All of this contrasts with the popular image of an “Internet predator,” which over the years has been built up to be similar to the monster in the movie Alien: a pedophile, most likely a man in his forties, who conceals himself within a false Internet identity and uses it to win the trust of a young girl, leading up to an offline meeting which ends in an abduction and rape. Recent research, however – particularly work done by Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitchell of the Crimes against Children Research Center and Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire and by Michele L. Ybarra of the organization Internet Solutions for Kids – has shown that this picture is almost entirely false.

To begin with, the research has shown that social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are not any more dangerous than other online environments. In fact, the only online environment that does correlate to receiving sexual solicitations is chat rooms, and in general online sex offenders rely on tools such as e-mail and instant messaging (IM) to develop relationships with their victims. What these technologies have in common is that they are immediate and intimate – chatrooms and IM, in particular, mimic a live conversation. In this way we might see the movement of youth away from chatrooms to social networking sites as an improvement in terms of their safety from online sexual solicitation. Although the research available does not specifically consider online games as a means of communication, their chat systems resemble chat rooms and IM, in that conversations are carried out in real time and there are relatively few barriers to contacting someone – you can chat with anyone who is on the same “channel,” and channels are generally public.

While it was once thought that posting personal information online was a particularly dangerous activity, the research has shown that it does not, by itself, increase the risk of receiving sexual solicitations. Instead, it is one of a number of behaviours that may be considered risky. The more of these behaviours a youth engages in, the greater the risk of receiving sexual solicitations. In addition to posting personal information, behaviours identified as being risky are include sending personal information to people not known to you, interacting online with people you don’t know, having unknown people on a “buddy” or contact list, talking to unknown people online about sex, seeking out online pornography, being rude or aggressive towards others online, using the Internet to embarrass or harass others, and downloading images from file-sharing programs. It’s important to note that these behaviours are associated with receiving sexual solicitations online, not necessarily the cause of it. Rather, the evidence suggests that engaging in four or more of these behaviours is associated with a general risk-taking attitude that increases the risk that a youth will receive and respond to online solicitations: research has shown that the same youth are risk offline as online. Although we don’t have a full picture of Andrew Kane’s online behaviour, it’s clear that he had engaged in at least two of these behaviours: sending personal information to someone he only knew online and talking about sex online. Like the vast majority of reported victims, he went willingly to his offline meeting: only one of all the cases in the American study involved an abduction, and only one in twenty involved forced sex. (Investigators have remarked that victims often remain loyal to offenders even after the relationship has been brought to light, which can make prosecutions difficult.)

The most unusual thing about the case was the sex genders of the two people involved: nearly all (99%) of those who solicit sex online are male, and 79% of victims are girls; of the 21% who are boys, most are gay or are questioning their sexuality. At 42, her Lauri Price’s age was somewhat unusual: while American research has shown that 60% of offenders are over 25, recent Canadian data found that only about 35% of those accused of “child luring” were over 35. Aside from those, however, Lauri Price was fairly typical of those who solicit sex from youth online. To begin with she was white, as are 84% of online predators; as well, she had no history of violence (like 95% of predators) or prior arrests (79% of offenders studied had no prior record of non-sexual crimes, although unlike Price some did have records of sexual offences.) Most importantly, Price was absolutely typical in that she did not disguise either her identity or her intentions: 80% of offenders are open about their age and 85% make clear their interest in sex with the victim. Moreover Andrew Kane, at 16, was a fairly typical victim: 99% of victims studied were between 13 and 17 years old, and none were younger than 12.

In order to protect young people online we need to understand – and to make them understand – what we are protecting them from. To begin with, we have to be aware that not all children are equally at risk: certain behaviours, such as seeking out sexual material or talking about sex online, and certain other factors, such as being female, being gay or questioning one’s sexuality, or having previously been abused sexually, substantially increase the risk of receiving and responding to online sexual solicitations. As well, we must recognize that offenders do not generally disguise their identities or their intentions but openly attempt to position themselves as potential sexual partners. In a way, the term “predator” is more accurate than we knew: like predators in the animal kingdom, they target the most vulnerable – those young people who are prone to taking risks, particularly in their sexual behaviour; those who are insecure or confused about their sexuality; and those who have already been wounded. Armed with this information, we can learn to watch for warning signs and risky behaviours in our children, we can be candid with them about the kinds of behaviours and material they may encounter online, and we can teach them about the realities of how adults can exploit young people’s inexperience, insecurity and developing sexuality.

MNet Resources

For Teachers

The Safe Passage section on our Web site contains essential tips for teachers on how to teach kids to enjoy the benefits of the Internet while recognizing its potential risks. Many schools, school boards and provinces have also licensed the Web Awareness Workshop series, which includes a workshop version of Safe Passage that covers the same material in greater detail and provides handouts and worksheets.

For Parents

Resources for parents can be found on our recently updated Be Web Aware site, which covers a broad range of topics including online safety and risk-taking. Parents also have their own version of the Safe Passage section of our Web site. Many community groups have also licensed our Parenting the Net Generation workshop which covers many of the issues that arise when young people go online.

This is a special guest blog by Jonathan Avery, a recent M.A. graduate with a degree in communication and media studies from the University of Ottawa. You can access more material written by Mr. Avery at http://www.knowyourmedia.com

Have you ever wondered why Canadian private broadcasting networks such as CTV and CanWest air certain television programs over others? Why, for instance, does CanWest air House, or CTV air Grey’s Anatomy, over other television programs?

It would be to simple to suggest that a network’s choice to purchase the rights to a program solely comes down to affordability and audience preferences – that audience preferences dictate the types of programs networks purchase in order to maximize the size of their audience. In the Canadian market, however, it’s not so simple: broadcasting regulations have a significant impact on the types of programs made available to Canadian audiences. Some would argue that these policies not only constrain programming choices that should be left to Canadian audiences, but undermine the ability of the Canadian broadcasting industry to compete with our American neighbors. Others, on the other hand, argue that these regulations serve a vital cultural imperative and are necessary to create a unique Canadian broadcasting industry that can compete on an international level.

Canadian television is regulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The goal at the heart of the Act is to strengthen Canadian society by providing content that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity. The Act requires that the Canadian broadcasting industry be owned and controlled by Canadians, and further demands that it encourage the development of the Canadian expression and maximize the use of Canadian talent and creative resources.

The Act also includes rules regarding Canadian content (commonly known as CanCon) that require a specific amount of air time that must be devoted to Canadian programming. To ensure this occurs, Canadian private broadcasters must devote, on an annual basis, 60 per cent of their overall television content to Canadian programming measured over the course of the entire broadcasting day, and at least 50 per cent between 6 p.m. and midnight. This does not include sports, national or regional news programming. To be classified as “Canadian,” a program is judged on the following criteria: whether its producer and key creative personnel are Canadian, the amount paid to Canadians for services provided to make the program, and the amount spent in Canada on lab processing.

Canadian broadcasting regulations, therefore, restrict the types of programs Canadian private broadcasters can purchase and air by requiring a specific amount of time devoted to Canadian programs. Regardless of Canadian audience preferences, Canadian private broadcasters must adhere to these policies. They cannot simply purchase the rights to any program they choose, even if it would attract a large Canadian audience. The question is, are these policies doing what they are supposed to be doing? Is favouring Canadian content genuinely enhancing the cultural fabric of Canadian society?

A simple glance at weekly prime time television on CTV and Global Television shows a schedule dominated by such shows as House, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, 24 etc. Though produced by American firms, each of these shows has associations with Canada. For instance David Shore, one of the co-creators of House, was born in London Ontario; CSI is co-produced by Alliance Atlantis Communications, which is affiliated with CanWest Global; Sandra Oh, one of the stars of Grey’s Anatomy, is from Nepean, Ontario; and several members of the cast of 24, including Keifer Sutherland, are Canadian-born. However, all of these programs -- filmed in the U.S. and dealing with American subject matter -- are overwhelmingly American in their overall impact.

These programs may feature Canadian artistic talent and may be associated with Canadian production companies, one of the requirements of the Act, but how do these programs enhance Canadian culture?  David Taras, a known Canadian communication scholar from the University of Calgary, argues in his book Power and Betrayal in the Canadian Media (2001) that many programs deemed “Canadian” under CanCon rules do very little for the enhancement of Canadian culture. In this book, Taras states: “Canadian TV will be Canadianized by first being Americanized” (186). Although Taras was commenting on programming available during the 80s and 90s, his arguments still apply even amidst policy changes made in 1999 to increase Canadian content production – that even though these programs may star Canadian born actors or be produced by Canadian production companies, they focus almost exclusively on American themes, issues and settings.

Of course, there are successful Canadian programs that do highlight Canadian culture. Programs such as Corner Gas (CTV), Flash Point (CTV), Little Mosque on the Prairie (CTV), Whistler (Global), The Guard (Global) and Degrassi: The New Generation (CTV) all air during primetime hours. These programs not only take place in Canada but also do not hide the fact that they are filmed in Canada. Would these distinct Canadian programs exist if the Canadian Broadcasting Act did not? Without the Canadian Broadcasting Act, would there be any imperative to produce distinct Canadian programs? In general it is more expensive to produce original programming than to purchase it, and audiences often prefer American programming. For Canadian broadcasters, the costs of creating distinctly Canadian shows often outweigh the benefits – recent successful exports, such as Flashpoint and Being Erica, only illustrate the rule that in order for Canadian programs to be successful they have to be indistinguishable from American shows.

As more Canadians turn to the Internet for their media needs, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) is becoming increasingly concerned over its ability to ensure Canadians are exposed to Canadian content. While the Internet provides access to endless amounts of content, though, it also provides the opportunity for Canadians to be involved in the production of their own content; without the need to appeal to a mass audience, online content may be free to be more “Canadian” than what is available on Canadian network television. (For example, the National Film Board’s online archive is one of the most popular sources of video accessed through iPhones.) It is possible that within ten years the notion of “CanCon” will be an anachronism – and that we may be consuming more Canadian content than ever.

References

Taras, David. (2001). Power and betrayal in the Canadian media. Canada: Broadview Press.

Jonathan Avery is a recent M.A. graduate with a degree in communication and media studies from the University of Ottawa. You can access more material written by Mr. Avery at http://www.knowyourmedia.com

The notion that the Olympics are a celebration specifically of amateur sport dates back not to the ancient Greek games, as many believe – the Greeks made no distinction between professional and amateur athletes, and in fact had no word equivalent to “amateur” – but to the founder of the modern Games, Pierre de Coubertin. Greatly influenced by the ethos of the “well-rounded boy” and the “gentleman athlete,” de Coubertin felt that it was important that each nation’s athletes represent the general citizenry, not its professional athletes.

These rules were taken quite seriously for a long time, in some cases more strictly than might seem reasonable: participation in any professional or semi-professional sport was considered grounds for disqualification, as in the case of American athlete Jim Thorpe, who lost his medals for the 1912 pentathlon and decathlon because he had played semi-professional basketball. The rule clearly originated, at least in part, from an aristocratic distaste for anyone who had to work for a living – which explains the general disqualification of Swiss and Austrian ski instructors from the 1936 games. As the 20th Century wore on, however, the rule began to look like an anachronism – in particular because many nations “gamed the system” by supporting full-time “amateur” athletes.

In the 1980s two events dealt a final blow to the amateur ethos. The first was the creation of the so-called “Eddie the Eagle rule”: while audiences had found his relatively poor performance charming and even inspiring, to the International Olympic Committee it was an embarrassment, and a rule was passed that Olympic hopefuls must place in the top 50 competitors and the top 30 per cent in qualifying competitions. Where before it had been possible to go to the Olympics if you competed in a sport that interested few of your countrymen, it was now necessary to be one of the world’s elite athletes. At the same time, the International Basketball Federation abandoned the distinction between amateur and professional athletes in 1989, making it possible for professional basketball players to compete in the Olympics; as a result the American basketball team dominated the event for the next three Olympiads. This may be seen as an opening of the floodgates, as the governing bodies for other sports gradually abandoned the notion of amateur status as well (most notably hockey in 1998.)

A funny thing happened, though, as the Olympics became less averse to people making money from their sport: the Games started making less money themselves. The American network NBC, which bid successfully for the Olympic broadcast rights back in 2003, is expected to lose as much as $200 million on this year’s event. The Olympics, once guaranteed to deliver record ratings and revenues, have been reduced to that status of a “loss leader” that will, at best, draw attention to NBC’s more profitable offerings.

There are a number of reasons for this. Advertising is in a slump worldwide as a result of the recession, and many advertisers are moving more of their money to new media rather than traditional outlets such as print and television. At the same time, it does seem that the Olympics have lost some of their lustre. The increasing professionalism of the Games may have something to do with that: after all, if the Olympic Games are simply professional sports, why watch them instead of the professional leagues? The average hockey fan probably has more loyalty to his city’s team than to a Canadian national team that may not feature any of his favourite players – particularly when the Olympics causes a break in the hockey season. A uniformly high level of skill, meanwhile, may be satisfying to watch, but it has little emotional appeal: the travails of the Jamaican bobsled team in the 1988 Olympics became a successful movie, as did the underdog victory of the American hockey team in 1980, but it’s hard to imagine much drama in a film about the 1992 US basketball “Dream Team.”

What’s ironic about the increased professionalization of the Olympics is that it has taken place at the same time as what we might call the rise of the amateur in other fields: thanks to the increased availability of media production tools (such as digital video cameras, home recording equipment and video editing programs) and the advent of distribution channels such as blogs and YouTube, it has never been easier for amateur artists to find an audience. Some of these amateurs, of course, have ambitions to become professionals or semi-professionals; there have been any number of musicians, comedians, film-makers and even journalists whose amateur efforts have either found professional outlets or led to professional work. But what’s more interesting than that is the amateur ethos found in many online communities. As the authors of the recent book Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out note, much of the creative work available online is not only done without expectation of material reward but in contexts where it is literally impossible for the creators to get paid for their work: fan fiction, unlicensed subtitling of foreign films (mostly Japanese animation), mashup videos and so on. This is work done truly out of love – which is, of course, the root of the term “amateur.”

Do the Olympics have a future? Perhaps not – it certainly seems likely that the broadcast rights will fetch a substantially smaller sum the next time they are auctioned off. It’s likely that they will continue, out of sheer momentum if nothing else, but there’s little question that their importance will be much diminished. Most likely we will someday look back at them as a symbol, like I Love Lucy or the last episode of M*A*S*H, of a bygone age when everyone watched the same thing – and when we still distinguished between professionals and amateurs, and between producers and consumers.

Lessons

Classroom Resources to Counter Cyberbullying (various grade levels)

Free Speech Versus the Internet (Grades 10-12)

Promoting Ethical Behaviour Online (Grades 7-9)

 

Educational Games

Privacy Playground: The First Adventure of the Three CyberPigs (Ages 8-10)

Cybersense and Nonsense: The First Adventure of the Three CyberPigs (Ages 9-12)

Jo Cool or Jo Fool (Grades 6-8)

Passport to the Internet (Grades 4-8) Licensed resource

 

The source of much of this princess culture is Disney, of course, and this winter the studio is extending its reach by introducing its first African-American princess, Tiana, in the animated film The Princess and The Frog. Princesses are big business for Disney: since 2000, when the company began to tie together all the merchandising for any of its characters who might conceivably be called "princesses," the line has become one of the company's biggest earners. Disney's Andy Mooney, who spearheaded the creation of the princess line, told the New York Times  that he got the idea from seeing girls at Disney on Ice shows who were dressed in non-Disney princess costumes, but there's no doubt that in the years since the company has pushed the line into almost every imaginable aspect of a child's life, from beddings to Band-Aids to lip balm. Not surprisingly, the marketing of Princess Tiana began well in advance of the movie's December 11 premiere: more than 45,000 dolls based on the character had already been sold by mid-November, while actors portraying her were already performing in "Tiana's Showboat Jubilee" at Disneyland and Disney World. 

The creation of Princess Tiana would seem to be an attempt to expand into the one market as yet untouched by princesses: African-Amerian girls. The official list of Disney princesses includes, along with born princess Snow White and married-to-royalty Cinderella, two entirely non-royal characters, Mulan and Pocahontas, who are Chinese and Native respectively. The last two characters, though, rarely appear on merchandise -- less, perhaps, due to their ethnic origin than the fact that neither fits well with the "princess aesthetic": in their movies Pocahontas appears in tolerably realistic (if somewhat revealing) Native garb and Mulan actively rejects feminine attire in order to masquerade as a male soldier. Tiana, though, is carefully crafted to fit the princess mould, with an hourglass figure, many glamorous dresses, and even a tiara. Of course, she spends much of the movie in the shape of a frog, but that's not the image that will adorn lunchboxes everywhere. If the movie is at all successful, an entire new population of young girls will soon have caught princess fever.

Is this necessarily a bad thing, though? After all, princesses -- whether born to royalty at the beginning of a story or married into it by the end -- have been fairy-tale protagonists for hundreds of years; the characters of Cinderella and Snow White long predate their Disney incarnations. The appeal of princesses is not hard to see: the unearned wealth and privilege of being a princess makes it a close parallel to classic boys' fantasies of being demigods or orphans rocketed at birth from a distant planet. Where the male and female versions diverge is that where the boys imagine gaining powers and abilities from their special status, being a princess instead brings girls wealth, beauty and romance. It's not surprising, then, that many parents are concerned about just what gender roles their daughters are being trained to play.

Graphic by Jeff Brunner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One common feature of the many articles on this phenomenon is that young girls resist any criticism or alteration of their princesses. In the New York Times article cited above, the writer's daughter asks repeatedly if her mother likes her princess heroines; in her article in The Los Angeles Times  Rosa Brooks fails to convince her daughters that princesses are more likely to end up at a guillotine than a fairy-tale wedding; and Tracee Sioux, who writes a blog titled The Girl Revolution, describes her unsuccessful efforts to steer her daughter away from princesses. Nor can girls be easily swayed by stories that try to subvert the classic princess: "Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender," a 1989 study by Bronwyn Davies, found that both boys and girls often rejected stories that tried to alter the traditional gender roles found in fairy tales.

Is it really gender roles that children are so attached to, though, or is it the fairy-tale narratives on which they are experts? A recent article by Karen Wohlwend, "Damsels in Discourse: Girls Consuming and Producing Identity Texts Through Disney Princess Play,"  finds that while children engaging in "media play" with princess characters feel a strong loyalty to the original narratives, they are not averse to changing things like the gender of secondary characters (turning Prince Charming into a princess, for instance) or making the protagonist more active, especially if that means giving themselves a larger and more entertaining role to play. (One of the girls in Wohlwend's study finds a way to involve a comatose Sleeping Beauty in a swordfight.)

The children in Wohlwend's study, though, are kindergarteners; though they might have been exposed to quite a lot of princess-related media by this age, they’re still in the early stages of forming gender identities. As girls get older, the worrying aspects of princess culture -- the passivity, consumerism, and so on -- may become more and more confining. As Lyn Mikel Brown, co-author of Packaging Girlhood  writes, the issue is not princess play but the sheer dominance of princess culture: “When one thing is so dominant, then it’s no longer a choice: it’s a mandate, cannibalizing all other forms of play. There’s the illusion of more choices out there for girls, but if you look around, you’ll see their choices are steadily narrowing.” Her co-author, Sharon Lamb, points out as well that the road travelled by princesses is a narrow one, leading to the hypersexualized roles now being sold to ‘tween and teen girls: "There’s a trap at the end of that rainbow, because the natural progression from pale, innocent pink is not to other colors. It’s to hot, sexy pink -- exactly the kind of sexualization parents are trying to avoid.”

How should parents deal with the arrival of the "princess phase"? One option is simply to say “no” -- something parents should never be afraid to do. But an outright ban may backfire by making all things princess even more desirable. What may be more effective is to make sure that girls (and boys) are also exposed to more positive female role models. There are many children's books with strong female characters; kids' movies with good female leads can be harder to find, but the anime produced by Studio Ghibli -- such as Kiki's Delivery Service and My Neighbor Totoro -- is a good place to start.

Most important is that parents engage with their children's media and be ready to discuss the images and events they see. Don't be confrontational, but ask questions: do you think you can really make an angry person nice like Belle does to the Beast? Is it worth it to give up your voice, and your family, for a boy the way Ariel does? If Mulan spends most of her movie dressed as a boy, why is she in girls' clothes on the merchandising? There may be no escaping the "princess phase," but teaching kids to view media critically can help make sure your princess doesn't grow up expecting a handsome prince -- or a fairy godmother -- to solve all her problems.

MNet Resources

Teachers can address the presence of gender stereotypes in fairy tales and other children's media through the less Once Upon a Time (for Grades 2 to 6).
 
Media Stereotyping: Media Portrayals of Girls and Women looks at the ways that mass media can stereotype girls and women; the effects this can have on girls' body image, self-esteem and views of gender roles; and provides tips for kids and parents on resisting stereotypes and working for change.

Marketing and Consumerism: Special Issues for Tweens and Teens  talks about how young girls and boys are sold rigid gender identities by consumer culture.

Some concerns have been raised about the portrayal of race in the movie The Princess and the Frog. To help kids deal with racial and ethnic stereotypes, consult Media Portrayals of Ethnic and Visible Minorities .