This book is not just about TV and kids. It purports to be a guide for parents concerning various controversial issues facing the young today. These issues are family breakdown, media violence, advertising, education, junk food, and pornography. To understand the arguments in this book we must take a look were the authors, the parents of two small boys, are coming from. Lumby has written for conservative newspapers and a magazine. She came to my attention a number of times on ABC Radio where she always gave unqualified support to commercial media and the advertisers. She is a member of the (Australian) Advertising Standards Bureau, a puppet of the advertising industry. Fine writes TV shows for children and for News Limited. The latter of course is owned by the notorious Rupert Murdoch.

We often hear today that modern life is causing many problems for the young. The authors claim that most of what is said and written about these problems is "hysterical" and constitutes "media panic." The authors state they will find out what the "best and most objective research tells us." However Lumby and co. are not objective, and they selectively quote others to bolster their own bias.

Everyone know that the nuclear family is breaking down, but Lumby is not worried. She thinks it is good that "rigid roles" are crumbling, as this gives people the personal responsibility for shaping their lives. But the vital question of  what values held by these people is not addressed by Lumby. She implies that "free" choice alone gives good outcomes.

For tens of thousands of years humans have lived in kinship groupings. The rise of patriarchy and the state have wrested power from these personal groupings. The industrial revolution reduced the family to its most basic unit: the nuclear family. In terms of human history the nuclear family, that hotbed of neurosis, is an aberration, and even it is crumbling fast.

Lumby's case for TV is brief. She states, "Children's television is frequently highly educational, as well as relaxing and entertaining." (p.85) Also, "children take characters and stories from TV into their play and their fantasy life and create highly imaginative new narratives with them." (p.94) These are her only arguments for kid's TV, and she does not delve into the subject any further. This is very flimsy stuff from a so-called academic.

Lumby should learn how the human brain works. One enlightening work is Evolution's End (1993) by Joseph Chilton Pearce. He explains the brain has three sections: the reptilian brain or R-system, the limbic system, and the neocortex. The images and sound from TV can be handled solely by the reptilian brain. The TV signals don't have to go on to the higher sections of the brain. Pearce explains that imagination produces images from within the brain itself, using the higher systems. Simply seeing images is not using the imagination. Because it engages only the reptilian brain, TV inhibits the development of the higher brain functions, including the imagination.This could be an important factor in problems with literacy. Lumby makes no mention of Pearce's important work in her book.

Pearce elaborates on the importance of imagination:

"Having no inner imaging capacity leaves most of the brain unemployed, and a child who can't imagine not only can't learn, but has no hope in general. He or she can't 'imagine' an inner scenario to replace the outer one, so feels victimized by the environment. A recent study showed that unimaginative children are far more prone to violence that imaginative children, because they can't imagine an alternative when direct sensory information is threatening, insulting, unpleasant or unrewarding. They lash out against unpleasantness in typical R-system defensiveness, while the imaginative can imagine an alternative, that is . Create images not present to the sensory-system that offer a way out. True playing is the ability to play with one's reality. Thus imagination gives resiliency, flexibility, endurance, and the capacity to forego immediate reward on behalf of long term strategies." (p.168)

These words from Pearce lead to an even more serious problem. Much of the media aimed at kids is exploitive and designed to demolish their very identity. An example is the magazine Dolly I perused, which is directed to young teenage girls. Among the articles were a superficial interview with some bimbo actress, one on a manufactured all girl pop group who were dressed like hookers, and about a teenage girl in jail. The magazine was packed with glossy ads, and had some "giveaways." It struck me that the magazine was totally exploitive in that it did not treat it's readers as autonomous beings with a life outside the magazine. The whole aim of the magazine is to hook the readers onto its banal content and products and destroy self will. The same can be said of TV and other media.

In her study of British girls' magazines 1915-1950, Constructing Girlhood (1995), Penny Tinkler
lists well known writers featured in the Girl's Own Paper. Over 50% of its contents were devoted to articles on living abroad, nature, religion, foreign language, crafts, sports, girls' clubs, books and careers. School-Days had articles on craft, cookery, dress-making, tennis, hockey, natures study, films, poetry, plus puzzles, quizzes and pen pals. Compared to magazines of today, at least some magazines of yesteryear treated their readers as complete people with their own identity and having a life outside the magazine. Today the aim of media is to crush identity completely. This helps explain various addictions, where people who have had their coping capabilities devastated seek escape by blocking out life. Naturally Lumby doesn't raise these matters.

There are many examples of Lumby's shallow thought. She asks how can TV make kids passive and hyperactive. The fact is TV requires the minimum of brainpower: the viewer simply vegetates while watching. After a TV session, the child has much pent up energy which needs release. More and more I see small children just running around yelling to release energy. This indicates they do not have constructive outlets.

Excessive weight is a problem in kids and adults, and TV comes into the discussion. Lumby says TV doesn't make kids fat because they sit down to do various things. She does not address the fact that TV advertises junk food which makes the kids fat, nor that TV watching induces the nibbling of junk food. Various biscuits and snacks are labeled as "TV snacks." She tries to evade the issue of excessive weight and obesity by saying their measurement is unreliable and open to question. Lumby suggests junk food should be given now and then as a "treat." This is like saying to a wine connoisseur to drink cheap sherry for a "treat." If kids ate healthy food their tastebuds would reject junk food.

Lumby supports advertising directed at kids. She writes that we have a consumer society, so kids have to learn to live with it. She says kids are very savvy and not easily influenced by the ads. This is the very argument admen use to justify their assault on kids. Lumby claims that ads are not remembered by pre-schoolers, and older kids parody ads in the playground. Her claims are open to question. Advertisers are not fools. Why would they spend billions a year on something that was not working for them? If kids parody ads, this is a victory for the admen. It means the kids have remembered the ads, and they are influencing their lives. If the ads have minimal effect, as suggested by Lumby, how come kids grow up into consumers?

In her illuminating book, Consuming Kids: the Hostile Take Over of Childhood (2004), Susan Linn went undercover to an advertising conference aimed at kids. She was appalled at the clinical and ruthless approach to exploiting kids. The admen well know it's best to get them when they are young. High powered effort goes into planning the ads that will be most effective in influencing the kids. Lumby does not discuss this matter. She falsely portrays the admen as the weaker participants, battling almost superhuman resistance from the kids.

Lumby is not too concerned about kids being exposed to violent images. She drags out the usual excuses, including the claim that simulated violence is not a worry because it is not "real."Again, Lumby ignores the working of the brain. Images are received by the lower brain, bypassing the higher brain. Whether violence is real or simulated, it is the same thing to the lower brain. The lower brain cannot reason. If you look at a picture of gore and say "It's just make believe," this does not change the perceptions of the lower brain. Depictions of violence degrade everyone involved, including the viewer.

The authors completely ignore important works on the deleterious effects of TV. I have already mentioned Joseph C. Pearce. Some other significant works are Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander, The Plug-In Drug by Marie Winn, and Consuming Kids by Susan Linn. This is further evidence that Lumby and co. are not serious about presenting an objective case.

The authors gloss over what is really happening to people in consumer society today. They ignore many serious problems which affect kids and adults. These include bullying, eating disorders, hyperactivity, depression, person abuse, substance abuse, and so on. If the kids are alright, how come an estimated 5 million American kids are made to take a drug (Ritalin) to get through the day? It is estimated that above 55,000 Australian kids are on Ritalin. A while ago the Bush government allowed Prozac to be given to kids aged 7 to 17. What sort of a society is it that has to give people drugs to carry on? Bullying is a serious problem in schools and the workplace, and governments too are bullying their citizens. A recent survey found that the major health problem facing Australian women aged 15 to 44 was domestic violence. The list goes on. Professor Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year for 2003, has written and spoken widely on problems facing kids today, yet her works are not mentioned by our authors. Simply, Lumby and Fine support the commercial values that are ripping society apart. Their book is a nasty work that condones the callous exploitation of children which is so prevalent today.