How it started….

The Waltons

The Cosby’s

Early television shows demostrated family values and worked to bring people together. Family television shows as well as large international sporting events helped people get rid of their judgements and be more understanding of one another.

 

 

As an immigrant in this great nation, I don’t have a great knowledge of old TV Shows. While browsing through my public library, I found many seasons of The Waltons and decided to check it out. This is what I like about it (I’ve watched seasons 1 and 3 so far):

• Family Values – this family manages to remain united through whatever situation and there’s always a good moral lesson learned at the end of the day. Although different family members make mistakes, they are always learning tools. 

• The Food – I’m on season 3 and thus far the depression era eating looks pretty good to me. I told my husband I want to eat flat jacks at their house. They may be having pinto beans and corn bread but what it makes the whole process looks good is the thankfulness, the way they are expected to eat together and how they interact at the dinner table. Let’s not forget that they also manage to always have coffee going. Good stuff.

• No television – this simple fact really allows the family to interact more. There’s constant playing among the children, conversation among the adults. People find other ways of entertainment. Let’s not forget they read a little more too.

• Sibling Love – they don’t always get along but they manage to play well together, talk and interact very well. You can tell that those close in age get a long better and that’s usually true for larger families. They also take good care of one another.

• Generational Love – The children have a good example of marriage from two generations living right there with them. You can see that the grandparents love each other as well as the parents. It’s nice to see both couples expressing their love without shame or reservations. I guess you gotta have lots of love to have that many kids 🙂 The children also do a great job honoring their parents and grandparents

www.simplycintia.com/2010/07/wholesome-tv.html

 

Top 30 Family Shows…

1. Little House on the Prairie – 1974-83
This television show tells the story of the pioneer life of Charles and Caroline Ingalls with their family in the early 1900’s out west.

2. Waltons – 1972-81
This television show tells about John & Olivia Walton with their 7 children and the grandparents living on Walton’s Mountain during the depression.

3. Father Knows Best – 1954-60
This television program features Jim & Margaret Anderson with their 3 children portraying middle class America in the 1950s.

4. My Three Sons – 1960-72
This TV program is about widow, Steve Douglas, and his 3 sons and Uncle Charley. The three sons are the main focus of the show with eventual marriage for the dad and older 2 sons.

5. The Dick VanDyke Show-1961-66

 

 

This TV show tells of the life of Rob & Laura Petrie with their son, Richie, living In New York. Rob is a comedy writer for a TV show.

6. Leave It To Beaver – 1957-63
This is a 1950s all-American family featuring Ward & June Cleaver and their 2 sons, Wally & Beaver (Theodore).

7. The Donna Reed Show– 1958-66
This is another typical family sitcom of the 1950’s featuring housewife, Donna Stone and her doctor husband and 2 children.

8. Bonanza – 1959-1973
This western TV show features the Cartwrights, a widowed man, Ben, with his 3 sons, Hoss, Adam and Little Joe.

9. Courtship of Eddie’s Father – 1969-72
Here we have another TV show featuring a widower, Tom, whose son, Eddie, was determined to play match -maker and find his dad a wife,

10. Highway To Heaven – 1984-89
In this TV show, Michael Landon played an angel named Jonathan Smith who traveled all over trying to help people and make their lives better.

11. Apple’s Way – 1974-75
This show was short-lived but I remember it as a family with many children who moved to the country and all pitched in to run a mill on their property.

12. Family Ties – 1982-89
Family Ties features the Keaton family with Elyse and Steven and their children, Alex, Mallory, Jennifer and later Andrew living in suburban Ohio.

13. The Cosby Show – 1984-1992
This show focuses on the Huxtable family, an upper-middle class African-American family living in Brooklyn, New York.

14. 7th Heaven – 1996-2007
This is a good television series featuring the Camden family that includes a minister and his stay-at-home wife and their 7 children.

15. Touched by an Angel – 1994-2003
I loved this show depicting angels who appeared just at the right time in the lives of people who were in crisis and needed intervention from God.

16. The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet – 1952-66
This TV show featured a real-life family, The Nelsons, who performed musically.

17. Make Room for Daddy – 1957-64
Danny Thomas played Danny Williams, a comedian and nightclub entertainer in this television program.

18. Christy – 1994-1996
This was a Christian-based fiction drama about a young girl who moves to Cutter Gap, Tennessee to teach children.

19. Eight is Enough– 1977-81

 

 

This was about a family with eight children, whose mother dies, and the dad, Tom Bradford, eventually falls in love with his children’s teacher who comes to the house to tutor them.

20. Father Murphy – 1981-83
This is another creation of Micheal Landon, that did not run long. Murphy pretends to be a priest to save some orphans.

22. Lassie – 1954-73
Who hasn’t seen Lassie? This show had a long run with many series after that. An all-time favorite of many about a boy, Timmy, and his dog.

23. Julia – 1968-71
This TV show made history featuring an African American woman as the main character. playing a nurse, Actress Diahann Carroll, played a nurse, Julia, who was widowed and had a young son, named Corey.

24. Andy Griffith Show – 1960-68
This was and has been a very popular television series, even today in syndication, featuring Andy Taylor, a widowed father, who is the town sheriff, and his son, Opie, living with their Aunt Bea.

25. Gentle Ben – 1967-69
The story of a boy and his dad, who was the park ranger who rescue an orphaned bear cub and raise it as a pet.

27. Flipper – 1964-67
Flipper was a show about a game ranger named Porter Ricks, and his two sons, Sandy and Bud. The show centers around a pet dolphin, named Flipper, and all their adventures.

28. Gilligan’s Island – 1964-67
This show runs still today and is loved by many. Who doesn’t know the story of the S.S. Minnow that went on a tour only to shipwreck on an island?

29. Happy Days – 1974-84
The Cunningham family live through the 1950’s with help and guidance from the lovable greaser, Fonzie

30. Laverne & Shirley – 1976-83
A spin-off from the show, Happy Days, this comedy featured two gals, Laverne and Shirley, who shared an apartment in Milwaukee next door to Lenny & Squiggy.

Propensity Scoring and the Relationship Between Sexual Media and Adolescent Sexual Behavior : Comment on Steinberg and Monahan (2011)

By: Rebecca L. Collins
Health Division, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California
Steven C. Martino
Health Division, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California
Marc N. Elliott
Health Division, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Rebecca L. Collins, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407 Electronic Mail may be sent to: collins@rand.org.

A growing body of evidence suggests that exposure to sexual content in media may influence adolescents’ sexual behavior and related outcomes. Some of the strongest data bearing on this issue come from two longitudinal studies in which relationships between prior exposure to sexual content in media and subsequent changes in sexual behaviors were tested. In one of these studies (conducted by our research team at RAND; Collins et al., 2004), behavior change was linked to exposure to sexual content on television. The other study, conducted by Brown et al. (2006), linked sexual behavior change among White youths to exposure to sexual content in a variety of media. In this issue of Developmental Psychology, Steinberg and Monahan (2011) question the statistical approach used in both studies, which involved various versions of regression with covariates. They reanalyzed data from Brown’s study and concluded from their results that the findings from both prior studies are invalid, that “Adolescents’ Exposure to Sexy Media Does Not Hasten the Initiation of Sexual Intercourse.” We find a number of problems with Steinberg and Monahan’s analyses and conclusions:

• • Propensity score approaches, especially in the absence of covariates, do not necessarily result in more accurate estimates of treatment effects in observational data than regression with covariates (Shadish, Clark, & Steiner, 2008; Steiner, Cook, Shadish, & Clark, 2010). Each makes assumptions that may or may not hold in a given instance, and each can result in biased or otherwise inaccurate estimates (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1984; Steyer, Gabler, Von Davier, & Nachtigall, 2000).
• • Two of Steinberg and Monahan’s (2011) propensity-score models produced different results than those obtained by Brown et al. (2006), but the very large standard errors introduced by the version of propensity matching implemented in one of those models (Model 4, in which matching was used with replacement) produced a vastly underpowered test. Failure to reject the null hypothesis under such conditions is uninformative.
• • Tests of all of the models that Steinberg and Monahan (2011) present are greatly underpowered due to the use of quintile comparisons. Comparing one quintile of data to two (as Steinberg and Monahan did) results in a loss of approximately 13/15 of the effective sample size relative to treating the five-level sexual media predictor as continuous (as Brown et al., 2006, did).
• • Steinberg and Monahan (2011) do not appear to have achieved sufficient covariate balance in developing their propensity-matched groups. Traditional standards for demonstrating balance are not based on t tests (on which Steinberg and Monahan relied), because t tests can be insufficiently sensitive for detecting important differences between groups. Instead, adequacy of propensity matching should be determined by computing standardized differences (SDs). The standards normally applied recommend that the absolute value of nearly all SDs should be < 0.25 (Cochran & Rubin, 1973; Rubin, 1973), although some researchers have recommended a more stringent threshold (Mamdani et al., 2005). Computing these values as Cohen’s d using the data presented in Steinberg and Monahan’s Tables 3 and 4 (which describe data for the White sample in Brown et al., 2006), we found that the SDs exceed 0.25 in 28% of the 64 tests of covariate balance for their propensity model that used matching without replacement.¹ The variables on which balance was poorest were gender (SD range = 0.29–0.81), parent education (SD range = 0.26–0.54), and religious beliefs (SD range = 0.07–0.34). Given this level of covariate imbalance, it does not appear that the propensity models presented in Steinberg and Monahan reduce bias more than the covariate approach used by Brown et al. (2006); indeed, Steinberg and Monahan may have introduced bias through poor matching.

 

In summary, there is no evidence of smaller bias in Steinberg and Monahan’s (2011) analysis relative to Brown et al.’s (2006) analysis. And there is evidence of greater variance in the form of larger standard errors and smaller effective sample sizes. This means that the mean squared error (variance plus squared bias) is likely to be higher in Steinberg and Monahan’s analysis, and thus the accuracy of its estimates is likely to be lower than those provided by Brown et al. Given these significant limitations, we see no reason to dismiss the original findings presented by Brown et al., which demonstrated a clear relationship between sexual media exposure and sexual behavior.

Even in the absence of these limitations, we would still strongly question Steinberg and Monahan’s (2011) conclusion that sexual media do not hasten adolescent intercourse. They drew this inference in their title in spite of their correct statements in the text about the impossibility of proving the null hypothesis. And they did so in spite of other studies in which a relationship has been demonstrated, including our own research. ² Not all of these studies used the best available correlational designs and statistical techniques, but the methods we used (like those of Brown et al., 2006) are rigorous. Such methods form the basis for most of the scientific literature on adolescent risk behavior, including studies of parenting and peer influences, the conclusions of which Steinberg and Monahan accept.

Steinberg and Monahan (2011) do raise valid concerns about unmeasured confounders that are applicable to our study, as they are to this broad body of research. Although propensity scoring is also vulnerable to misspecification, in response to their criticisms we tested whether our findings are robust to this analytic approach. Our results are similar whether data are analyzed with covariate regression or propensity score approaches (Collins et al., 2011).

Our research and that of Brown et al. (2006) does not demonstrate a causal relationship between media exposure and sexual behavior. To draw a causal conclusion with certainty requires experimental evidence. Given the research question and currently available methods, such a test is not highly feasible. Thus, our study was designed to provide the strongest possible test of the plausibility of a causal relationship, within the bounds of ethics and available research methods. Our findings and those of Brown et al. indicate that a causal relationship is plausible, and a causal relationship is consistent with one of the most accepted theories in psychology (Bandura, 1986). Our findings are also complemented by those of other studies in which the same correlational relationship has been examined with different analytic methods (e.g., Hennessy, Bleakley, Fishbein, & Jordan, 2009) and by experimental research in which related outcomes were examined (e.g. Kalof, 1999; Lanis & Covell, 1995; Ward, 2002).

Steinberg and Monahan (2011) state that “it is easy to point our collective finger at the entertainment industry, but it is likely that the most important influences on adolescents’ sexual behavior may be closer to home” (p. 575); they suggest that the field turn research attention away from media and toward other factors. We believe there is plenty of room for continuing study of sexual media and the conditions under which they do and do not influence adolescent sexual socialization and health. We agree that pointing fingers at Hollywood is not useful, just as pointing fingers at parents and peers is not useful. The goal of scientific investigation should be to illuminate our understanding of the varied and complex factors affecting adolescent sexual socialization, not to assign blame. But the level of evidence regarding sexual media is sufficient to advise caution among parents, to develop interventions for youth to reduce exposure or lessen any potential effects of exposure, and to work with media producers and distributors to decrease the amount of sexual content on television and in other media or youth exposure to such content.

The drug of a nation! Check out “Kill your TV” slideshow ->>

 

Television throughout its history has been a huge time consumer for people in developed countries. We spend more time watching tv than spending time with our families, engaging in athletic activity and in some cases even more than we sleep! Children that spend more time watching television than engaging in social activity can experience some negative effects. According to the article “The Impact of Television: A Natural Expperiment in Three Communities” by Tannis Macbeth Williams “children that watch television are more aggressive”. Television also controls and alters sex roles in society often suggesting that women are mostly unemployed and unimportant. In a test done on child cognition it showed that since the invention of the television IQ scores of children have dropped according to the article; the test also measured creativity and originality and those scores dropped 40% since the creation of television.  The test covering reading showed that student that had already developed great reading skills had not been affected that much from watching television for an extended period of time, but it did affect younger students showing that if young children watch too much television at that crucial age reading skills can be hindered.

 

Television- Then and Now

   

A lot has changed in the television business a few important examples are content and intent but the most important example is the way television is distributed and how people pay for it. From the moment television was invented it has been an important factor in all of our lives. Television keeps us informed with programs such as the news and also entertained with other shows. Since John Logie Baird’s demostration of the televised moving imagines in 1926 the world has sat back and watched life happen on a television screen. The television was once seen as something that helped us stay informed but nowtelevision carries negative connatation. A few negative knocks on the television include shortening attention spans and the worse babysitter. Nowadays everything about the television has changed. The two major changes have been content and distribution. Today anything can be seen on television, things like sex, drugs and violence  find their way to young children through television everyday. The distribution of television has change dramatically given the fact that people pay over $100 dollars for television when it use to be free.