Knowing is Half the Battle

In the late '80s, cartoons were based on toys like Transformers and Thundercats. At about the same time, public service announcement segments starring the characters were tacked on to the end of many shows, such as G.I. Joe (here's an example) and He-Man, warning them not to call 911 as a prank or hide in abandoned refridgerators. It was as if these shows needed to preemptively counteract arguments that it, was inspiring violent play among boys by doing some social good, but the segment had little to do with the story itself

These days, you'll find that that children's cartoons are usually completely devoid of even these tacked-on lessons. They are either arty cartoons on Cartoon Network, or anime based on a card-trading games in which the only virtue being extolled is persistence to become, say, a Pokemon Master and "catch them all" (i.e. the persistence needed to pester your parents for money to buy the latest card deck for your collection).

However, the cartoons put out by Disney are completely geared around lessons. At least, this is what I gather. I was at the gym on a Saturday morning and happened to catch two Disney cartoons on the TVs in front of the treadmill, The Emperor's New School and The Replacements, and both featured a moral.

In The Emperor's New School , boy emperor Kuzco steals a robot to cheat on his science project, but it promptly goes on a rampage. His friend convinces him he has to take responsibility and build a better robot to stop the one he let loose. Moral of the story: don't cheat, take responsibility.

In The Replacements, tomboy Riley wants to be popular and liked by a cute boy so she gets glammed in a full makeover, but only gets attention from the class bully and is pushed into a fountain by the popular girls. The dunk ruins her hair and makeup, but it turns out, the cute boy likes her better without all that. Moral of the story: just be yourself.

The hipster in me thinks this is hopelessly square, but really, I'm glad that there are cartoons that teach lessons in an entertaining way without being completely preachy. While I would personally prefer to watch cartoons with more sophisticated storylines, I say this because I recently read a New York Magazine article by Po Bronson called "Learning to Lie."

This article highlights several studies about how kids learn to fib. In one, kids are given the opportunity to lie in order to get a prize; some do, some don't. Another set of kids are presented with the same scenario but are read one of two stories: The Boy Who Cried Wolf (in which the boy who lies gets eaten by a wolf) or George and the Cherry Tree (the apocryphal story of George Washington confessing to cutting down his father's cherry tree).

Surprisingly, although 75% of people surveyed thought The Boy Who Cried Wolf would be more effective in deterring cheating, in reality, that story increased the rate of lying. On the other hand, the story about George Washington reduced lying by 43 percent. Why? The researchers speculate that kids already know lying can evoke personal punishment, but don't really think about how lying affects their relationships with others, a fact the Washington story highlights. In fact, kids who are threatened with punishment tend to lie better and at an earlier age.

So if kids are watching TV rather than reading Bill Bennett's The Book of Virtues or getting socialized by Mom and Dad at the dinner table, I'm glad they are getting a dose of morals from somewhere. In fact, I hope that the writers of these cartoons are keeping up on the latest in child psychology so they can do it even more effectively. Children's networks like the Disney Channel has a sacred trust with society --we let them keep hawking food and toys during the commercial breaks if they will teach our kids wholesome, white-bread values (though woe to the cartoon on PBS that dares to go beyond white-bread).

Cartoon lessons are even keeping up with the times. In another episode of The Replacements, Riley's brother Todd is addicted to keeping up his social network on "Fleemster", so his parents confiscate his computer. He lies about needing to go to the library to play shuffleboard but instead logs onto the public computers to get his fix. Nothing will convince him to give up his online activities until he stumbles upon a pale, oily figure in the library basement--the mysterious, friendless founder of Fleemster. Moral: turn of the computer.

And on that note--

A "Moment of Truth" in my TV Fast

I've been traveling this week, staying at hotels.

I was lonely.

I did things I wouldn't normally do and that I'm not proud of.

I watched a whole episode of Charmed, all of Boston Legal, most of Supernanny, and part of American Idol.

I can find some scrap of redeeming value in each of these if pressed, but I can't say as much for my last selection, The Moment of Truth. That was a pure moment of rubbernecking at a bloody car wreck and all I can say in my defense was that I turned it off after 15 minutes.

If you haven't heard of this show, it's the most controversial reality show since Temptation Island (and perhaps not coincidentally, hosted by the same guy). The premise is simple: A person is must answer 21 questions correctly. They get money for each correct answer and lose it all if they don't. They can walk away while they still have some money before hearing the next question, or keep playing for $500,000.

So far, sounds like Who Wants to Be Half a Millionaire. However in this case, the player won't be stumped by any questions--the only arbiter of whether they've answered correctly is the lie detector they are connected to. Their friends and family aren't sitting there in front of the contestant for support. They are there to witness and react to the contestant answer questions like "Have you ever said you were sick when canceling an appointment when you weren't" and "Do you think you are better looking than any of your friends?"

But as the game progresses, the interrogation crosses the line from being merely personally embarrassing and uncomfortable to potentially destroying a person's relationships and reputation. I flipped away before they could get to the types of questions featured on the commercial, which included "Would you cheat on your wife if you knew you could get away with it?" and "Have you ever slept with someone for money?"

I have to wonder if these contestants had any idea what they had signed up for. Did they think they had nothing to hide, or did the prospect of winning that cash overwhelm their judgment? Or did they just never suspect that Fox would take it so far? By the nature of the questions, all of them must have been subjected to a questionnaire or even a background check, and I think only the worst were allowed to go on air.

For the longest time, my husband couldn't bring himself to watch The Office because he couldn't stand to watch even the fictional Michael Scott embarrass himself in every episode. I know what he would say about this show: Fox is making money off of the misery and embarrassment of others. That's not enough to stop me under normal circumstances. There are many shows that do this that I will watch--the audition episodes of American Idol, the "To Catch a Predator" episodes on Dateline. You might even argue that any reality show exposes it's contestants to unflattering portrayals. But all of these people volunteered to be on air, or in the case of Predator, were deserving of being exposed (I don't buy weak protestations of "I showed up to tell her not to solicit dirty old men on the Internet ").

I think subjecting yourself to that kind of scrutiny is one thing but allowing innocent family members to be collateral damage is another, and in this case, I don't blame the contestants, I blame Fox. I know that the friends and family must have signed waivers before they could appear with the contestant on the show but they couldn't have known what they were in for. Fox better have a bunch of episodes in the can because I think they will have fewer volunteers after the original episodes air. However, you never know. I found this blog review of the show at the Palm Beach Post and the only comment by a reader was "i want to apply to be on the show how can i do that????" [sic]

I made several rules for myself when starting this TV fast almost three weeks ago. One was that I couldn't watch shows on a TV set at home, but I could do it when outside the house. Overall, this has helped me to reduce mindless channel surfing. But while I've adhered the the letter of my rules this week, I'm not sure about the spirit. One day at a time.