Time For Kids is Biased!

Go for it girl. As a democrate I also find this type of thing highly unnecesarry. As a former teacher I think it is with a doubt unfair to the children to be given misinformation of this nature (though both parties do this type of B. S.). One thing we learn as teachers is the mind of a child between K and 5th grade are highly opened to any thing that can be placed in them. Also, teachers (believe this) are some of the most influential individuals in a childs life. If you do not believe this then see if you can remember some of your teachers from elementary school. (Mrs. Hays 5th grade teacher, I am 57, and there a few more I remember.) Visual media is one of the great influence on a child, and when you attact a caption to the picture it becomes more power to the young mind.

Becasue of this type of advertising a young child becomes someone a Kerry or Bush can use to spread their form of political B. . . S. . .

Pam

Agreed. However, I imagine you are a little over-excited. Haven't read Time for Kids, but everything you say sounds more or less 'ok' with me. If I saw it...might change my mind. There should be NO bias in journalism.

However, and the point with my post....Kerry should be on the cover. One of the most important things we can do for our children is to teach them to understand, respect, and appreciate a vibrant democracy. Saying Kerry 'wants' something is wonderful. It shows that people can have hope to improve what is out there. Can Kerry do a better job? Doesn't matter. The point is...we have to keep kids hard to the line that with diligence, with creativity, and with hope we can do better. Doesn't matter who the president is, I will always want my kids to want better.

Great post, though. I'm tired of bias. It's sad when NPR is the most unbiased reporting you can hear.

The classroom should be politically neutral. Teachers have no right to be influencing our children regarding politics. Their job is to teach facts not opinions.

YES!!!!!!!!

I'm right behind ya, sista.....

You are correct, but you shouldn't worry too much. Elementary school age children believe what their parents believe. At least that's how it was in my daughters' classrooms.

Elementary school age children believe what their parents believe.

Not in my house they don't.....

Sherye, I encourage my kids to ask questions and form their own opinions. When my first grader brought this home, I asked him what he thought. I told him that it is important to form opinions based on information you gather not on others' opinions and that he has every right to believe different things than I do. I have told him many times how much I learn from him. I also have taught him that he has to obey the teacher but he can tell me if he questions anything the teacher says. He also knows he has the right to talk to the principal if the teacher says to do anything that I have told him is specifically wrong to do. He has never abused this right.

My parents taught me to form opinions on my own. I wasn't born into a religion for instance. My parents didn't want me to feel like I had to follow a particular religion just because that is what they did. They encouraged me to go to different churches with friends and family and learn as much as I could under as little influence as possible. I questioned things all the time. My parents would always tell me what they new of the subject and then ask me what I thought.

Dylarama, I agree that Kerry and his ideas should be represented but they should be presesented in a fashion equal to what was given to Bush. Kerry wasn't just "on" the front page, he "was" the front page. These was very not-so-subtle uses of images and language. I am not over excited and I don't worry too much. Kids this age are very impressionable. Like Pam said, teachers are a huge influence in a child's life and they soak in visual media to an extent that a lot of adults don't give credit.

I started off my college studies with courses in child development and psychology. Elementary aged kids tend to be highly influenced by authority figures and their peers. They will question something their parent said over something their friend said. That is why it is so important that they be taught to discern fact from opinion. That distinction needs to be clear. If it is something printed in any publication circulated to students by their school, it better be fact.

BTW, I emailed Time For Kids this evening. I will let you know if I get a response.

thats typical, jill............. liberals behave like that. I can't even say what I think of those jerks.

Marvin,

Not all us liberals are jerks; as is the fact that not all you conservatives are jerks. It is just that you look at things a little different then us liberals. It is that difference which makes this country great.

Pam

I think the main point wasn't that Kerry was represented, it was that there was not equal treatment.  Sounds like that ended up just campaign propaganda.  And, what a waste of money- it's not like kids can vote

Marvin, conservatives are just as big of jerks as liberals, they just show it in different ways. And liberal does not equal democrat anymore than conservative equals republican.

>>> ""Mr. Bush wants kids to learn".

Well isn't that nice. He "wants" kids to learn. How is he going to do it? This says to kids that Kerry doesn't care about kids learning. My daughter even said "Doesn't Preseidential Candidate Kerry want kids to learn?" Of course he does! Easier said than done.

Goes both ways doesn't it ?

Oh wait.. I forgot about shrub's program: No Child Left Untested

lmao

Poet, you just never pay attention. It said that Mr Bush want kids to learn by giving them more tests. BTW, do you even have kids or are you just being snide. I thought from your writings that you didn't have kids. I'm also pretty sure an Elementary school age child did not use the phrase "Presidential Candidate".

They picked things for Bush that Kerry is "currently" against (i.e. No Child Left Behind) and the War but the things they picked for Kerry are not things that Bush is against (i.e. creating new jobs and caring about pollution).

Here we are trying to discourage Marvin's attitude toward liberals and Poet here is encouraging it.

Like I said all, I would have been upset if it were presented with the reverse bias. You can grasp at straws all you want Poet, but the fact is, this was not an unbiased presentation therefore it does not belong in the classroom.

I have always been suspicious of people like you who look into every nuance to try and find bias. Now, not being American, I have not read "Time For Kids" so I can only go on this review. Lets have a look at just a couple of your claims:

1. "I want my son to show respect to officials so "Mr. Bush" should be President Bush" but apparently you did not find it disrespectful that Senator Kerry was referred to as Mr Kerry
2. You say that "Again, Kerry "wants" to clean things up. Implies that Bush doesn't care about our air and water." But, on this logic, the statement "Mr. Bush wants kids to learn." implies that Seneator Kerry doesnt want kids to learn but you don't take them to task for this. Also, what happened to your holier than thou desire to show respect for officials? Here you do not even give either Senator Kerry or President Bush any title let alone their proper title....what values does this hypocrisy show to your son?
Maybe you should heed some advice that I once read in a book:
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Do people honestly believe that kids will act favorably when they hear that they'll receive more tests?

1. There is a bit of a difference between senator and president...but they probably should have called them both by their titles.
2. Bush wants kids to learn...by giving them more tests, implies to me that Kerry wants kids to learn but without the tests. Something like giving more tests is going to make a child not like the person, like saying Bush wants to make kids healthier by giving them a lot more shots.

I am angered by such obvious bias in something for children. I don't want children recieving bias either way, at least not in school. They should be allowed to get both sides fairly and be allowed to develop their own opinions on a subject, not be so obviously directed to one.

This kind of tactic has been in our school systems for a very long time.
When I was in 3rd grade, it was when nixon ran. the "weekly reader" of that time painted nixon as the saver of everything and just the person who would make us happy if our parents voted for him. Weekly reader even encouraged teachers to have a "class room" vote,just like our parents would do. Of course 90% of the students in our class voted for nixon, who was portrayed like mr. kerry is being portrayed now. do you know, that vote haunted me for years, after what nixon did ? I didn't even register to vote for seven years after I turned 18 because I felt betrayed by mr.nixon for his transgressions, my teacher for encouraging something so obviously biased, and myself for being so very duped WAAAY back in 3rd grade! not every kid will be impacted in that way, but those of us with concience and insight will remember stuff like this far into the future.
in the long run the weekly reader did me a favor. I am very careful to look at EVERYTHING I can everywhere about a candidate before I make my way to the voting booth. I might not give something so weighty such careful thought without that awful little classroom excersize , and that fiasco mr nixon created that gave so many of us from my time a distrust for politicians and presidents.
by the way. when my kids were growing up, we had to purchase the weekly readers for our kids yearly. I refused. my kids got to read national geographic explorer when current events stuff came up. they got a slightly different assignment than the others but they weren't swayed by the insiduous words of any propaganda campaign from weekly reader.

Super Baby says:

"Do people honestly believe that kids will act favorably when they hear that they'll receive more tests?"

Maybe not, but kids dont vote and politicians testing literacy and numeracy goes down well with adults (i.e. the voters) because adults see it as the government holding the schools accountable (particularly those lefto pinko government funded ones.) Here it always works a treat, a government wants to make it look like they are doing something for education but it doesn't want to spend money...develop a new set of tests that the kids have to pass to show that taxpayers are getting their moneys worth. YEEEEESSSSSSSS the taxpayers love school tests.

aussie git, regarding your first remarks, in order to be more pithy in my article, I simply referred to John Kerry as Sen. Kerry following my comment about using the phrase President Bush to make my point. I didn't need to use the titles in the rest of my writing because I am targetting my article at adults who should know better (take that comment however you please).

If you didn't see the issue, then I think you have no right judging what was a nuance or blatant bias. Most people I have spoken to question the front page as soon as they see it (without my even commenting). This is a form of visual media. Kids are very visual and these people knew exactly what they were doing.

Point #2 of yours was already adressed and poorly thought out. I believe you need to follow your own advice.

AS for reply#17, your experience doesn't hold any water when it comes to this American subject. There happens to be a whole uproar about the No Child Left Behind program that Bush is pushing. Here, more tests aren't appealing to children or their parents. Super Baby saw right to the point. That would be a positive note only for those few that agree with absolutely anything Bush does not for those who are forming opinions about his policies. Some of us don't think that the government needs to be heavily involved in everything.

Aaron, you got the point exactly! Adults see bias for what it is. Kids in school think anything in writing is the complete truth and are heavily influenced by it.

wulfn1, that is exactly the kind of experience (yours re Nixon) that I want to prevent my children from having. Sure, they don't vote right now, but kids develop long lasting attitudes very early on. You had the wisdom to learn something positive from that experience but many would/did just soak it in and take it for granted. Just like all the people who were taught to never question a person of authority. Parents of my generation were brought up that way and sometimes had to learn the hard way to question doctors (as an example I have experience with).

I question everything when it comes to my children. An important lesson for them should be not to just go along with something just because "everyone else is doing it".

If your kids don't learn what a corrupt and self-serving scumbag George Bush is now, they'll certainly learn in college when they study U.S. history and foreign policy. That is, if they get to college.

As for the Time Magazine, it's no suprise to me. The media has just left the dark woods of pre election year coverage, where any hint of liberal bias or disloyalty to the president is viewed as unpatriotic. News outlets are now free to safely position themselves towards the center and allow their bias to reflect in subtle and not so subtle ways in their journalism, responsible or not.

You'll note that it is the media's responsibility to enlighten the public about candidates with whom they are unfamilar, especially if those candidates are likable democrats with positive messages who smile alot (that boosts ratings). Therefore, you can expect magazines and news outlets to agressively showcase Kerry in an effort to 'fulfill' their democratic duty. Overexposure it may be, but ultimately its up to the news corporations to decide how much more exposure they should give to the challenger of the incumbant than the incumbant himself.

I'm a liberal and I think Bush is vile, but I agree with you, Jill, that this article sounds very biased and should not be used in the classroom. Not only shouldn't kids be forced into an opinion, but ideally they shouldn't even be pressured to make any opinion until they're much older and know more about the world.

Anyway, I still disagree with you about the "President Bush" thing, though it's a minor point. If you try explaining to a kid that President Bush and Senator Kerry are running for president, he'll be confused. He won't know what a senator is and he might not understand why anyone is electing someone that's already president. So calling both candidates "Mr. Bush" and "Mr. Kerry" puts them on even ground, as they are both just adult men running for election, and the kids know what "Mr." means.

Ed, I greatly appreciate your well thought out, reply. I also greatly appreciate that you put political leanings aside to look at the real issue of bias. You made a very good point about leveling the field by using "Mr". I disagree that kids don't know what the titles mean though. At least my son understands them. He also understands that President Bush got to be President for 4yrs and wants to be elected President for 4 more years. He, at the very least, understands that a Senator is an elected official and that Sen Kerry could become the next President. Besides that Ed, if my son doesn't understand something, he asks questions and then learns from the answers. That is kind of the sort of thing I encourage at school.

Using titles is one of those things that not a lot of adults seem to care about anymore. They are just fine with their kids calling them and other adults by their first names. I am not one of those people. Their are precious few kids who show adults any amount of respect these days. I am still willing to fight with my kids over little things like calling adults Mr or Mrs or Dr or Sen or Pres. I guess I am in the minority so that will be something that I will have to struggle on with on my own.

As for St Ying, your opinion of Pres. Bush is just that, an opinion. Journalists have the responsibility to provide "facts". Again, adults know that the media has self serving biases present all the time. It is unacceptable to present school children with anything other than unbiased facts.

A more fair analysis would be something like this:

Mr. Kerry wants the government to help people be able to afford medicine more easily.

Mr. Bush wants people to be able to keep more of the money they earn with lower taxes.

Mr. Kerry wants to protect the environment

Mr. Bush wants to make it easier for businesses to be successful.

Things of that nature are reasonably fair and understandable.

I agree with Brad, that would have been a more "fair and balanced" view of the two people's positions. The best one of course would be numbers, or a "fair" view of the pros and cons of both sides. How Bush's tax cuts would necessitate spending cuts in programs that help the poor and defenseless, and how Kerry's programs viciously take money away from the American people.

Cheers

I went to Time for Kids online and found that what their issues say about the candidates doesn't match what you are saying appeared in their print version. I've pasted the Time for Kids information on some of the topics that you addressed below, but for all of the issues, check out http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazines/story/0,6277,598735,00.html. Is there online version completely different from their print version???

EDUCATION
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires testing to show that public schools are performing well enough

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
Wants to hire more teachers, reduce class sizes and make changes to No Child Left Behind, including giving schools more money for teachers and materials

ENVIRONMENT
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Refused to sign an international treaty to reduce global warming and has drawn criticism from environmentalists for his decisions on air pollution and logging

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
Wants to cooperate more with other nations to fight global warming and to cut pollution from cars and industry in U.S. communities

Their print version is very different than the online version you presented above! The info above would be fine in my opinion. That was not how it was presented in the magazine version given to my son in school. I find it odd that they feel the need to give a different version online.