Introduction to “Childhood Ruined: Critically Reviewing Childhood Media”
by Woody Woodger
I want to talk about the existence of the “Childhood Ruined” project and indeed media criticism as a discipline. The mere fact that Sarah Feng, Ashira Shirali, Noreen Ocampo, and I decided to pursue this topic presumes that the media, as an aspect of our lives, matters.
And by matters, I mean media, the media industrial complex, and media criticism have measurable, material effects on our lives. Whether it be a show that revealed something about yourself, or a character you still crush on, or the earth-shattering betrayal of series cancelation, or the undeserved torture of the reboot. We as media consumers are profoundly influenced by what we see portrayed in television, music, and the arts. And precisely because we’re so affected, we (should) have profound influence over what we consume.
And when in our dawdling little lives do we have less influence over what we consume than when we are children? And what do we have the least control over as children than choosing what to watch?
The TV Nanny is no myth (though articles such as that one embarrassingly place the locus of responsibility on individual parenting rather than the socio-economic conditions that exhaust and disenfranchise parents). The television media we consume as children—your Rugrats, your Power Rangers, your sold separately, your ask your parents, your not included, your 59 flavors, your Gotta Catch Them All ™—are some of the most formative influences on our lives, health, and opinions about the world.
We as media consumers are profoundly influenced by what we see portrayed in television, music, and the arts. And precisely because we’re so affected, we (should) have profound influence over what we consume.
A few more things you should know before embarking on this essay series. Obvious Spoiler!: the subsequent essays imply we often do not have the influence we consumers deserve. And **double obvious spoilers!!**: the mere fact we feel compelled to write these pieces; a.) suggest that currently, the capital-M Media as an institution (specifically the media industrial complex as an institution) is not serving us properly, and 2.) that media criticism is necessary for progress to happen. It’s the dialectic, you see...and, philosophy...? Or...some such.
But it’s more like Relational Dialectics (Woody, shut UP about dialectics). It’s only through sincere criticism of the media, and activism driven by that criticism, that we can create an inclusive media landscape that reflects the complexity and daily magic of being human.
Being critical does not mean Canceling™ your favorite program or artist or venue or album. It reflects that you care for art that impacted you because you care how that art could impact someone else. And in that way, where people fall on the issue of media representation says as much about the consumer as it does about the media.
Unfortunately, media criticism that deals with children’s TV earnestly and in good faith is only just appearing; due in part to children’s television being a newer genre, in part because children are a global political underclass, and partly because it’s hard with their pudgy fingers to submit their article “Mirror Mirror, On the Wall, Why Do I Have to Have Braces?: A Laconian Psychoanalysis of Doubt in The Wild Thornberrys” to the Atlantic.
I think media marketed to children, especially children’s television, is given less scrutiny because it is seen as less substantial, less worthy of consideration. And that, I believe, is just an expression of our culture’s general derision toward children and their interests.
Being critical does not mean Canceling™ your favorite program or artist or venue or album. It reflects that you care for art that impacted you because you care how that art could impact someone else.
So what does it say about The Blog Squad (trademark pending) that we decided to embark on this wet blanket of an adventure?
I think it says we recognize that we have the obligation as quasi-adults to use our hindsight and autonomy to advocate for children in a way that was not done for us. Let me put this into some darker context. There is a disturbing and unregulated trend, specifically on YouTube, where children stumble onto “bot channels''. Behind these fake bot are real, independent people who own the YouTube accounts.
The scam works like this (cue Oceans 11 theme): the bots artificially create nonsensical videos with the intent to “game” the YouTube algorithm. “Gaming” the system, in this case, involves an intricate network of bot channels independently generating and uploading videos as well as exploiting YouTube’s algorithm. This is important because the YouTube algorithm primarily privileges a few data points: number of views, view duration, likes, comments, and daily traffic to the channel. YouTube uses this data to suggest similar videos to play next and (most importantly) how revenue is distributed among creators.
Knowing how the algorithm works, these channels reverse engineered the process of making YouTube videos. The bots create very long, cheaply produced, nonsensical content with familiar characters like Spiderman and Batman to attract children. What’s worse is that often children are not even the intended audience and these “independently produced kids programing” is only meant to serve as content for the other bot accounts. What’s worse is that these bot generated “cartoons,” by accident or otherwise (*jerk-off hand motion for performative journalistic “fairness”*), often produce wildly graphic violent and sexual content.
ALL THIS IS TO SAY! Regardless of the content creators’ intentions, which don’t seem to extend beyond the desire to exploit YouTube’s flawed algorithm, children are seeing these often grotesque and unhinged cartoons before they are able to process the material and the bloated contusion that is the media industrial complex. For these children, these YouTube “shows,” these low-budget seizures of ignorance and violence, may be as formative as K and C Dramas or Johnny Bravo or Korra or Steven Universe was to each of us.
May the empty vacuum of space take mercy on us. And...enjoy?
To continue reading, here are parts one, two, and three: Sarah’s article on misogyny and elitism in Asian dramas, Ashira’s article on hypermasculinity in Johnny Bravo, and Noreen’s article on Filipinx American representation in Steven Universe.
Woody Woodger lives in Lenox, Massachusetts. Her work has appeared, or is forthcoming, from DIAGRAM, Drunk Monkeys, RFD, Exposition Review, peculiar, Prairie Margins, Rock and Sling, and Mass Poetry Festival, among others, and her poetry has been nominated for Best of the Net. Her first chapbook, “postcards from glasshouse drive” (Finishing Line Press) has been nominated for the 2018 Massachusetts Book Awards. In addition, Woodger served as Poet in Residence with the Here and Now in Pittsfield MA.