That’s all folks.
Last Sunday, the Observer reported that an expert on child safety will recommend to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that "violence portrayed in children's programmes such as Scooby-Doo and Batman should be more realistic".
Yes, you read that correctly. The actions of a talking dog that solves crimes should be portrayed more realistically.
If you can stifle your laughter for a moment or two, I can explain the reasoning - albeit tenuous - behind this.
Essentially, children are watching cartoons and seeing that, say, a piano can fall on Donald Duck's head without so much as a bruise appearing, which then leaves them with an unrealistic expectation of what would happen should a piano fall on their own head.
The way to solve this issue is apparently to attach a rating, similar to those on films, which informs parents of how realistically the violence in the cartoon is represented.
Surely - and I hope it is not only me who finds this blindingly obvious - the real issue here is parents who are relying on the TV to look after their children.
Yes, I appreciate we are all terribly busy and important and have barely enough time to breathe and so on, but surely it would be easier for parents to take a moment or two to explain to their kids that the cartoons on TV aren't realistic, they're for entertainment.
Which explains why the dogs they see in the park aren't
solving crimes, the ducks in the pond aren't wearing fetching
sailor's outfits and mice aren't really chased around the
house by mischievous, mallet-wielding cats. I think it's what
is known as parenting.
COMMENTS
No comments added for this entry.
POST A COMMENT
