Parenting Through the Election

Syndicated on BlogHer.com

A version of this post was syndicated by BlogHer on October 9, 2012.

Engaging your children in the electoral process can be filled with teachable moments.

yankee doodle
yankee doodle

This week I let my son stay up and watch some of the Republican National Convention speeches with me. To balance things out, we’ll watch some of the Democratic National Convention speeches next week.

We tried watching on the networks and PBS, but my son quickly tired of the commentators.

“Who is that and why do they keep talking?” he said. Good question.

Are we not able to discern the themes and validity of the speeches for ourselves?

We clicked over to C-SPAN where the coverage ran uninterrupted except for a ticker line of tweets across the bottom of the screen. A much better fit for us. We got to see all of the speeches and videos of the convention, not just the parts the media decided we should see. And without the commentary.

Media literacy is practiced in our house. 

We don’t sit there and take whatever the media gives us; we talk back to the TV, radio, and internet. We control the feed. We turn it off if these “guests” overstep their bounds.

Admittedly, my house leans conservative though I remain independent of party affiliation. I lost count of how many times during the course of the speeches by Chris Christie, Condoleezza Rice, Clint Eastwood, and Mitt Romney my child heard me speak to the screen.

“Amen.”

“Bless your heart.”

“God bless you.”

“That’s right.”

Next week, he’ll hear me speak, too.

I anticipate a lot of questioning and disagreeing. But I’ll take care to be measured in my responses. To explain to my son as best I can why some citizens see things differently than his parents do and to reiterate our beliefs. To stress to him how imperative it is we respect all our countrymen and the office of the President, even if we disagree.

Children think in all-or-nothing terms sometimes.

I corrected my son quickly when last night he said, “I hate Obama.”

“No,” I said. “We don’t hate Obama; we just disagree with him. And we respect him as a person and as the President.”

“But I hope Mitt Romney wins, Mom,” he said.

At the end of this process, someone will win, and someone will lose. And there will be more lessons to be taught. How to win and lose gracefully. How to stick with your values and beliefs regardless of the outcome.

The presidential election offers a chance for us to explain to our children what we believe and why. We get to show them the ropes of how we choose our elected officials. We have the chance to demonstrate to them wisdom and discernment. We’re responsible for developing their citizenship.

It’s up to us to plant the seeds of engagement that will influence the future of our country and culture long after we’re gone.

And so, my children, listen to me,
for all who follow my ways are joyful.
Listen to my instruction and be wise.
Don’t ignore it. Proverbs 32-33 NLT

Teach Your Children by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young.

Do you engage your children in the election? How?

 

Just the Facts, Ma’am

nothing could be finer

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I was a sophomore journalism student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, home of stratospherically good basketball and the country’s finest j-school.

My newswriting class was taught by legendary newspaperman Professor James H. Shumaker. He was the inspiration for the comic strip Shoe, created by his former student Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Jeff MacNelly.

I remember one assignment. For me, a lesson in objective writing.

In hindsight also a watershed moment. If I had been paying closer attention, the truth gleaned from that episode might have spared me years of angst.

I would have walked—no, I would have fled to Greenlaw Hall and sought asylum in the English department. Or at least declared a double major.

The assignment was to use a police report to write a news blurb about a fatal car accident. I completed the task quickly with masterful use of the language:

Two died in a tragic and fiery crash as their car careened over a treacherous mountain pass, plummeting the unsuspecting passengers to their grisly deaths. The horrific accident occurred in the dark of night around 11 p.m., Tuesday, on a dangerous stretch of route 10, just north of Waterton. Police are not releasing the names of the unfortunate victims until their bewildered families can be notified.

Proudly I carried my paper, we still used paper back then, to the front of the class and presented it to Professor Shumaker.

He read it and with a blank face said, “This is not objective. Do it again.”

“Not objective?” I said.

“Just tell what happened without the flourishes,” he said. “You don’t need ‘tragic,’ ‘fiery,’ and all that. Just report what happened.”

“But that would be… boring!” I said as I dragged back to my seat, tears welling. “And it was tragic.”

Yes, it was.

I can’t be sure, but I think Shu rolled his eyes in a polite Southern gentlemanly sort of way and said nothing more to me. For the rest of the semester.

I’m not a news reporter, but I believe a more objective story would have gone something like this:

 Two people died in a car accident around 11 p.m., Tuesday. Their car left the road on route 10 north of Waterton, went over the mountain pass and caught fire. Police are notifying relatives before releasing names.

Period. End of story. Just the facts, ma’am.

my refuge

Now class, mine was a simplistic example. Real life is not always so clear.

Next time you’re ingesting the news du jour, where are the facts? Are they dripping with dazzle? Sizzling with sensationalism? Muddied with interpretation? Then that news is not completely objective, is it?

Nothing against flourishes or interpretation. As long as you recognize it for what it is and don’t call it objective.

Call it creative nonfiction or opinion editorial or commentary and analysis or talk radio or personal blogging or something.

Professor Shumaker, God rest your soul. Now I understand why you wanted just the facts in the news. So do I, sir. So do I.

Getting wisdom is the wisest thing you can do! And whatever else you do, develop good judgment. Proverbs 4:7 NLT

The most fundamental change is that more of the responsibility for knowing what is true and what is not now rests with each of us as individuals. The notion that a network of social gatekeepers will tell us that things have been established or proven is breaking down. Citizens have more voice, but those who would manipulate the public for political gain or profit—be it corporations or the government—have more direct access to the public as well. (“Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information Overload,” Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, 2010, p. 7)