Mind Moves: The debate about whether mass media is inherently harmful to minors constantly reverts into the pantomime parody of "oh yes it is, oh no it isn't".
Like that classic confrontation of "good" and "evil" the proponents of each position enjoin their "audience" to shout down the opposition. Those of the "yes" position call for control of the images, messages and media generated realities to which children are exposed. Those of the "no" position challenge any reversion to censorship, curtailment of civil liberties or constriction of commercial enterprise.
The "yes" side cites research since the sixties identifying the monumental imitative influence of images. They point to the cultural evidence of the commercialisation of childhood, the commodification of the child and the cash advantage of commandeering adolescents as consumers.
They locate the problem in the multiple modalities through which children and young people access each other, are accessed by others and wherein they form individual and collective constructions of the world.
The "no" side cites research refuting any causal connections between media message, mentality and behaviour. They point to the inconclusive nature of research that blames media for many manifest societal ills and which deposits all responsibility on service or product providers instead of on parents, whose role it is to determine the age-appropriateness of media generated content accessed by their children.
They identify educational, entertainment, information and communication advantages of media and point out the positive, protective power afforded the child who is but a mobile phone-call away from parental contact.
This polarisation of positions does little to advance either perspective and like most polarities contains not one singular "truth" but many valid realities on each. And as in all schisms there is at least one single point of convergence: a consensus corner shared by the two opposing factions - that is the significant influence of media in our lives.
Psychology recognises that our sense of who we are is not something that occurs in isolation; rather it depends upon how others define us and how they communicate that information to us. "Self", "me", "myself" and "I" depend upon the nature, consistency, power and persistence of the messages I receive throughout childhood (indeed throughout life) while co-constructing and creating my understanding of my "self".
Among the many messages, are influences as personal as family relationships and as abstract as mass culture. Many influential messages are in the development of definitions of "self" are media-generated. Advertisers who expend millions on messages will not deny the power of the well-placed message to influence consumption and product choice.
The influence of the commercial message read in the newspaper, heard on radio, observed on the net, on the video or DVD and advertised on TV is intensified by the frequency, modes and range of interactions a person has with media. The more modalities the more influence. Young people are major multi-modal consumers.
Audience research has long abandoned definitions of consumers as passive recipients into whom information is injected. Rather it recognises the significance of context: social, economic, political and discursive - in other words the opinions, beliefs, ideas and definitions of reality that prevail at the time that messages are sent.
The child, defined as consumer, with pester power and monumental vicarious spending potential is, however, a special recipient who warrants special attention.
The myth abounds that children are more media savvy than adults. They are not. They are more technologically proficient and can access technologically transmitted material with a confidence not available to those who remember the blurred and snowy TV images from the BBC or the opening night of RTÉ.
Infant fingers may fly across the keyboard, console or remote control while adult eyes strain to interpret the icons to turn technology on. But access is not process and the child's capacity to process what it can access lies at the core of the "content" controversy.
Clinicians who work at the coalface of mental health, where technoculture and child protection collide, meet children who have been traumatised by their unexpected exposure to hard core pornographic material. One is too many, there are many more than one. They meet adolescents whose "adultification" is one of precocious sexual experience yet abysmal ignorance of sexuality.
They do not deny the multiple media-conveyed benefits. They recognise the efforts made by many Irish Internet Service and other product providers to protect children and recognise that the solution may lie in a combination of self-regulation and defined controls and the safety solutions the digital media sector can also provide.
Clinicians can also identify the service providers who flout self-regulation and then critique those who challenge their commercial callousness. They are not prepared to be silent about dangers to children. Children are not for sale, not their minds, not their bodies, not their images nor consumer capabilities. They are citizens not commodities, children not consumers.
Most clinicians reject accusations of operating as "thought police", of radical conservatism or of seeking censorship. But if child protection defines a "nanny state", nannies are appropriate for children, who need protection.
The child of today can hold in its hand powerful technological tools for his enhancement or developmental demise. That is the issue. That is the debate. That is the challenge.
• Marie Murray is director of psychology at St Vincent's Hospital, Fairview. Information on the Internet Advisory Board Conference on protecting children from the downside of new media technologies on Monday 18th October 2004 is available at www.iab.ie