Hi everyone!
Since I last posted, Australia officially has a new government! Three cheers for the new Labor government headed by Kevin Rudd!
I do not necessarily support everything they support. In fact, I was hoping the Liberal party would win the election. But God has placed the Labor party in power at such a time as this, and He did so with a reason.
It makes me really grieved and mad to see so many Australians tearing our government apart by their words. I mean- hey- ruling Australia isn't exactly the easiest job around. Quite the opposite in fact. Just because the government makes mistakes doesn't mean we all should come like a ton of bricks on them. After all, it isn't as if they wanted to make the mistakes and let the Aussies 'rail' at them.
I really pray that God will guide and lead our government, that Rudd will be a God-fearing and upright leader for Australia.
God bless Australia!
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Friday, 2 November 2007
Home Education vs Public Schooling
Education is one of the most important priorities today, so much so that most countries have their own institutions and ministries whose sole purpose is to develop better education systems to further their citizens’ education—yet among all the ambitious school mongering going on around in the world, who will go to what school and which school is the better one to attend, there are families who have chosen to not let their children go to school at all.
These families keep their kids at home to study.
Home schooling goes way back in time, up to the time when humans first existed—in fact, if you think about it, “school” as we know it is very much a modern concept.
In those days, parents home-schooled because it was the norm of educating a child—teach them to speak, read, write at home, and later apprentice them to a trade.
However, parents today each have their individual reasons for choosing the narrow path of educating their child at home.
Mr Bruce Coombe shares his reason for home educating his four kids in Victoria.
“During our first child's first year at school we became increasingly concerned about how he was being negatively influenced by his peers. We found it very difficult to counteract that influence, no matter how hard we tried. We watched his character deteriorate from a responsible caring little boy to an irresponsible, angry, hurt, brat, despite that fact that he was attending a Christian school and had a wonderful prep teacher whom we loved. We realized that the influence of thirty 'stupid/silly' six year olds, for six hours a day five days a week was only going to be destructive to our child's character,” said Mr Coombe.
Do you remember those days when you were ignored because you were not “cool” enough for your “friends”, and the only way to earn “redemption” was for you to fit in with the rest—but you have a niggling doubt in the pit of your stomach that fitting in with the rest would mean doing something you would be later ashamed of?
That is precisely what these parents are trying to defend their children from.
Ms Kathryn Harrison, a home schooled student realized this when she said, “Home schooling is a great way to teach young people to not be peer dependant, and therefore abstaining from destructive activities and applying your mind to the betterment of the world instead of worrying about what everyone else is doing and keeping up.”
However, the desire to protect their young charges from destructive influences in school is not the only reason these parents home educate—what most of the home schooling parents gave as their first reason for home educating their children was their belief that God specifically gave them the responsibility of teaching their children from the Bible.
Mr Yong Huat Lo and Mrs Clare Lo of Telok Blangah in Singapore chose to home educate their five children because “…God has specific instruction that the responsibility in educating our children lies in the hands of the parents. Education of our children is not the state's responsibility.”
Mr Bruce Coombe said, “Our highest motivation for deciding to home school our children was to disciple them in our Christian faith… We had no doubt that they would do well academically… this wasn't a high priority for us.”
For those cheering on the implementation of the outcome-based education in Australia, let me tell you that home schooling is entirely an outcome-based education, and if the government can see the merits of having an outcome-based education implemented in schools, you will be able to realize just how powerful a teaching lifestyle it is.
With 25 or more students in a class, it is quite impossible to let each student in school study at their own pace, but this is where home-educated students have the better of their peers.
Home-schooled students study at their own pace—they are not forced to study faster or slower, according to the speed of 20 other students in class.
They can also study topics that actually interest them without going into those that do not, thus saving them a lot of time otherwise wasted on plodding through material that they probably will not use again.
20-year-old Charmagne Smith from Palmerston, New Zealand said, “I enjoyed having my studies made to fit me, to reflect the most important things in my life, and the things I needed to learn most.”
“My favourite part of home-schooling is probably the flexibility available with study hours. This flexibility allows me to work as long as I need to on one subject or project. Home also provides an ideal study environment, helping me to develop the self-discipline that is needed not only in tertiary education, but also in life,” said 16-year-old Amelia Boissevain from Melbourne.
Statistically, home-education has its merits.
Dr Brian Ray, an internationally known researcher, educator, speaker, expert witness and president of the National Home Education Research Institute, wrote, “The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests.”
“The home-educated are doing well, typically above average, on measures of social, emotional, and psychological development. Research measures include peer interaction, self-concept, leadership skills, family cohesion, participation in community service, and self-esteem.”
Dr Ray also went on to say that research showed home-educated adults to be more active participants of local communities and public meetings than the general populous and that they are also equally if not more successful at college than the general population.
Perhaps the two drawbacks of home-education was the lack of accreditation and the lack of social mingling—and I say was because it is not so much the case anymore.
Certain home-education institutions are authorized to give accreditation to home-schooled students, and if they need a college degree in the career they wish to pursue, they can prepare and sit such tertiary entrance exams as the internationally recognized Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).
Also, many home-education institutions have been created to support the home schooling community, particularly in organizing social activities where the students may come together to learn and participate in team building activities.
“I think that the benefits of home-schooling greatly outweigh the drawbacks,” said Ms Grace Wong, a home-schooled student in Cootamundra, NSW.
Have I said enough to set you pining for me to reveal the magical ingredient of home schooling so that you can churn out great geniuses of your own?
Well, if it is a magic ingredient you are after, I am sorry to disappoint you for there is no such ingredient—rather, successful students are the result of the patience, diligence, perseverance, and commitment of both parents and children in developing character.
I have it on good authority—because I studied using this curriculum for six years—that the biblically based Advanced Training Institute curriculum covers no less than Greek, English, History, Math, Science, Law and Medicine!
But one can have all knowledge and yet be a spoiled, undisciplined—how did Mr Coombe put it—brat whom no one wants to be associated with, much less work with!
It is not enough to the home-educating parents that their children grow up learning to withstand peer pressure and be academically learned—they want their children to have character qualities that will set them apart from others, and stand them in good stead through life.
Parents drive at developing character qualities such as one would not find in school—mind you, not necessarily because the teachers are poor role models, or the curriculum bad, but because of the incessant bombarding of conflicting influences.
It is like bending a piece of paper one way, bending it the other way, and then bending it back in the opposite direction 20 times—once you are done, the paper is not going to be able to remain straight, but rather be blown about by every wind of manipulation that comes around.
Mr Craig Smith, the founder and editor of the Home Education Foundation in New Zealand said, “If one has sterling character qualities, including a great work ethic, the kind a parent can easily train into a child, but which are impossible to develop in a school setting, the child will never lack a job and will be sought after at all times.”
The Jews have a history of home educating their children until they reach an appropriate age to be apprenticed to a trade of their choosing, and one cannot say that they have not done well for themselves—why look at the Jews, reputed to be richer than Queen Elizabeth herself!
That and the fact that most home-schoolers want to home-school their own children because of the advantages they themselves received from being home-schooled speak volumes on the effectiveness of home education.
Perhaps there is something to home education after all.
These families keep their kids at home to study.
Home schooling goes way back in time, up to the time when humans first existed—in fact, if you think about it, “school” as we know it is very much a modern concept.
In those days, parents home-schooled because it was the norm of educating a child—teach them to speak, read, write at home, and later apprentice them to a trade.
However, parents today each have their individual reasons for choosing the narrow path of educating their child at home.
Mr Bruce Coombe shares his reason for home educating his four kids in Victoria.
“During our first child's first year at school we became increasingly concerned about how he was being negatively influenced by his peers. We found it very difficult to counteract that influence, no matter how hard we tried. We watched his character deteriorate from a responsible caring little boy to an irresponsible, angry, hurt, brat, despite that fact that he was attending a Christian school and had a wonderful prep teacher whom we loved. We realized that the influence of thirty 'stupid/silly' six year olds, for six hours a day five days a week was only going to be destructive to our child's character,” said Mr Coombe.
Do you remember those days when you were ignored because you were not “cool” enough for your “friends”, and the only way to earn “redemption” was for you to fit in with the rest—but you have a niggling doubt in the pit of your stomach that fitting in with the rest would mean doing something you would be later ashamed of?
That is precisely what these parents are trying to defend their children from.
Ms Kathryn Harrison, a home schooled student realized this when she said, “Home schooling is a great way to teach young people to not be peer dependant, and therefore abstaining from destructive activities and applying your mind to the betterment of the world instead of worrying about what everyone else is doing and keeping up.”
However, the desire to protect their young charges from destructive influences in school is not the only reason these parents home educate—what most of the home schooling parents gave as their first reason for home educating their children was their belief that God specifically gave them the responsibility of teaching their children from the Bible.
Mr Yong Huat Lo and Mrs Clare Lo of Telok Blangah in Singapore chose to home educate their five children because “…God has specific instruction that the responsibility in educating our children lies in the hands of the parents. Education of our children is not the state's responsibility.”
Mr Bruce Coombe said, “Our highest motivation for deciding to home school our children was to disciple them in our Christian faith… We had no doubt that they would do well academically… this wasn't a high priority for us.”
For those cheering on the implementation of the outcome-based education in Australia, let me tell you that home schooling is entirely an outcome-based education, and if the government can see the merits of having an outcome-based education implemented in schools, you will be able to realize just how powerful a teaching lifestyle it is.
With 25 or more students in a class, it is quite impossible to let each student in school study at their own pace, but this is where home-educated students have the better of their peers.
Home-schooled students study at their own pace—they are not forced to study faster or slower, according to the speed of 20 other students in class.
They can also study topics that actually interest them without going into those that do not, thus saving them a lot of time otherwise wasted on plodding through material that they probably will not use again.
20-year-old Charmagne Smith from Palmerston, New Zealand said, “I enjoyed having my studies made to fit me, to reflect the most important things in my life, and the things I needed to learn most.”
“My favourite part of home-schooling is probably the flexibility available with study hours. This flexibility allows me to work as long as I need to on one subject or project. Home also provides an ideal study environment, helping me to develop the self-discipline that is needed not only in tertiary education, but also in life,” said 16-year-old Amelia Boissevain from Melbourne.
Statistically, home-education has its merits.
Dr Brian Ray, an internationally known researcher, educator, speaker, expert witness and president of the National Home Education Research Institute, wrote, “The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests.”
“The home-educated are doing well, typically above average, on measures of social, emotional, and psychological development. Research measures include peer interaction, self-concept, leadership skills, family cohesion, participation in community service, and self-esteem.”
Dr Ray also went on to say that research showed home-educated adults to be more active participants of local communities and public meetings than the general populous and that they are also equally if not more successful at college than the general population.
Perhaps the two drawbacks of home-education was the lack of accreditation and the lack of social mingling—and I say was because it is not so much the case anymore.
Certain home-education institutions are authorized to give accreditation to home-schooled students, and if they need a college degree in the career they wish to pursue, they can prepare and sit such tertiary entrance exams as the internationally recognized Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).
Also, many home-education institutions have been created to support the home schooling community, particularly in organizing social activities where the students may come together to learn and participate in team building activities.
“I think that the benefits of home-schooling greatly outweigh the drawbacks,” said Ms Grace Wong, a home-schooled student in Cootamundra, NSW.
Have I said enough to set you pining for me to reveal the magical ingredient of home schooling so that you can churn out great geniuses of your own?
Well, if it is a magic ingredient you are after, I am sorry to disappoint you for there is no such ingredient—rather, successful students are the result of the patience, diligence, perseverance, and commitment of both parents and children in developing character.
I have it on good authority—because I studied using this curriculum for six years—that the biblically based Advanced Training Institute curriculum covers no less than Greek, English, History, Math, Science, Law and Medicine!
But one can have all knowledge and yet be a spoiled, undisciplined—how did Mr Coombe put it—brat whom no one wants to be associated with, much less work with!
It is not enough to the home-educating parents that their children grow up learning to withstand peer pressure and be academically learned—they want their children to have character qualities that will set them apart from others, and stand them in good stead through life.
Parents drive at developing character qualities such as one would not find in school—mind you, not necessarily because the teachers are poor role models, or the curriculum bad, but because of the incessant bombarding of conflicting influences.
It is like bending a piece of paper one way, bending it the other way, and then bending it back in the opposite direction 20 times—once you are done, the paper is not going to be able to remain straight, but rather be blown about by every wind of manipulation that comes around.
Mr Craig Smith, the founder and editor of the Home Education Foundation in New Zealand said, “If one has sterling character qualities, including a great work ethic, the kind a parent can easily train into a child, but which are impossible to develop in a school setting, the child will never lack a job and will be sought after at all times.”
The Jews have a history of home educating their children until they reach an appropriate age to be apprenticed to a trade of their choosing, and one cannot say that they have not done well for themselves—why look at the Jews, reputed to be richer than Queen Elizabeth herself!
That and the fact that most home-schoolers want to home-school their own children because of the advantages they themselves received from being home-schooled speak volumes on the effectiveness of home education.
Perhaps there is something to home education after all.
Madeline McCann and the Battle of Kruger
I have just read an account of Madeline McCann’s disappearance from the hotel room in Portugal in a public forum that seemed so analogous with the Youtube video of ‘Battle at Krugar’.
In that video, some inexperienced lions caught a baby buffalo and managed to drag it down to the edge of the water where they grabbed the throat of the calf and tried their best to suffocate the young life out of it.
A crocodile saw easy food, and started gate crashing for its lunch—it was later joined by another crocodile.
The lions ‘won’ the fight and managed to drag the young calf to dry land without being disturbed by the crocodiles.
However, unbeknownst to the young lions, the calf’s parents went back and regrouped the whole herd of buffalos to come and save the calf.
Those taking the footage murmured “It is too late, it is dead by now.”
But no—the young life was resilient enough to struggle to its feet by the time the buffalo herd rushed back to chase the lions away, and was received back into the herd safely (despite being mauled by the lions and fought over by crocodiles).
Madeline is the calf, and her parents the lions.
They may have tried to cap the young life, and outside commentators may think that they’ve succeeded in doing so, but young life is resilient, and I’ve no doubt that Madeline may still be resurrected from her grave of dark secrets.
The parents may have won the battle against the police, cleaning away and disguising any evidence that may incriminate them, but they have quite forgotten the public ‘herd’.
That they think such a story can escape public attention shows how inexperienced they are—child abductions and murders never escape public notice, and the wrongdoer/s will find public retribution very difficult to escape from.
If the parents had a hand in killing young Madeline, they can be sure that they will be in as much trouble as the young and inexperienced lions videoed in the ‘Battle of Kruger’.
Character Kids at Hilton
Attending Character Kids at Hilton Progress Hall every Sunday afternoon is probably the closest the deprived children of Hilton get to a complete makeover.
The neighbourhood kids, mostly Aboriginals, are being taught about God every Sunday in Hilton Progress Hall by a faithful team from Evangel Christian Fellowship based in Murdoch.
This Sunday class evolved from “Ark in the Park,” a children’s Bible program which still runs every alternate Thursday in the small park between Joslin Street and Griffiths Place.
“I felt that having fortnightly Bible lessons were inadequate, so I began an evening service on Monday night which was later changed to the Sunday afternoon “Character Kids at Hilton,” said Mrs Curran, the founder of “Ark in the Park” and “Character Kids at Hilton”
Ms Simrath Bhullar oversees Character Kids at Hilton.
“At 2:45pm, we set up while the bus and the van goes out for pickup, and as the kids come in, we play pre-games up to 3:20pm, when we officially start,” said Ms Bhullar.
After games, they sing songs, learn about God—through a skit or activity—and then split up into small craft groups.
The craft, usually something simple to make but pretty, is split into segments to last for the whole month.
After craft, the kids are seated on the carpets again, and are given pizzas and cordial to snack on before the bus and van drops them back home again.
When asked what he liked about Character Kids, nine-year-old Jesse Maselli said, “Soccer, games and eating.”
“My favourite is the art, ‘cos we get to do cool things,” said Kirsty Pellington, a 10-year-old attendee.
But not only do the kids have fun, more importantly, they learn something that will help them through life—good character.
“It was hard going at first, but now they’ve changed because there is a consistency in their lives. Character Kids has become a consistent happening in their lives, and they need that,” said Ms Bhullar.
“They actually sit down and listen and have become polite and responsible—they also demonstrate gratefulness and respect for authority.”
“Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the three things man seek—once these kids find Jesus, He will change their whole outlook on life,” Ms Bhullar said.
The Hilton kids are getting a makeover—not the fashion makeovers you see on TV, but a character makeover that will affect their lives for the better.
The neighbourhood kids, mostly Aboriginals, are being taught about God every Sunday in Hilton Progress Hall by a faithful team from Evangel Christian Fellowship based in Murdoch.
This Sunday class evolved from “Ark in the Park,” a children’s Bible program which still runs every alternate Thursday in the small park between Joslin Street and Griffiths Place.
“I felt that having fortnightly Bible lessons were inadequate, so I began an evening service on Monday night which was later changed to the Sunday afternoon “Character Kids at Hilton,” said Mrs Curran, the founder of “Ark in the Park” and “Character Kids at Hilton”
Ms Simrath Bhullar oversees Character Kids at Hilton.
“At 2:45pm, we set up while the bus and the van goes out for pickup, and as the kids come in, we play pre-games up to 3:20pm, when we officially start,” said Ms Bhullar.
After games, they sing songs, learn about God—through a skit or activity—and then split up into small craft groups.
The craft, usually something simple to make but pretty, is split into segments to last for the whole month.
After craft, the kids are seated on the carpets again, and are given pizzas and cordial to snack on before the bus and van drops them back home again.
When asked what he liked about Character Kids, nine-year-old Jesse Maselli said, “Soccer, games and eating.”
“My favourite is the art, ‘cos we get to do cool things,” said Kirsty Pellington, a 10-year-old attendee.
But not only do the kids have fun, more importantly, they learn something that will help them through life—good character.
“It was hard going at first, but now they’ve changed because there is a consistency in their lives. Character Kids has become a consistent happening in their lives, and they need that,” said Ms Bhullar.
“They actually sit down and listen and have become polite and responsible—they also demonstrate gratefulness and respect for authority.”
“Jesus said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the three things man seek—once these kids find Jesus, He will change their whole outlook on life,” Ms Bhullar said.
The Hilton kids are getting a makeover—not the fashion makeovers you see on TV, but a character makeover that will affect their lives for the better.
Luck according to Professor Richard Wiseman
Are you among the 90% unlucky enough to overlook an A4 notice in size 40 font detailing a golden opportunity to win $1,000,000 for something as simple as spotting that notice?
If so, then perhaps you should enrol in The Luck School founded by Professor Wiseman to help unlucky people find luck by changing the way they think.
According to Prof Wiseman in a public lecture he gave at UWA, being lucky is all in the mind because there is a silver lining under every cloud—finding it depends on the amount of effort and creativity you spend searching for it.
When faced with the same set of ‘bad’ circumstances, lucky people believe that it is the best thing in the long run that could happen to them, and unlucky people believe that they were fated to bad luck.
“The difference between lucky and unlucky people is the way they look at the world,” Prof Wiseman said.
It was because Prof Wiseman discovered that unlucky people stuck to their views of being unlucky that he founded The Luck School.
The school cultivates two main qualities: flexibility and gratitude.
Those are two important attributes to have because a flexible person will not be stressed or anxious about changes, and a grateful person will be content with their circumstances, no matter how ‘unlucky’ it is.
After much research, Prof Wiseman compiled four principles that compose a lucky person.
A lucky person creates opportunities for himself, believes in having lucky hunches, expects good fortune, and turns ‘bad luck’ into good by changing his perspective.
It is because of these principles that all students in The Luck School have to keep a luck diary for recording all the circumstances in ‘bad’ situations, as well as the perspective they had of it—and later, any changes of that perspective.
This encourages them to be more alert and creative in making opportunities for themselves, be more hopeful in expecting good fortune, and becomes a means of catharsis for them to express their feelings.
After attending The Luck School, ‘unlucky’ students have changed their view of the following for the better: family life, financial life, health, life in general, etc—in other words, they turned ‘lucky’.
Don’t hesitate—get in the queue to join this one-of-a-kind school and turn your tide of bad luck into good luck by changing your perspective!
If so, then perhaps you should enrol in The Luck School founded by Professor Wiseman to help unlucky people find luck by changing the way they think.
According to Prof Wiseman in a public lecture he gave at UWA, being lucky is all in the mind because there is a silver lining under every cloud—finding it depends on the amount of effort and creativity you spend searching for it.
When faced with the same set of ‘bad’ circumstances, lucky people believe that it is the best thing in the long run that could happen to them, and unlucky people believe that they were fated to bad luck.
“The difference between lucky and unlucky people is the way they look at the world,” Prof Wiseman said.
It was because Prof Wiseman discovered that unlucky people stuck to their views of being unlucky that he founded The Luck School.
The school cultivates two main qualities: flexibility and gratitude.
Those are two important attributes to have because a flexible person will not be stressed or anxious about changes, and a grateful person will be content with their circumstances, no matter how ‘unlucky’ it is.
After much research, Prof Wiseman compiled four principles that compose a lucky person.
A lucky person creates opportunities for himself, believes in having lucky hunches, expects good fortune, and turns ‘bad luck’ into good by changing his perspective.
It is because of these principles that all students in The Luck School have to keep a luck diary for recording all the circumstances in ‘bad’ situations, as well as the perspective they had of it—and later, any changes of that perspective.
This encourages them to be more alert and creative in making opportunities for themselves, be more hopeful in expecting good fortune, and becomes a means of catharsis for them to express their feelings.
After attending The Luck School, ‘unlucky’ students have changed their view of the following for the better: family life, financial life, health, life in general, etc—in other words, they turned ‘lucky’.
Don’t hesitate—get in the queue to join this one-of-a-kind school and turn your tide of bad luck into good luck by changing your perspective!
Broadcast Journalism
Radio is fun!!! I just came back from a tutorial on radio journalism. It was a hands on tute, so my tutor brought us to the Murdoch Radio studios and got us to read aloud from a news script. It was really, really fun, well maybe not the reading aloud into the microphone with a earphone on my head, but making up stuff to interview others and fiddling around with the recording (putting background music) was awesome. :D
Jodie and I put together an interview... it isn't very good, but it was really fun doing it. Welcome to Murdoch Radio News! :P
You could try it yourself with a mic and a recording software. :)
Jodie and I put together an interview... it isn't very good, but it was really fun doing it. Welcome to Murdoch Radio News! :P
You could try it yourself with a mic and a recording software. :)
Thursday, 1 November 2007
AJA Code of Ethics
Okay... I didn't mean for this post to be so boring. I wanted to upload a video of Australia that I created before going to Europe. I made that so that the other people in my group could learn a little bit of Australia and see what it is like here. However, the file couldn't upload- for some reason. Maybe it's too big. :(
So I've decided to just post the Australian Journalists Association's Code of Ethics that I'm trying to memorise at the moment for the test coming up on monday. It's amazing, the kind of boring stuff they make you memorise at uni!! Memorising the geneologies in the Bible have to be more interesting!
But this isn't too bad, so don't worry. :P
AJA Code of Ethics
Preamble: Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many jounalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsiblities. They sctutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilites. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to
Honesty
Fairness
Independence
Respect for the rights of others
1. Report and interpret honesty, striving for accuracy, fairness, and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.
2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.
3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.
4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.
6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.
7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.
8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.
9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.
10. Do not plagiarise.
11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.
Guidance Clause: Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.
Boring, huh? Told you so... Oh yeah. In order not to breach code 10, here's the link: http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
"Purity Ring" Schoolgirl goes to High Court
This article can be found at Reuters.
LONDON (Reuters) - A teenage schoolgirl will appeal to the High Court on Friday to overturn a ban on her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolize her decision to abstain from sex before marriage.
Lydia Playfoot, 16, from West Sussex, says the silver ring is an expression of her faith and should be exempt from the school's rules on wearing jewellery.
"It is really important to me because in the Bible it says we should do this," she told BBC radio. "Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves and other faiths can wear bangles and other types of jewellery. It feels like Christians are being discriminated against."
Playfoot's lawyers will argue that her right to express religious belief is upheld by the Human Rights Act.
There have been a series of rows in schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.
Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools.
Lydia Playfoot's parents help run the British arm of the American campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, which promotes abstinence among young people.
Members wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with "Thess. 4:3-4," a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin."
Lydia's father, Phil Playfoot, said his daughter's case was part of a wider cultural trend towards Christians being "silenced."
"What I would describe as a secular fundamentalism is coming to the fore, which really wants to silence certain beliefs, and Christian views in particular," he said.Leon Nettley, head teacher of Millais School in Horsham, denies discrimination, saying the ring contravenes the school's rules on wearing jewellery.
"The school is not convinced pupils' rights have been interfered with by the application of the uniform policy," he told the Brighton-based Argus newspaper. "The school has a clearly published uniform policy and sets high standards."
Sometimes I wonder whether it really is good to do this sort of thing. It is right to stand up for what you believe, but the ring only symbolises what you already believe in. It is not a charm that will prevent sexual immorality. I think that if Lydia believes in remaining pure before marriage, she does not need the ring. Her inner conviction is enough. And if she wants to share her conviction with her friends, why then, she only has to tell them so! The Bible also says that we are to obey our authorities. By placing Lydia in Millais School, the parents are giving authority to the teachers and the Principal. Lydia has to obey them UNLESS their commands/rules contravenes God's higher commands.
Man set for execution wants to die laughing
By Jim Forsyth from Reuters
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas man scheduled to be executed on Tuesday wants to die laughing.
Patrick Knight, 39, has been soliciting jokes on the Internet and plans to tell one of them before receiving a lethal injection, Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said on Monday.
"He says he wants to keep his execution light," she said.
Knight was sentenced to die for the August 1991 murder of his two elderly neighbors in Amarillo, Texas.
Lyons said a friend of Knight's set up a page on the social networking Web site MySpace.com to solicit jokes, and "hundreds" of suggestions have arrived in the mail.
"I'll be enjoying my last days on Earth," Knight wrote on the Web site. "I'm not asking for pen pals, but I'm asking you to spread the word that I am holding a contest. I want people to send me their best jokes, and to keep me and others with (execution) dates laughing."
Texas leads the nation with 396 executions. None of those put to death have ever joked about it, Lyons said.
"We've certainly had some people who have recited a poem or a Bible verse, some people who have asked forgiveness or who pray," she said. "This is, to my knowledge, the first time anybody has told a joke as their last words."
While she says Knight will be allowed to tell his joke, none of his executioners in the state death chamber at the Walls prison unit in Huntsville, Texas will be laughing, Lyons said.
"Everybody who is there takes it very seriously and will not be participating in the joke," she said. "So knock-knock jokes are out."
Your laugh won't last very long, Knight.... I wish I could advise you to put your search to something of far greater worth.Sigh...
Saturday, 2 June 2007
You have got to try this!
At the end of this message, you are asked a question.
Answer it immediately. Don't stop and think about it.
Just say the first thing that pops into your mind.
This is a fun "test"... AND kind of spooky at the same time! Give it a try, then e-mail it around (including back to me) and you'll see how many people you know fall into the same percentage as you. Be sure to put in the subject line if you are among the 98% or the 2%. You'll understand what that means after you finish taking the test".
Now... just follow the instructions as quickly as possible.
Do not go to the next calculation before you have finished the previous one.
You do not ever need to write or remember the answers, just do it using your mind.
You'll be surprised.
Start:
How much is:
15 + 6
3 + 56
89 + 2
12 + 53
75 + 26
25 + 52
63 + 32
I know! Calculations are hard work, but it's nearly over..
Come on, one more!
123 + 5
QUICK! THINK ABOUT A COLOR AND A TOOL!
Scroll further to the bottom....
A bit more...
You just thought about a red hammer ! , didn't you?
If this is not your answer, you are among 2% of people who have a different, if not abnormal, mind.
98% of the folks would answer a red hammer while doing this exercise.
If you do not believe this, pass it around and you'll see.
Be sure to put in the subject line if you are among the 98% or the 2% and send to everyone, including the person that sent it to you.
P.S. I can't believe it!! I actually thought of a red hammer! Guess I'm not so unique anymore... ;)
At the end of this message, you are asked a question.
Answer it immediately. Don't stop and think about it.
Just say the first thing that pops into your mind.
This is a fun "test"... AND kind of spooky at the same time! Give it a try, then e-mail it around (including back to me) and you'll see how many people you know fall into the same percentage as you. Be sure to put in the subject line if you are among the 98% or the 2%. You'll understand what that means after you finish taking the test".
Now... just follow the instructions as quickly as possible.
Do not go to the next calculation before you have finished the previous one.
You do not ever need to write or remember the answers, just do it using your mind.
You'll be surprised.
Start:
How much is:
15 + 6
3 + 56
89 + 2
12 + 53
75 + 26
25 + 52
63 + 32
I know! Calculations are hard work, but it's nearly over..
Come on, one more!
123 + 5
QUICK! THINK ABOUT A COLOR AND A TOOL!
Scroll further to the bottom....
A bit more...
You just thought about a red hammer ! , didn't you?
If this is not your answer, you are among 2% of people who have a different, if not abnormal, mind.
98% of the folks would answer a red hammer while doing this exercise.
If you do not believe this, pass it around and you'll see.
Be sure to put in the subject line if you are among the 98% or the 2% and send to everyone, including the person that sent it to you.
P.S. I can't believe it!! I actually thought of a red hammer! Guess I'm not so unique anymore... ;)
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Should Parochial schools be given School Vouchers?
Yes, school vouchers should be allowed for parochial schools if the schools deserve it.
I don't see why parochial schools should be excluded from being 'publicised' if teh schools really do deserve it. Just because the school is taught differently from the traditional schools doesn't mean that it is all the worse for it, and should be excluded from benefits.
Not only that, but from the students and parent's perspective, parochial school vouchers should also be allowed. This enlarges the student's choice of schools, and hey, why not? If the parents are so adverse to their children learning in a parochial school, then don't enroll them there! But for the parents who would like their children to be educated in a parochial school (maybe for religious reasons), issuing a school voucher to a parochial schools would save them a lot of time in having to appeal for their child to be allowed to attend a parochial school.
Also, one of the purposes behind the school vouchers were to encourage free market competition between the schools. This competition would force 'bad' schools to review their education system and improve themselves. Parochial schools should also be given that opportunity.
School vouchers should definitely be allowed for Parochial schools.
I don't see why parochial schools should be excluded from being 'publicised' if teh schools really do deserve it. Just because the school is taught differently from the traditional schools doesn't mean that it is all the worse for it, and should be excluded from benefits.
Not only that, but from the students and parent's perspective, parochial school vouchers should also be allowed. This enlarges the student's choice of schools, and hey, why not? If the parents are so adverse to their children learning in a parochial school, then don't enroll them there! But for the parents who would like their children to be educated in a parochial school (maybe for religious reasons), issuing a school voucher to a parochial schools would save them a lot of time in having to appeal for their child to be allowed to attend a parochial school.
Also, one of the purposes behind the school vouchers were to encourage free market competition between the schools. This competition would force 'bad' schools to review their education system and improve themselves. Parochial schools should also be given that opportunity.
School vouchers should definitely be allowed for Parochial schools.
Should public school teachers get merit pay?
Yes, public school teachers should get merit pay to encourage them.
Firstly, there are many different kinds of teachers. Some teach for the money. Some for the experience. Some for the prestige, and some because they enjoy teaching. Teachers who work harder because they sincerely care for the education of their pupils should be rewarded more than the others who just go through the motion daily, teaching, but not understanding.
A good teacher must not only teach, but respond to the individual needs of his/her students. It is getting very difficult to find teachers like this in public schools these days. The sincere teachers who you find in public school are there not so much for the meagre pay but out of duty and care. These teachers should be rewarded. Otherwise, why should any good teacher want to teach in the public school? No incentives, no motivation or encouragement whatsoever. Even the most caring teacher will quit from the lack of encouragement; public school students can be very difficult to teach. Most good teachers will be employed by the better private schools.
But of course, private schools cost more to run, because the teachers fees are higher! So only the well-off students have the benefit of private school education. The poorer students are at a disadvantage. Are they not to get the benefit of having a good education from a caring and sensitive teacher because they are poor, and cannot afford private school education? Of course, one may argue that that's what scholarships are for: for the promising by economically disadvantaged students. But I put to you: how can these poorer students show any promise if they have no one to assist and encourage them? To a teacher who teaches for money, investing their time for these students is not worth it. They are busy! Why should they give away their valuable time for students who may not even prove to become anyone special?
Merit pay then, encourages teachers to invest their time in students, not just the quality ones, but even those who are struggling in their study. Don't forget: students are our future leaders. What we put into their education is what will come back to us.
Firstly, there are many different kinds of teachers. Some teach for the money. Some for the experience. Some for the prestige, and some because they enjoy teaching. Teachers who work harder because they sincerely care for the education of their pupils should be rewarded more than the others who just go through the motion daily, teaching, but not understanding.
A good teacher must not only teach, but respond to the individual needs of his/her students. It is getting very difficult to find teachers like this in public schools these days. The sincere teachers who you find in public school are there not so much for the meagre pay but out of duty and care. These teachers should be rewarded. Otherwise, why should any good teacher want to teach in the public school? No incentives, no motivation or encouragement whatsoever. Even the most caring teacher will quit from the lack of encouragement; public school students can be very difficult to teach. Most good teachers will be employed by the better private schools.
But of course, private schools cost more to run, because the teachers fees are higher! So only the well-off students have the benefit of private school education. The poorer students are at a disadvantage. Are they not to get the benefit of having a good education from a caring and sensitive teacher because they are poor, and cannot afford private school education? Of course, one may argue that that's what scholarships are for: for the promising by economically disadvantaged students. But I put to you: how can these poorer students show any promise if they have no one to assist and encourage them? To a teacher who teaches for money, investing their time for these students is not worth it. They are busy! Why should they give away their valuable time for students who may not even prove to become anyone special?
Merit pay then, encourages teachers to invest their time in students, not just the quality ones, but even those who are struggling in their study. Don't forget: students are our future leaders. What we put into their education is what will come back to us.
Monday, 28 May 2007
Story of Lang Lang
 Lang Lang, a 22-year-old musical prodigy, has been called one of the greatest classical pianists of his generation. (CBS)Quote  "I love the audience. ...It seems like a lot of people watching...the creation of this wonderful work. And then you are at the same time the interpreter. It's like building a bridge to their heart." Lang Lang |
He's more than a mere virtuoso with elastic hands and dazzling dexterity. And he's more than just a supremely talented musician. Lang Lang is also a showman.
As Correspondent Bob Simon reports, Lang Lang is a spellbinding performer with a flair for drama –- strutting, swooning, and wrapping the crowd around his 10 nimble fingers.
"I love the audience, because I love the tension there. Because it seems like a lot of people watching, I mean, the creation of this wonderful work," says Lang Lang. "And then you are at the same time the interpreter. It's like building a bridge to their heart."
If Lang Lang sounds a little dreamy, he often plays that way too, with his eyes closed, head back, cast in a musical trance.
"Every time I play, I try to see the images. For example, I see something. I can see beautiful forest and everything's green," he says.
Lang Lang’s not the only one who sees green. So does his record company, which has hyped him like a rock star. Part Mozart, part MTV, they’re counting on Lang Lang to bring in a new generation of fans.
He embraces the limelight as he embraces everything – eagerly, and with a boyish enthusiasm, as Simon found out when they sifted through the delicacies at a Beijing street market.
"I think this animal can play really good piano," says Lang Lang, looking at an octopus.
Lang Lang’s mind is never very far from his music, which helps when you’re working with the best in the business -- as he did on a remarkable recording with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and maestro Daniel Barenboim.
"I can't describe him as a pianist, because you will only hear in my sentence the jealousy that I and all his colleagues feel," says Barenboim. "I'm sure he didn't show you, but you know, he has 11 fingers. He plays the piano like a cat with 11 fingers."
Lang Lang’s acrobatic mastery of the keyboard is undisputed. But some critics find his showy style indulgent, and say those dreamy swoons get in the way of the music.
"There's something about Lang Lang's playing now where he calls attention to himself, to his own feelings. He’s like a hammy actor," says Anthony Tommasini, chief classical music critic for The New York Times.
He skewered Lang Lang in a ruthless review, calling his playing "slam bang crass."
Tommasini says, "I don't think it does Lang Lang any good to have his very powerful record company promoting him the way it is right now: 'The future of classical music has arrived, Deutsche Gramophone says. His name is Lang Lang.'
"That's a lot of pressure. People come to his concerts now expecting a catharsis, an epiphany, rather than a musical performance."
If it’s a catharsis they want, Lang Lang is more than happy to provide it.
Rachmaninoff’s 3rd Piano Concerto, with one of the most haunting themes in all of classical music, has become his signature piece.
"This piece has driven at least one pianist mad. You know about that," asks Simon.
"Yeah, it drives me crazy," says Lang Lang, laughing.
"Rachmaninoff was this tortured Russian. And here you are...this very young Chinese man, who seems to be full of life and full of optimism, and full of happiness," says Simon. "How can you relate to this music?"
"I think when you play any piece, you are not you anymore," Lang Lang responded. "You are totally into the world of the composer's mind."
Prodigies have a way of silencing the skeptics, and wowing the crowds. Barely out of his teens, Lang Lang has arrived as an overnight sensation -- 22 years in the making.
What distinguishes him from the large number of very talented pianists? "I started early," he says.
Lang Lang began formal lessons when he was 3. At 5, barely able to reach the pedals, he was making Mozart look like child’s play. And if you’re wondering who raised such a boy, you’ve got to follow Lang Lang to the northern Chinese city of Shenyang.
Shenyang is Lang Lang’s hometown, an old, overcrowded industrial city. But for China, not unprosperous. Like so much of the country, it’s poised somewhere between its past, and its future. It’s where 60 Minutes found Lang Lang’s parents.
His father says he decided that Lang Lang was going to be an international star at the age of 2. "We planned to train him. When he was about 1 year old, I took him out on walks," recalls his father. "I would draw on the ground and teach him the musical scale. So it was like, today, he would learn 'Doh.' Tomorrow, he would learn 'Re' -– 'Doh, Re, Mi.'"
Lang Lang’s father spent half his yearly salary – $300 – and bought his son a piano when he was a toddler. In fact, Lang Lang’s destiny was conceived not long after he was. His mother played classical music to him while he was still in her womb.
She said she wanted to become a performer herself: "When I was young, that was my dream."
Lang Lang's mother wanted to be a professional dancer; his father hoped to travel the world as a musician. But their ambitions died an untimely death when they became victims of China’s cultural revolution. Jobs weren’t chosen; they were assigned. And so, like a generation of mothers and fathers living under China’s one-child policy, they sacrificed everything and placed their dreams into the hands of their only hope.
It's a lot of responsibility, but Lang Lang says he "didn't feel the pressure at that time."
"I really didn't," he says. "Because I thought, I mean, I always played really good. And always got the first prize."
Lang Lang may have been the prodigy in his hometown of Shenyang, but if you want to play on the world stage, you’ve got to get out of town first.
When he was just 8, Lang Lang’s parents, who were very happily married, decided to split up just for their son. His mother stayed home in Shenyang, and his father quit his job and took his boy to Beijing so Lang Lang could study in the finest music academy in China.
Their sacrifice paid off. Lang Lang was a standout at the Beijing Conservatory and, at 13, he won the International Tchaikovsky Competition for Young Musicians. But a child doesn’t leave his mother without leaving a few scars, too.
She remembers saying goodbye to her son. "At the time, Lang Lang was very small. It was very hard to say goodbye to him. I can never forget. His mouth was quivering, and then he and I both started up," she recalls. "He cried and I cried. But for his work, for the piano that he loves so much, I let him go."
Lang Lang said goodbye not just to his mother, but also to the comfortable life he lead in Shenyang. In Beijing, he and his father lived for six years in a dingy, unheated apartment, sharing a bathroom with three other families. Was it a painful move? Obviously. But his parents knew that an even bigger move was inevitable.
"You know since you play piano and classical music, this is the road," says Lang Lang, who, at 15, followed that road to America.
He moved with his father to Philadelphia, where he’d won a music scholarship. Then, he received his big break. He was tapped as a last-minute replacement at Chicago’s summer music festival. At 17, Lang Lang found himself being introduced by the legendary violinist Isaac Stern.
"I thought play the best in my life at that time. Absolutely the best," recalls Lang Lang. "They all jumped right after the last note. And I had some good reaction before, but never this kind of [reaction]."
It changed his life forever. International engagements came pouring in, and Lang Lang hasn’t looked back. He plays in 150 concerts a year. But the rewards are beyond measure. At 21, Lang Lang performed a rite of passage into the upper reaches of classical music – a solo debut at Carnegie Hall.
Not bad for a boy from Shenyang.
But our story doesn’t end there. Before the night was over, Lang Lang brought to the stage a special guest, someone who dreamed long ago of playing abroad. His father.
With his traditional Chinese fiddle, Lang Lang’s father accompanied his son in a finale, the likes of which Carnegie Hall had never heard before.
"I think a Chinese folk player, play with his son in Carnegie Hall. I think it's probably the most exciting thing in both of our lives," says Lang Lang
Article from CBS News 28th May, at 3:32pm http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/07/60minutes/main665508.shtml
Friday, 18 May 2007
Man crushed by flying cow!
Jano Gibson
May 18, 2007 - 11:54AM
A man was killed after his car collided with a large cow, sending the creature flying into the air before it landed on the car rooftop and crushed the driver.
Police said the 26-year-old Broome man was driving along the Exmouth-Minilya Road near Carnarvon, in Western Australia, on Wednesday night when his Ford utility smashed into the cow, which was standing in the middle of the road.
"It is believed that the cow had been thrown onto the roof of the car and dented it on the driver's side, crushing the car on impact," WA Police said in a press release.
"The car continued to travel down the road, where it appears the animal has fallen off around 50 metres past the point of impact."
The car veered on and off the road several times before coming to a halt in bushland, police said.
It was not until 9.30am the next morning that a passer-by came across the accident.
The driver's death brought the state's road toll to 98.
Article taken from Fairfax Digital
May 18, 2007 - 11:54AM
A man was killed after his car collided with a large cow, sending the creature flying into the air before it landed on the car rooftop and crushed the driver.
Police said the 26-year-old Broome man was driving along the Exmouth-Minilya Road near Carnarvon, in Western Australia, on Wednesday night when his Ford utility smashed into the cow, which was standing in the middle of the road.
"It is believed that the cow had been thrown onto the roof of the car and dented it on the driver's side, crushing the car on impact," WA Police said in a press release.
"The car continued to travel down the road, where it appears the animal has fallen off around 50 metres past the point of impact."
The car veered on and off the road several times before coming to a halt in bushland, police said.
It was not until 9.30am the next morning that a passer-by came across the accident.
The driver's death brought the state's road toll to 98.
Article taken from Fairfax Digital
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Children and the TV
I came across this article while doing a research on censorship. Quite interesting and relevant. :)
How Television Images Affect Children
by Ron Kaufman
"[A nursery school teacher told me] her children were crudely bopping each other much more than previously, without provocation. When she remonstrated with them, they would protest, "But that's what the Three Stooges do." This attitude did not signify a serious undermining of character. But it certainly showed me that watching violence can lower a child's standards of behavior. Recent psychological experiments have shown that watching brutality stimulates at least slight cruelty in adults, too."
-- Dr. Benjamin Spock, from the book Baby and Child Care, 1968
Fifty-seven percent of television programs contain "psychologically harmful" violence, according to a study funded by the cable television industry. The study, released February 7, 1996, tracked 2,500 hours of television programming. This was the largest sample ever analyzed by researchers.
Oh, that's ridiculous! Television is not harmful, it's just entertainment. But can the steady flow of images watched nightly from television screens across the country be so easily dismissed as simply entertainment? If the sheer volume of absorbed images is considered, how can what is shown on television have no effect on one's own mental images? And if new mental images are created, shouldn't it be logical to say that they can have an effect on behavior?
But the argument that television has a significant effect on children should not rely on studies alone, but on common sense. When a child is placed in front of the television his focus cannot be diverted and his gaze cannot be broken. That child only has eyes for the video screen. The bright colors, quick movements and sudden flashes capture the child's attention. Only the rare child finds the television completely uninteresting. Even if only cartoons are watched, most children find the images presented on the television set mesmerizing.
Television programs have the power to influence a child's entire daily schedule. "They say they that they go to school "after Huckleberry Hound," eat a TV dinner "during Gilligan's Island," and go to bed "after Charlie's Angels," writes Kate Moody in the book, Growing Up On Television. Unsupervised, a child could watch TV constantly -- endlessly.
A widely quoted figure is that, on average, a child watches between four and five hours of television each weekday, and ten hours on Saturday and Sunday. In a July, 1996 speech, President Bill Clinton noted that, "a typical child watches 25,000 hours of television before his or her 18th birthday. Preschoolers watch 28 hours of television a week." In the life of children, watching television is a significant sensory experience. Many children easily spend more time with the box than they do with any other form of entertainment.
"Each year children read less and less and watch television more and more. In fact, Americans of all ages watch more television each year," writes Moody. "The typical child sits in front of the television about four hours a day -- and for children in lower socioeconomic families the amount of time thus spent is even greater. In either case, the child spends more time with TV than he or she spends talking to parents, playing with peers, attending school, or reading books. TV time usurps family time, play time, and the reading time that could promote language development."
Watching TV is a passive event. Children -- and adults -- remain completely immobile while viewing the box. Most viewing experiences, at least among Americans, are both quiet and non-interactive. All attention is given to the images.
"Just like the operating room light, television creates an environment that assaults and overwhelms the child; he can respond to it only by bringing into play his shutdown mechanism, and thus become more passive," states a pediatrician quoted in the Moody book. "I have observed this in my own children, and I have seen it in other people's children. As they sat in front of a television that was blasting away, watching a film of horrors of varying kinds, the children were completely quiet. . . . They were hooked."
Looking at a television screen does not magically remove a child's energy from within him. A highly active child will remain inactive while watching TV because that is what the medium requires. In order to receive stimulation from the television, the child must be passive, and accept the predetermined flow rate of the images. Both mind and body are passive (called an alpha state) allowing the child to concentrate on the vast, and often fast, array of bright pictures.
"The picture on the TV changes every five or six seconds, either by changing the camera angle or cutting to an entirely new scene," writes Moody. "One researcher refers to these events as jolts per minute, noting that as time is cut up, the brain is conditioned to change at the expense of continuity of thought.
"Adults and children are conditioned to instant gratification and crisis at many levels."
Children absorb millions of images from the TV in just one afternoon's viewing session. And what are they watching? If the child's TV set has cable, his choices can range from between 50 and 70 different channels; all of them showing different programs.
But if the most recent survey is accurate, the odds are that what children are watching is probably violent. With funding from the National Cable Television Association, a group of researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara reported in February, 1996 that 57 percent of TV programs contained violence.
The researchers warned that "the risks of viewing the most common depiction of televised violence include learning to behave violently, becoming more desensitized to the harmful consequences of violence and becoming more fearful of being attacked."
This is an important point. Viewing large amounts of TV violence does not necessary cause a child to act more violently, but it can contribute to promoting a view that violence is commonplace in everyday life as well as creating a heightened fear of being assaulted on the street.
The UCLA report also concluded that television shows:
Perpetrators of violent acts go unpunished 73 percent of the time.
About 25 percent of violent acts involve handguns.
Forty-seven percent of violent situations present no harm to the victims and 58 percent depict no pain.
Only 4 percent of violent programs show nonviolent alternatives to solve programs.
Premium movie channels such as Time Warner's HBO and Viacom's Showtime had the highest proportion (85 percent) of violent programming. The broadcast networks had a much lower percentage of violence (44 percent).
Violence on television is not a new phenomena. In 1968, Action for Children's Television (ACT) was formed to try and convince the FCC to limit violence and force the networks to show more educational programs for children. Despite the prodding of ACT, Congress and FCC did nothing to promote children's television. In fact, in 1983, the FCC ruled against providing any provision for children. One response to this ruling was CBS canceling the popular Captain Kangaroo and replacing it with the CBS Morning News.
Finally, 22 years after the creation of ACT, Congress passed the Children's Television Act of 1990 which directed the FCC, in reviewing TV broadcast license renewals, to "consider the extent to which the licensee. . . has served the educational and informational needs of children." Congress also prohibited indecent broadcasts outside of "safe harbor" hours (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), the hours when it is least likely that unsupervised children will be in the audience.
And with the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress requires television manufacturers to install "V-chips" into new sets. With a ratings system designed by the networks themselves, the chip would block out violent programming. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt said he is prepared to force the networks to adopt a system to rate programs. "Instead of fighting the tide of scientific and lay opinion, broadcasters and cable operators who want to show violent material at times when large numbers of children are in the audience should label their shows for violent content. If they adopt such an approach now, they will avoid losing in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion," he said in February, 1996 speech.
In July, 1996, the White House, the four major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) and the National Association of Broadcasters agreed to support a new proposal to require broadcasters to air three hours of quality educational programming each week.
With the government finally taking steps to improve children's television, the focus then must turn to parents. Awareness that excessive TV viewing is not benign and can have serious effects on a child's behavior and attitude is important. Obviously, turning off the set is the best solution.
Otherwise, TV programs should be discussed within the family. Does the violence, sexual attitudes, stereotypes, and advertising methods shown on television benefit or hinder the way you want your child raised?
FCC Chairman Newton Minow called television a "vast wasteland." Thirty years later, he spoke of the medium again: "In 1961 I worried that my children would not benefit much from television, but in 1991 I worry that my grandchildren will actually be harmed by it. In 1961 they didn't make PG-13 movies, much less NC-17. Now a six-year-old can watch them on cable."
© 1996 by Ron Kaufman @ TurnOffYourTV.com
Quoted from: Turn off your TV
How Television Images Affect Children
by Ron Kaufman
"[A nursery school teacher told me] her children were crudely bopping each other much more than previously, without provocation. When she remonstrated with them, they would protest, "But that's what the Three Stooges do." This attitude did not signify a serious undermining of character. But it certainly showed me that watching violence can lower a child's standards of behavior. Recent psychological experiments have shown that watching brutality stimulates at least slight cruelty in adults, too."
-- Dr. Benjamin Spock, from the book Baby and Child Care, 1968
Fifty-seven percent of television programs contain "psychologically harmful" violence, according to a study funded by the cable television industry. The study, released February 7, 1996, tracked 2,500 hours of television programming. This was the largest sample ever analyzed by researchers.
Oh, that's ridiculous! Television is not harmful, it's just entertainment. But can the steady flow of images watched nightly from television screens across the country be so easily dismissed as simply entertainment? If the sheer volume of absorbed images is considered, how can what is shown on television have no effect on one's own mental images? And if new mental images are created, shouldn't it be logical to say that they can have an effect on behavior?
But the argument that television has a significant effect on children should not rely on studies alone, but on common sense. When a child is placed in front of the television his focus cannot be diverted and his gaze cannot be broken. That child only has eyes for the video screen. The bright colors, quick movements and sudden flashes capture the child's attention. Only the rare child finds the television completely uninteresting. Even if only cartoons are watched, most children find the images presented on the television set mesmerizing.
Television programs have the power to influence a child's entire daily schedule. "They say they that they go to school "after Huckleberry Hound," eat a TV dinner "during Gilligan's Island," and go to bed "after Charlie's Angels," writes Kate Moody in the book, Growing Up On Television. Unsupervised, a child could watch TV constantly -- endlessly.
A widely quoted figure is that, on average, a child watches between four and five hours of television each weekday, and ten hours on Saturday and Sunday. In a July, 1996 speech, President Bill Clinton noted that, "a typical child watches 25,000 hours of television before his or her 18th birthday. Preschoolers watch 28 hours of television a week." In the life of children, watching television is a significant sensory experience. Many children easily spend more time with the box than they do with any other form of entertainment.
"Each year children read less and less and watch television more and more. In fact, Americans of all ages watch more television each year," writes Moody. "The typical child sits in front of the television about four hours a day -- and for children in lower socioeconomic families the amount of time thus spent is even greater. In either case, the child spends more time with TV than he or she spends talking to parents, playing with peers, attending school, or reading books. TV time usurps family time, play time, and the reading time that could promote language development."
Watching TV is a passive event. Children -- and adults -- remain completely immobile while viewing the box. Most viewing experiences, at least among Americans, are both quiet and non-interactive. All attention is given to the images.
"Just like the operating room light, television creates an environment that assaults and overwhelms the child; he can respond to it only by bringing into play his shutdown mechanism, and thus become more passive," states a pediatrician quoted in the Moody book. "I have observed this in my own children, and I have seen it in other people's children. As they sat in front of a television that was blasting away, watching a film of horrors of varying kinds, the children were completely quiet. . . . They were hooked."
Looking at a television screen does not magically remove a child's energy from within him. A highly active child will remain inactive while watching TV because that is what the medium requires. In order to receive stimulation from the television, the child must be passive, and accept the predetermined flow rate of the images. Both mind and body are passive (called an alpha state) allowing the child to concentrate on the vast, and often fast, array of bright pictures.
"The picture on the TV changes every five or six seconds, either by changing the camera angle or cutting to an entirely new scene," writes Moody. "One researcher refers to these events as jolts per minute, noting that as time is cut up, the brain is conditioned to change at the expense of continuity of thought.
"Adults and children are conditioned to instant gratification and crisis at many levels."
Children absorb millions of images from the TV in just one afternoon's viewing session. And what are they watching? If the child's TV set has cable, his choices can range from between 50 and 70 different channels; all of them showing different programs.
But if the most recent survey is accurate, the odds are that what children are watching is probably violent. With funding from the National Cable Television Association, a group of researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara reported in February, 1996 that 57 percent of TV programs contained violence.
The researchers warned that "the risks of viewing the most common depiction of televised violence include learning to behave violently, becoming more desensitized to the harmful consequences of violence and becoming more fearful of being attacked."
This is an important point. Viewing large amounts of TV violence does not necessary cause a child to act more violently, but it can contribute to promoting a view that violence is commonplace in everyday life as well as creating a heightened fear of being assaulted on the street.
The UCLA report also concluded that television shows:
Perpetrators of violent acts go unpunished 73 percent of the time.
About 25 percent of violent acts involve handguns.
Forty-seven percent of violent situations present no harm to the victims and 58 percent depict no pain.
Only 4 percent of violent programs show nonviolent alternatives to solve programs.
Premium movie channels such as Time Warner's HBO and Viacom's Showtime had the highest proportion (85 percent) of violent programming. The broadcast networks had a much lower percentage of violence (44 percent).
Violence on television is not a new phenomena. In 1968, Action for Children's Television (ACT) was formed to try and convince the FCC to limit violence and force the networks to show more educational programs for children. Despite the prodding of ACT, Congress and FCC did nothing to promote children's television. In fact, in 1983, the FCC ruled against providing any provision for children. One response to this ruling was CBS canceling the popular Captain Kangaroo and replacing it with the CBS Morning News.
Finally, 22 years after the creation of ACT, Congress passed the Children's Television Act of 1990 which directed the FCC, in reviewing TV broadcast license renewals, to "consider the extent to which the licensee. . . has served the educational and informational needs of children." Congress also prohibited indecent broadcasts outside of "safe harbor" hours (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), the hours when it is least likely that unsupervised children will be in the audience.
And with the passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress requires television manufacturers to install "V-chips" into new sets. With a ratings system designed by the networks themselves, the chip would block out violent programming. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt said he is prepared to force the networks to adopt a system to rate programs. "Instead of fighting the tide of scientific and lay opinion, broadcasters and cable operators who want to show violent material at times when large numbers of children are in the audience should label their shows for violent content. If they adopt such an approach now, they will avoid losing in the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion," he said in February, 1996 speech.
In July, 1996, the White House, the four major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) and the National Association of Broadcasters agreed to support a new proposal to require broadcasters to air three hours of quality educational programming each week.
With the government finally taking steps to improve children's television, the focus then must turn to parents. Awareness that excessive TV viewing is not benign and can have serious effects on a child's behavior and attitude is important. Obviously, turning off the set is the best solution.
Otherwise, TV programs should be discussed within the family. Does the violence, sexual attitudes, stereotypes, and advertising methods shown on television benefit or hinder the way you want your child raised?
FCC Chairman Newton Minow called television a "vast wasteland." Thirty years later, he spoke of the medium again: "In 1961 I worried that my children would not benefit much from television, but in 1991 I worry that my grandchildren will actually be harmed by it. In 1961 they didn't make PG-13 movies, much less NC-17. Now a six-year-old can watch them on cable."
© 1996 by Ron Kaufman @ TurnOffYourTV.com
Quoted from: Turn off your TV
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
NSHSS
Another letter I received today.
March 30, 2007 (why so long ago?)
Dear Abigail,
Congratulations. Based on your outstanding academic achievement at your high school, you have been nominated for membership in The National Society of High School Scholars. Your hard work has placed you among a select group of students nd has earned you this invitation to join other outstanding high school scholars in recognition of dedication to excellence.
My family established the Nobel prizes that reward individuals and organizations for world betterment. I welcome you and your family to this tradition of excellence and invite you to mark this legacy with an inauguration to out academic Society, an honour that will last a lifetime. In forging this honor Society, we have gathered a powerful advisory board comprised of Nobel laureates and other luminaries, such as famed writer Maya Angelou, and Colleen Barrett, president of Southwest Airlines.
Membership in the Society provides a special opportunity for you to distinguish yourself based on outstanding scholastic achievement and academic excellence. This recognition and honour lasts a lifetime. Your personalized membership certificate, bearing the Society crest and my signature, should be proudly displayed as testament to your achievement. The Society also provides members with a variety of opportunities and resources, incuding access to scholarships, leadership development programs, and service activities.
As you prepare your university applications, you may list your selection and membership in the Society as one of your significant accomplishments. According to member Laurel Angelica, "I feel that NSHSS was instrumental in helping me gain admission to my first-choice college, Princeton University." Your hard work should also be formally recognized and given the weight it deserved during the application process.
Membership in the Society is by invitation only. To accept, please complete the enclosed member confirmation form and return it to our national headquarters with the one-time membership fee of $45.00 by April 30, 2007.
If your family suffers a financial hardship, please be aware that the Society also offers fee waivers. Although we use each student's membership fee for the support of the Society, including all costs associated with nomination, benefits, scholarships, technology support, etc., we would not want to exclude any qualified student on a solely financial basis.
I look forward to welcoming you as a new member of the Society. On behalf of the entire advisory board and myself, I would like to congratulate you and your family.
Sincerely,
Claes Nobel
Chairman
P.S. Please respond by the membership deadline of April 30, 2007.
I didn't receive this letter until today, the 9th of May 2007!! Did I miss it?
And to think that I had to beg to enter UWA... and they didn't allow me in, in the end.
I also received 3 other scholarships to the USA. But unfortunately they arrived AFTER I started uni in Murdoch! I think it is because the term in the US start in a weird time of the year.
But it is nice to feel special anyway. And wanted. :D
March 30, 2007 (why so long ago?)
Dear Abigail,
Congratulations. Based on your outstanding academic achievement at your high school, you have been nominated for membership in The National Society of High School Scholars. Your hard work has placed you among a select group of students nd has earned you this invitation to join other outstanding high school scholars in recognition of dedication to excellence.
My family established the Nobel prizes that reward individuals and organizations for world betterment. I welcome you and your family to this tradition of excellence and invite you to mark this legacy with an inauguration to out academic Society, an honour that will last a lifetime. In forging this honor Society, we have gathered a powerful advisory board comprised of Nobel laureates and other luminaries, such as famed writer Maya Angelou, and Colleen Barrett, president of Southwest Airlines.
Membership in the Society provides a special opportunity for you to distinguish yourself based on outstanding scholastic achievement and academic excellence. This recognition and honour lasts a lifetime. Your personalized membership certificate, bearing the Society crest and my signature, should be proudly displayed as testament to your achievement. The Society also provides members with a variety of opportunities and resources, incuding access to scholarships, leadership development programs, and service activities.
As you prepare your university applications, you may list your selection and membership in the Society as one of your significant accomplishments. According to member Laurel Angelica, "I feel that NSHSS was instrumental in helping me gain admission to my first-choice college, Princeton University." Your hard work should also be formally recognized and given the weight it deserved during the application process.
Membership in the Society is by invitation only. To accept, please complete the enclosed member confirmation form and return it to our national headquarters with the one-time membership fee of $45.00 by April 30, 2007.
If your family suffers a financial hardship, please be aware that the Society also offers fee waivers. Although we use each student's membership fee for the support of the Society, including all costs associated with nomination, benefits, scholarships, technology support, etc., we would not want to exclude any qualified student on a solely financial basis.
I look forward to welcoming you as a new member of the Society. On behalf of the entire advisory board and myself, I would like to congratulate you and your family.
Sincerely,
Claes Nobel
Chairman
P.S. Please respond by the membership deadline of April 30, 2007.
I didn't receive this letter until today, the 9th of May 2007!! Did I miss it?
And to think that I had to beg to enter UWA... and they didn't allow me in, in the end.
I also received 3 other scholarships to the USA. But unfortunately they arrived AFTER I started uni in Murdoch! I think it is because the term in the US start in a weird time of the year.
But it is nice to feel special anyway. And wanted. :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)