More Legislation or More Talk?: Contributing Factors to the Mindset of the "Digital Generation"

Montgomery’s (2007) Generation Digital paints a divisive image of the potential role of new media in the lives of America’s youth as a result of the commercial and political influences that influence media consumption. Central to her argument is the idea that for all of the potential positive elements that new media can shepherd into a young person’s life, there are many negative consequences related to new media use. I believe, however, that Montgomery may be misappropriating an essential point in her analysis. Specifically, the role parents can play in their children's lives.

Montgomery (2007) points towards busy parents and two-income households as a driving force for teenagers and “tweeners” gaining an advanced sense of maturity, holding jobs and dispensable income, and seeking identity and interaction through new media channels like blogs, Web sites, or chat programs. While I agree with her on these points, I also believe that their absence is a mitigating factor in some of the positive and negative outlets that new media provide to young people.

A core discussion throughout the book is the risks that face children in the new media conduits they use. Montgomery (2007) consistently aligns parents’ concerns with their busy lifestyle and inability to monitor their children effectively. There is a consistent pattern that emerges in each of the risk conditions that follow. Fear of exposure to pornography driven by a child’s ability to navigate the Internet led to parents demanding functional filter software for their computers and government legislation to push censorship forward. Concerns about marketing Web sites being able to effectively gather personal information on children of all ages without parental consent, as well as other risks associated with disseminating such information drove parents to demand government intervention to regulate marketers’ ethical standards in gathering data. Even Montgomery’s discussion of AIM and Internet chat use makes the assertion that parents did not know and that kids were not readily volunteering the information about their Internet interactions. Each of these discussions frame parents as hapless victims of the deceptive actions of new media or their kids. This seems to ignore the possibility that perhaps the parents missed the point in each case. In each situation, they demand that someone else step in and ensure their children’s safety.

I understand parents who can not be there making this demand. From another perspective, however, it seems like parents who can be there are not presenting the critical first line of defense for their kids: themselves. Anecdotally speaking, stepping into a room, asking what your kids are doing, and not taking omissions or lies for answers always seemed to keep my siblings and I out of trouble as teenagers on the Internet. Perhaps part of the danger of the Internet is a growing sense of absentee parenting that Montgomery (2007) references in Chapter 8 when she speaks about Postman’s (1994) stance that family breakdowns are leading to digital immersion by young people. In this sense, parents and conservative advocacy groups may need to be more proactive with teenagers and “tweeners” before looking for the guiding hand of the federal government.

This need to grow up fast is not without its benefits, however, as Montgomery (2007) points out. Social marketing campaigns help give kids essential information in sex education and about smoking that might not reach them in any other way, potentially improving the quality of their lives. AIM helps kids learn to potentially interact in difficult social situations. New media is becoming a conduit for teenagers to engage in political and social issues in an effective and proactive manner, despite the potential negative effects of commercial influence. New media provide children with efficient ways to research issues, learn, interact, participate, protest, and to be active members of the citizenry. Although Montgomery does suspect that the threat of the digital divide and commercial influence may hinder the “digital generation” from maximizing their potential, many things are encouraging. It is quite possible that the words of Peter Townshend of The Who were quite prophetic when he penned, “The Kids Are Alright.”