If what we see on the PBS Kids website is any indication, the November election will come down to what people love more: animals, or the idea of a woman – any woman — being (vice) president. When PBS asked tweens what qualities make a good president, most trotted out the usual answers: Presidents should be helpful, smart and work hard to get along with people in other countries. (Poor Bush! He can’t even meet middle-schoolers’ expectations.)

But Ben, 12, also said he would make boring books illegal. (Advantage, Palin.) And Mac, 10, said it was time a woman was in the White House. (Another point for the McCain ticket.) That said, Ann, 9, believes the next POTUS should be nicer to animals and Luca, 12, wants it to be a crime to kill any animal. That totally doesn’t bode well for, ahem, female hunters who have enormous bear hides displayed in their office.

So where does that leave us? XX chromosomes: +2. Hunting: -2. Yep, it’s going to be a close race.

This is all a very roundabout way of advising you check out PBS Kids’ website for lots of politically intriguing info and activities for your kiddo. That way, they’ll have a better chance of understanding why lately, your face gets red and steam comes out of your ears when you catch the “news” on TV.

Still having pangs of guilt when your kiddos are sitting in front of the TV? Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, two economists from the U of Chicago have run some statistical data and found that television viewing might actually be good for kids’ cognitive ability. (Lots of factors come into play, of course, so read the article before you trot that bon mot out at your next play date.)

So how does this “news” jibe with the AAP’s recommendations of no or very little TV-viewing for kids? Extremely well, thank you. 

... “the academy would be one of the first to say television can be incredibly pro-social and useful to kids,” says spokesman Victor Strasburger, who is also a professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. “The problem is separating out the wheat from the chaff.”

We say this all the time, of course. But it’s nice sometimes to hear it from “experts.”

Sad news from the world of PBS: The Chicago Tribune is reporting that starting today, Mister Rogers will disappear from the schedules of most PBS stations, including those in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. Apparently, ratings for the show have declined, and many stations want to make room for new (read: glitzier and more assertively academic) programming.

Yes, a TV show which gets your kids psyched about science and teaches them impressive vocabulary words is a definite plus. But Mister Rogers taught kids about the bigger picture: kindness, frustration, anxiety, and the overall messiness of real life. (Which apparently, this is a perfect example of.)

But as Mister Rogers himself always assured us, you can never go down the drain. Do your part to save this classic show. It’s as easy as clicking on savemisterrogers.com, a grassroots campaign that even has the support of Joanne Rogers, Fred Rogers’ widow.

Yes, yes, we know you’re busy. But honestly. It’s the neighborly thing to do.

–Posted by Stephanie Booth

We’re not sure whether to laugh, weep, or just feel disgusted about the new TV ad targeting America’s favorite food…the almighty hot dog. The commercial shows kids happily munching hot dogs in their school’s cafeteria, when one little boy solemnly reveals, “I was dumbfounded when the doctor told me I have late-stage colon cancer.”

Don’t worry. He doesn’t. But the ad, paid for by a group called The Cancer Project (which is headed by Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) is trying to get people to realize that eating too many hot dogs is, well, kind of gross and unhealthy.

So now everyone’s weighing in on the attention-grabbing commercial. According to this AP article, the American Cancer Society is worried that parents are going to start freaking out, thinking even the occasional hot dog will give their offspring colon cancer. Someone from Harvard’s School of Public Health says avoiding processed meat does makes sense. And the Hot Dog Council (who knew there even was one?) is piping up that hot dogs don’t contain animal eyeballs, hooves or genitals…but they can include pig snouts and cow lips.

Thanks for clearing that up. But, uh, not really helping!
Our advice: Use this ad as a way to talk nutrition and media literacy with your kiddo. But maybe over peanut butter and jelly.
– Posted by Stephanie Booth.

If you’re dreading the day your offspring comes home with a big, ugly F, here’s a response you probably haven’t thought of. Maybe you should slap her a high five instead of grounding her until she leaves for college.

Two recent studies of more than 400 students at Ohio State University found that those who did not cheat scored highest in tests of courage and empathy. Because they’re such an overwhelming minority (up to eighty percent of all university students have cheated), the study leaders have labeled this bracket of do-gooders “academic heroes.” And rightfully so: They’ve got strong personalities, can resist temptation, and let’s face it. It takes a lot of bravery to flunk a test by yourself than to copy your friend’s answers and get an A.
BBC News has a bit more about the study’s findings. But if you’re pressed for time, just go ahead and act like you read it. That’s not really cheating. Is it? – Posted by Stephanie Booth

If you’re one of those parents who puts up their hands and sighs, “Yeah, I just don’t get science,” Bonnie Bassler has a message for you: Enough already! Don’t contaminate your kiddos with that attitude.

Dr. Bassler is an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a professor of molecular biology at Princeton. (She recently discovered that bacteria communicate with chemical language — a huge scientific breakthrough.) She’s also our new heroine. In this passionate video-diatribe for Bigthink.com, Bassler basically tells people to to man up already and stop assuming they don’t understand the S-word. With that no-can-do attitude, it’s no wonder American kids are falling behind in science. (We’re paraphrasing here.)

So here’s your science homework for today. The next time your offspring tunes in to Zula Patrol, Doctor Who, PBS’ upcoming Sid the Science Kid, Eureka, etc., stop doing the laundry, sit down and watch, too. Not only will you get “it,” but you’ll probably realize you knew lots of “it,” already.

We’ll save string theory for next time.

–Posted by Stephanie Booth

A new study by the Parents Television Council contends everyone is having sex on prime-time television – except husbands and wives. The PTC takes great offense at this, but when you think about it, network execs might actually be doing kids a favor. After all, no one likes to think about what their parents are doing behind closed bedroom doors. At all.

But if the details of the study have you reaching for smelling salts, read Lisa de Moraes’ shrewd take on the “data” in today’s Washington Post. Another snippy rebuttal to the report is coming from TV Watch, a nonpartisan coalition which argues that individuals, not government, should decide what’s seen on TV. (Insert your own George Bush-Porky Pig joke here.)

Here’s what we feel is most important to remember: Don’t freak out. Trust your judgment about what your kids watch. Oh, and if you’re a writer, pitching a new show to the networks? Do everyone a favor. Include a lot of intimate moments between your happily-married leads.– Posted by Stephanie Booth

Depending on where you read about it, the new Federal Trade Commission report released earlier this week detailing that $1.6 billion is spent marketing food and bevs to children is either confusing or downright creepy.

A few incomplete highlights: Nearly $500 million is spent marketing soda to kids between the ages of 2 and 11. (Isn’t that one of the signs of the apocalypse? Or do locusts definitely have to be involved?) And just under $300 million is spent advertising fast food restaurants to kids in the same age range.

But the good news is, the American Beverage Association has asked its members companies to lay off, and a bunch of big corporations, via The Council of Better Business Bureaus, have also agreed to either advertise healthier products to kids or stop kid-oriented advertising altogether.

For more insight into the report, check out Lisa Guernsey’s post about it over at her blog, Media Minds. Guernsey’s the author of Into the Mind of Babes: How Screen Time Affects Children from Birth to Age Five, and the thoughtful questions she raises will give you yet another reason to a) either buy a TiVo or DVR and use it religiously, or b) teach your kids like, right now, about media literacy.

Remember Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Superbowl? And all the hoopla it caused? And how red-faced and up-on-its-soapbox about indecency the FCC got because of it? Yeah, well, that’s all over. On Tuesday, a Federal Court threw out the $550,000 penalty the FCC had demanded CBS pony up. The judges even scolded the FCC, saying they acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” over what really was just a fleeting image of nudity.

The FCC reminds us so much of John Lithgow’s Reverend Shaw Moore character in Footloose. (Uh-oh, did we just date ourselves?) Well-intentioned… but mostly just sort of sanctimonious and ineffective. If Hooters can bill itself as a family restaurant, we’re pretty darn sure Janet Jackson’s slip didn’t scar kids for life.

But, hey! On the bright side, the FCC did recently nail Buzz Lightyear to the wall. It took years, but they did it. Um… way to go, guys?

Weigh in below: If your offspring was watching during the 2004 Superbowl halftime, do they remember what happened?

Babble is helping listiness make a comeback. That’s good news for those of us who grew up worshipping David Wallechinsky and Amy Wallace.

Their latest masterpiece of listy greatness (with video): The 50 Most Adorable Cartoon Characters. Kudos to writer Jen Chaney for not just skimming through the most recent Pixar movies. We haven’t thought of Gleek or Atom Ant in years. We also appreciate that the list is blissfully Smurf-free. And while we must take issue with some of the numerical order (Porky Pig beats Kipper by ten points? Really?), we’re touched that #1 wins for having more than just a sweet face and tail.

Nice to see, too, that the super-cute cartoon characters our kids are growing up with today – like Blue and Boots – are waaaay smarter than say, um, Babs Bunny. Is anyone ever going to apologize for eighties TV?