Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Current events, news... how much?

Agreed-- this is a tremendous frustration for my DD, as well. She finds that most of her peers academically are woefully incapable of tearing apart bias in sources, etc., or even understanding that quotes can be taken out of context, etc.

Colbert, Stewart, Fox, and major newspapers have been a huge part of her 'education' on our part. We want her to be thinking hard about the agenda behind what anyone is telling her. What are they hoping to persuade her of? WHY?

As she put it to me last election-- It's incredibly annoying that so many of my classmates are going to be old enough to vote in less than a year-- and so FEW OF THEM will actually be remotely capable of doing so as anything but sheeple.

I credit news cycle immersion-- and vigorous in-house debate and discussion of the same-- for her political savvy.

We don't shield our kids from most news in this house (obviously, there are boundaries regarding things they don't understand yet). ***edit*** We had a long and meandering discussion about Trayvon Martin, racism, gay marriage, and other stuff lasts night with my 9- and 12-year-olds. I tried to help my kids understand why people shoot a kid with Skittles and iced tea, and why prejudicial ideas develop and persist. We spent a chunk of that time discussing Stand Your Ground laws. We want our kids to feel comfortable coming to us with any questions they have about whatever.

So I agree with others here that exposing young kids to the ugliness of the world is important. It helps them develop an ability to analyze events and people's attempts to manipulate others. Developing an ability to self-protect is very important part of that process.

Honestly, I don't see much value in shielding kids from the world, and I have trouble even understanding it. First, the kids are less able to develop those skills mentioned above. Also, kids hear about bad stuff when they're not at home (or even at home if the news is playing or if there's a newspaper lying around). Third, when parents avoid controversial topics, they send a clear message to their kids: Don't talk about this with me. Kids can't understand the parental perspective of being "protected." They're far more likely to infer don't talk to mom and/or dad about this topic, and a line of communication is closed. That line won't suddenly open up when the kids are older and are thinking about sex or realizing that they're gay or have questions some topic that mom and dad don't want to discuss. Etc.

So, this post may not make me very popular, but IMO, when parents avoid certain issues, they risk creating kids who aren't equipped to deal with many challenges in life.

I suspect that probably stems from a difference in religious or philosophical views we hold.

I think the real question is at what age do you shield children, and to what degree, because every parent does some shielding, even by omission.

I don't see any value in discussing topics like genital mutilation, the death penalty, or the morality of war with my 2.5 year old, for instance. I don't think that by waiting until he shows signs of being able to understand fundamental principles behind Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that I am in any way closing off productive discussion or communicating that discussion on those topics is verboten.

Now, what we do at this age is talk about respecting one another's bodies, mutual charity, the sanctity of life, the duality of humanity, the diversity of religious views around us, and the need for dialogue and peace instead of violence wherever possible. Those are all age-appropriate introductions to the topics that build the groundwork for a deeper, more nuanced conversation when he's older.

The key here is how you define "young kids."

Our DD at 8 made it emphatically clear that she did NOT want to hear any discussion of Sandy Hook. Given her similarity to the victims, it makes perfect sense. Having prior knowledge would probably not help her against an adult with guns coming to her school. Meanwhile, she needs to go to school every day and be able to function, so there's no time for gibbering fear.

Survival mechanism, that. A child lacking in a basic feeling of security is not going to develop in healthy ways. Sheltering them from some of the ugliness in the world is one way we help them develop that sense of security. The removal of that shelter should be gradual to avoid excessive shock.

I see your point, and wouldn't force information on my kids, either.

But what you've written is very different from a parental decision to avoid the news altogether or to avoid certain topics.

Aquinas, I agree with what you are saying-- I'm not suggesting that I was discussing the concepts of protracted, planned terrorist activities with my then-2yo in the wake of 9/11.

What we did discuss is that labeling people by a common characteristic, "otherness" and "othering" can lead to the kind of irrational ANGER and hatred that leads to such atrocities as flying commercial airliners into civilian buildings.

Because she did want and need to hear that. She was otherwise afraid that buildings can "just fall down." Or that airplanes routinely crash into them. Or that pretty much any angry adult is capable of such a thing.

All of those things are untrue, but they were hypotheses that her 2yo PG brain came up with as alternative explanations. The truth is less pleasant in some ways, but in others it is more comforting.

With another child, it might not have been possible to have that discussion of "othering" and hatred based upon immutable group characteristics-- but my DD had already felt the sting of exclusion and knew what it was. So for her, it WAS in context.

We have very deliberately made no topics "off limits" for our daughter. Sometimes I have to steel myself in order to have discussions with her that I'm not really ready for... like abortion or Mengele with my 7-8yo.

But she can talk to us about ANYTHING. She knows what she believes-- and why. Which is a lot more than many of her peers do at 18-20.

I do agree that sheltering kids who have developed a sense that there is a dichotomy about information (home versus not-home) can regard this not as parents being loving and wanting to protect their children, but as parents being unWILLING to discuss some topics, or failing to appreciate their growing sophistication.

Kids can often manage more sophisticated thinking about the world than their parents give them credit for. I see this a lot in working with youth.

My kids ask for information about the hard stuff (Libya, 9/11), and also ask me to stop telling when they're done being curious for now.

They don't always self-regulate about other things, but they do in this kind of case. It makes it much easier for me to figure out what they need.

Not really, because we had already made a parental decision to shield her from that certain topic. DW and I were just discussing it when DD walked into the room.

I agree with HK here. And particularly with teenagers. I don't see any advantage to shielding my teenager from anything in the news. I see my job as a parents it to teach our children to navigate the world and one of those things is how to make sense of disturbing news stories. When they were younger we did simplified things or explained things in a way that we hoped wouldn't traumatize them.