Kate Marks: Is TV turning kids into pigs? By Kate Marks Published on Wednesday 11 January 2012 12:01 As children's TV favourite Peppa Pig comes under fire, parent Kate Marks asks if bad behaviour can really be blamed on the goggle-box The decades-old debate about the degree to which television influences our behaviour has reared up again, this time targeted at Peppa Pig, the animated star of a programme aimed at under-fives, who stands accused by some parents of inducing bad behaviour in their child. Peppa answers back, utters the irritating "whatever" with abandon, prefers cake to vegetables and splashes in muddy puddles. Hmm. So she's to blame. At first glance Peppa sounds like a perfectly average-child-pig to me, but then again I never had those wonderful toddlers I hear others speak of who behave impeccably both under, and out of, parental control. Indeed, I have to stop myself viewing people suspiciously when they tell me how well behaved my children have been when I'm not there. I confess to having allowed my children to watch television unsupervised when they were very young, grabbing the 20-minute window to tackle some chores. I planned to be one of those mums who skipped through the housework during her child's afternoon nap, but in reality was often to be found lying in a heap beside them, utterly exhausted and asleep before they were. Now primary school-age, I monitor their viewing much more now than I did when they were under five. It didn't seem necessary when they were so young. After all, just how much influence is an animation aimed at very young children likely to exert? Quite a lot, as it turns out. Research by Ofcom's predecessor, the British Standards Commission, tells us that most children under four do not understand advertising but are the group most influenced by it. Nor are they able to distinguish between ads and television programmes, unlike older children, who develop cynicism from around eight years of age. Younger children are, however, able to comprehend from a very early age the difference between day-to-day living and what they see on screen. But that doesn't stop them wanting to mimic behaviour. The number of children's television programmes has tripled in ten years and the biggest chunk of it is dominated by animation, with a huge slump in drama and factual programmes. According to an ICM poll carried out for TV Licensing in 2011, adults thought they watched an average 20 hours of TV a week when the true average was in fact more than 30 hours. The figure for under-fives, settling at around 14 hours per week, is much less, but you get the point. Our children probably watch more than we think. A toddler can process a considerable amount in 14 hours, and if the statistics are correct, most of us seem happy to let them. The effect of television on our children may also depend on whether we see the television as a child carer or a habit. If, for example, you factor a scheduled programme into their day and sit together to watch, this has the two-fold effect of including you in your child's experience of what he or she is watching whilst allowing you to monitor it. If, on the other hand, you employ the television purely to allow you to get on with other things, and pay little heed to the content further than ensuring the channel is child-friendly, is it the programmers" fault if the child begins to exhibit aspects of the naughtiest character? Surely it's more prudent to be aware of what is being seen by your child and make an informed choice on its appropriateness? Thanks to the licence payer, BBC's Cbeebies is in the comfortable position of not having to source advertising revenue to earn its crust and follows stringent guidelines about content carrying an educational element. Unfortunately, other channels don't share this enviable position and are dependent on advertising and face fierce competition to survive. When the Plu festival for under-sixes began in Edinburgh eight years ago, its aim was to encourage parental engagement with children through play in a non-commercial environment, banning advertising and leaflet promotion and refusing sponsorship by profit-making organisations, but even Plu bows to the power of television by having children's television "celebs" as an anchor to attract visitors. The year Plu opted not to have a children's-television "face" attendance slumped by 30 per cent. There's a post going round Facebook in response to the Peppa outrage which gives an example of how it was for those of us old enough to remember Andy Pandy and Noddy the first time round: ." . . as a child, Cinderella arrived home after midnight, Pinocchio told lies, Aladdin was a thief, Batman drove at over 200 miles per hour, Snow White lived in a house with seven men . . ." and so it goes on. The inference being that nothing changes. Well, it does and it has. There is no escaping the impact of television; 97 per cent of the UK population owns at least one and many have more than two. The choice remains ours whether to watch or turn over. Better still, turn off, and go in search of a real-life adventure in the great outdoors. Kate Marks is managing director of Plu, a festival for children under six. www.parentslikeus.co.uk Colourful cartoons Peppa Pig isn't the first children's TV show to come under fire. Rastamouse - Critics have accused this CBeebies programme of racism over both the way the show portrays Rastafarians and the slang it uses. Teletubbies - Tinky-Winky was condemned by American televangelist Jerry Falwell as a homosexual role model for children. The Magic Roundabout - Critics suggested Zebedee was a sex maniac and Dougal had an addiction to speed.