The news is constantly awash with stories reporting on – and arguably amplifying – public anxieties over youth and media. The anxieties concern violence and video games, gaming addiction, internet and mental health, and teen suicide.

For example, child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg recently linked the sexualisation of children and their easy access to online pornography to an increase in sexual and indecent assault allegations at school.

His argument reprised some familiar problems that are common in media panic stories about the supposed loss of childhood innocence.

Problems with the evidence

There are four common steps that are neatly illustrated by Carr-Gregg’s argument: the claim of a media cause, an outcome harmful to youth, evidence that these are causally linked, and a mediating factor that can make or break the causal link.

1. Children are increasingly immersed in pervasive and damaging messages from the media (online, social and mainstream) that objectify women and legitimate sexual assault. The existence of such messages is not in doubt. But children’s immersion in them and their implied lack of critical media literacy is.

2. Sexual assaults among school students are increasing. The increased reporting of such assaults is also not in doubt. However, it’s unclear whether this is a genuine increase in assaults or an increase in their reporting due to greater awareness.

3. Exposure to pornography is causally responsible for the increase in sexual assaults among children. This is often the crucial missing link in such media accounts; there is simply no evidence cited to support this claim.

4. Parents (and society) are unaware of and should be better prepared for the pervasive influence of sexualised media on their children. Again this is likely exaggerated, although not greatly in doubt. But whether it makes a difference to children’s vulnerability to damaging messages or to actual assault has not been established.

But, for each step, the evidence for media harm is insufficient.

Research on children’s exposure to pornography

The conclusions of a recent detailed 20-year review of the research on children’s exposure to pornography were:

Some adolescents – more often boys, “sensation seekers” and those with troubled family relations – tend to use pornography. This in turn is weakly linked to gender-stereotypical sexual beliefs that can be pejorative to women.

There is a link between exposure to pornography and sexually aggressive behaviours in boys. But, for girls, pornography use is related to experiences of sexual victimisation.

However, because of various “methodological and theoretical shortcomings”, the claim of causality cannot be considered conclusive.

These findings echo those from a recent meta-analysis, which found that sexting behaviour was positively related to sexual activity, unprotected sex and one’s number of sexual partners. However, the relationship was weak to moderate.

In general, research is clearer that online pornography can be problematic as an experience for adolescents rather than as a cause of sexually violent behaviour.

For instance, a 2016 UK study found that children report a range of negative emotions after watching pornography. On first exposure, children express shock, upset and confusion. They seem to become desensitised to the content over time.

Also complicating matters is the importance of allowing for adolescents’ right to express and explore their sexuality both online and offline, as well as the finding that one reason they seek out pornography is that society provides little else in terms of needed materials for sexual education. But some have made a great start.

What, then, should be done?

The evidence in support of effective public interventions is as limited as evidence of the harm these are designed to alleviate.

Still, the precautionary principle provides some legitimation for intervention – and there are solutions to be tried. For example:

In a recent report, my colleagues and I proposed a series of possible legislative and industry strategies. Several have potential to reduce harm without unduly restricting either adults’ or children’s online freedoms.

In another report, we focused on the importance of better digital literacy and sexual education in schools, as well as constructive awareness-raising and support for parents.

In the 2017 report by the House of Lords, the focus was on improving the co-ordination of strategies across society, along with learning from the evaluation of what works and, more radically, introducing ethics-by-design into the processes of content and technological production to improve children’s online experiences in the first place.

But if a mix of thoughtful strategies is to be implemented, tested, refined and co-ordinated, we need an open environment in which policy is led by evidence rather than media panic. We must also become critical readers of popular claims about media harm.

In terms of identifying causes, we should ask why the finger of blame is always pointed at the media rather than other likely causes (including violence against women, or problems linked to growing inequality or precarity).

In terms of identifying outcomes, are we so sure that problems among the young are really rising? Or that the internet can engender addiction in the sense that drugs or gambling can?

Stranger Danger is a problem but also cybertheft and cyberterrorism are completely worth being concerned about.

mothra wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 3:21pm:

Of course, but the world attacks not only in direct form but also in indirect form.

What I mean to say is I don't think we've quite identified how dangerous the internet can be but I take your point that very bad things have always existed.

Education: I suppose the lack of education is the real danger.

compulsory reading

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:


Is someone targeting preteens with articles about anal?

Whom, Honky?

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 5:20pm:


Is someone targeting preteens with articles about anal?

I'm curious.

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:


Yes, I've got a thought.

Is someone targeting preteens with articles about anal?

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 7:01pm:


"Thoughts on targetting pre/teens with articles about anal?"

If you had taken the time to learn what the word "targeting" means (as well as taking the time to learn how to spell it), you wouldn't be in the mess you're in now.

I read my dad's Playboys when I was 10, but the magazine wasn't targeted at me.

Oh well, it's been a good lesson for you.

So, is someone targeting preteens with articles about anal?

You didn't say.

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 7:49pm:


Do you believe that the magazine article you posted is targeted or marketed to preteens?

If so, the onus is on you to provide your proof.

Oh man, this is gonna be so good   

Over to you, my boy ...

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 7:54pm:


Now you need to provide proof.

Good luck   

"Teen Vogue is a US magazine launched in 2003 as a sister publication to Vogue, targeted at teenage girls."

Dear oh dear.

Would you like to borrow Rhino's shovel, Wes?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 7:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 7:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:00pm:

"Teen Vogue’s Political Coverage Isn’t Surprising

"The publication’s recent shift toward social issues, identity, and activism is giving its readers what they want."

Honky's preteens can't get enough of those stories on social issues, identity, and activism.

Gordon wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:12pm:


Indeed.

If only Honky knew what "targeting" meant.

Learning how to spell it wouldn't hurt, either.

Gordon wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:17pm:


'Readership' isn't the same as 'targeted audience'.

That's where Honky went so terribly wrong.

And yes, if preteens are reading the article, I share your concerns.

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:39pm:


Ah.

So, you meant 'young teens', not 'preteens'.

We're getting somewhere.

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:


The fact that you knowingly lied shows just how much of a worthless troll you are.

Nobody is targeting preteens with articles about anal sex.

You knew that, I knew that, and everyone else knew that, but you chose to lie anyway.

You are beneath contempt.

Lift your game, boy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:49pm:


Get off it Greg, 1 year difference? I know you are a pedant but to turn that into an attack and call someone sick is a bit rich and you probably shouldn't be calling others out on being a fibber.

Personally, I think it's up to the parents to vet what their kids read or not, it's not my place to tell them what to do. Hell, some even get them to read the Koran and the Bible at much younger ages.

... wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 9:05pm:


Everybody knows you're a *******

Setanta wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 9:37pm:


Try to focus.

Honky said they were targeting preteens.

Just because someone reads an article, it doesn't mean that the article in question was targeted to them.

Surely you can understand that.

Please tell me you're not as thick as Honky.

Setanta, read:

Quote:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:16pm:


See Aussie's highlight Greg, it says pre/teens which means preteens and teens.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:21pm:


I would say it doesn't not target them either, but doesn't say so because of the ramifications. Like I said, what a difference a day makes, there's only a day between 12 and 13. Only a pedant would make the distinction.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:28pm:


I don't even think I can help you Greg!

Setanta wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:


In a past life I could have got hold of the material the ad sales people use which shows audience reach and demographics. They know the age range of readers and they'd know inappropriately young readers would see that article but simply not care.

Do you people honestly think 12 year olds are not talking about this stuff in the schoolyard?

And learning wrong?

My 11 year old son recently collapsed into paroxysms of giggles because the clock said 6.09. I asked him why ... he said "69, geddit?".

I asked him where he had heard that and if he knew what it meant, really. He told me his best friend told him ... and he did know.

I'm not in the least bit concerned about young kids reading about sex. We used to read the Dolly Doctor when we were young and fall about laughing reading it.

Let's call a spade a spade. This isn't about sex per se; it's about anal sex. Some of you just think it's icky.

I remember at 18 years of age being completely mesmerised by the new experience of the internet. I think my personality changed considerably within 2 months. My first few months were of looking up anything and everything that could be considered rebellious or illegal. Pornography. White Nationalism. Black Nationalism. Violent images. I was amazed at how grim the world could be. It was both refreshing to see how uncensored things could be. Someone could anonymously post what they thought about someone or something, and their honesty could inflict nightmares.

Of course, over the years, I learned to deal with the content of the internet. And we had filters put in place to shield us from disturbing content. But it is concerning to think how this might affect our teens and pre-teens who are tech savvy about accessing the internet. Before 1997, I would have to say I must have forgotten how naive and innocent I would have been. Not knowing how corrupt and violent the world could be. The changes of psyche I had in adulthood. How would a child or teen be able to cope with the content on the internet today? How would their perspectives change?