults (at least those of a certain age) are scrambling to play catch-up. I know the feeling. My own kids still haven't stopped snorting up their sleeves that their mother actually started a blog a year ago.

Being the subject of a few giggles, however, has never deterred Wing. She has been an educator with the Ottawa-based Media Awareness Network since it launched more than a decade ago. But she believes it's also part of her other job, as a parent, to be fluent in the technology that modern children and youth have at their fingertips. 

"Parents should be doing the same thing their kids are doing," Wing says. In other words, get with the program, folks. 

Depending on your kids' habits, that could mean instant messaging, roaming youth  hangouts like Facebook, playing the online adventure game Runescape or sitting down with the older ones to watch Ali G.

Not all the time, obviously. But if you haven't heard of the hit shows or video games or technology and you've never seen or used them, it's hard to know what kids are really up to during all those hours they are supposedly doing their homework in front of the screen. Or what influences they are under and the kind of quick decisions and ethical dilemmas they face.

It also doesn't do much for your credibility when it comes time to set limits around media usage or online behaviour.

Last week, there were two more wake-up calls about the perils of the virtual world and how often parents are utterly clueless. In nearby Caledon East, a pile of high school students were suspended for posting vulgar and derogatory comments about their principal on Facebook. And in Pickering, a group of elementary school students videotaped a disabled classmate being tripped and taunted, and posted it on YouTube. 

Clearly, though they may be quick on the keyboard, a lot of kids simply don't grasp the implications of their online conduct.

They mistakenly believe they are anonymous. They don't get the difference between idle chatter in the cafeteria and posting something on a website for all the world to see. They are easily swept up in the intensity and excitement of online conversations. They don't realize that once they hit the Send or Publish buttons, their musings have crossed from the realm of the personal into the public. 

Which means teachers can read them. So can friends and family. So can universities they may have applied to for a scholarship. And so can potential employers, who are increasingly conducting Web searches before making final hiring decisions.

A newer generation of more tech-savvy parents is coming at these issues with much more hands-on experience and comfort. But experts like Wing say too many are still uninformed. 

And while banning access to the technology may work for awhile, that won't prepare kids for the wired world they are being raised in, nor will it equip them to think critically about how to navigate that world.

Debbie Gordon of Mediacs, who runs media literacy workshops for Toronto schoolchildren, says parents have to stop being cowed by the fact that their kids are more adept than they are on the equipment. Instead, parents should remember that media management is mostly about parenting.

Incidents like last week's are not about technology. "They are issues of morals and ethics, the same as in the offline world," Gordon says.

Bullying, gossip, exclusion, profanity, exhibitionism, courtesy and the meaning of respectful friendships - on and offline - are topics that all parents should be discussing with their kids.

Wing notes that while the Caledon and Pickering episodes are alarming, they're also "teachable moments." Ideal dinner table conversation. And a perfect reason to ask your kids to show you around their favourite websites or demonstrate stuff they like to do online.

As a Statistics Canada study released last week noted, families are spending less time together, even when they are all under one roof. And much of that is thanks to multiple televisions, iPods and computers that keep them apart.

So look at it this way. Seize the moment and let technology be something that brings you together.

A brave new world indeed

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Technology was going to be the big saviour, remember? Make us more efficient at our jobs, simplify the household tasks and free us up for countless hours of bike-riding with the kids and opportunities to explore our inner poet.

Well, the dream, it seems, hasn't exactly come true (as if you haven't noticed). According to this study from Statistics Canada, workers in today's wired world are spending an average of 45 minutes less with the family each workday than they did 20 years ago, which adds up to about five 40-hour work weeks each year. Kind of jarring, especially at a time when phrases like "work/life balance" are top-of-mind for employers, unions and Gen-X and Y parents. You have to wonder how many of those extra minutes are being eaten up by Blackberries, laptops and all those gadgets there to provide "flexibility" while ever reminding us that work is no longer something you leave at the office.

Not only that, as this story illustrates, technology is eroding the time families spend together, even when they are all under the same roof. All those iPods, multiple televisions, computers and videogames that are staples of middle-class homes mean tuning out the annoying parents or scrapping siblings is easier than ever. Don't feel like watching the Leafs with the teenage hockey fan tonight? No problem; head upstairs to the other TV and catch America's Top Model by yourself. If the kids can't agree on a computer game, send one off to the Xbox and another with Nintendo Lite.

Once upon a time, siblings couldn't help conversing when they fought over whose turn it was to dry the dishes. Now we have dishwashers. And thanks to MSN, we don't even hear a peep when the teenagers are socializing with their friends.

Yes, we know all the pluses of tech. But there's a cost, isn't there?