Analysis Of The Plug In Drug By Marie Winn

In “The Plug-in Drug”, author Marie Winn attempts to reason with the reader to persuade them that watching television --- even “good” programs --- is harmful to children. She also uses counter arguments debunk current beliefs about children and television.

First, she counters the belief that only watching violent programs make children behave aggressively by stating that watching television only happens in front of a screen, not in combination with some other experience.

Second, she counters the thought provided by a founder of the group called Action For Children’s Television, which was parents have the right to ask that programs aimed at the young should meet the specific needs of children by stating that education programs are an illusion for the parents. She attempts to reason by stating that the real needs of children isn’t just amusement. She states that the real needs are opportunities to

work out basic family relationships, developing initiatives, and to find out things for themselves. She also states that children need to acquire the fundamental skill of communication and to discover their strengths and weaknesses. She further states that children need to be able to satisfy their need for fantasy themselves. She condemns television programs by stating that television reduces the opportunities to work out basic family relationships, and that television provides answers too easily to children, instead of letting them develop initiative and find out things for themselves. She also state that television retards verbal development because the child is silent while watching, discourages the sort of games that enable the young to discover their strengths and weaknesses, isn’t able to satisfy the child’s need for fantasy as the fantasies on television are adult made, and that television doesn’t provide intellectual stimulation as well as manipulating, touching, and doing.
Third, she debunks several theories about television and how they affect children.

She first offers a counterargument to the thought that a youngster unfamiliar with TV programs will find making friends difficult and will be labeled as an outsider by saying that the other children will respect their independence and recognize the richness of the other activities. She ten gives a counterargument to the thought that the experience that children get from watching television is the same as the adult’s by saying that adults can relate to their past experiences and real life while young children don’t have that real life experience and knowledge to relate the TV programs to. Lastly, she counters the thought that TV is an important source for learning by saying that children who were television-educated use words that they don’t fully understand and “facts” whose accuracy they can’t judge as they don’t have that experience, while the children who learned through reading or other activities besides watching TV can use their minds and bodies to understand and enrich their

lives.
In conclusion, Marie Winn attempts to convince the reader that children watching TV to be educated isn’t helpful towards them in the long run as they will not have as much experience in the real world and will not have developed certain skills such as verbal communication which will help them in the future.