
What Danes consider healthy children’s television - CraneWorm
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/08/don-t-need-no-education
======
skrebbel
Kaj and Andreea is fantastic!

I'm Dutch but my wife is Danish. She does her utmost best confronting our kids
with Danish TV (we live in Holland), so I understand a bit of what the author
is on about. I was initially surprised as well.

Truth is, it _is_ entertaining! But most importantly, once you get past the
absolutely amateuristic way things are shot (hey, the kids don't care, why
should you?), there's a lot of depth to a lot of it. You need to let that
depth sink in a bit before you can see the value of it.

For example, the article about Kaj and Andreea:

 _Probably most striking, though, is another thing lacking: education. Quite
simply, there is none, academic or moral. “Kaj and Andrea”, a pair of puppets,
are sweet friends, but also goofily flawed: Kaj is terribly self-obsessed,
Andrea is warbling and neurotic. When other characters do something wrong,
there is little of the obvious consequence-and-lesson resolution of American
shows; the results are usually left to speak for themselves._

The lovely thing here is that it _is_ educative, but it's up to the watcher to
draw the lesson. Kaj's self-obsession is usually very funny and rather
ridiculous. It teaches kids "wow, it's pretty ridiculous to be so self-
obsessed". And at the same time it teaches kids that even if you're flawed,
that's ok - both Kaj and Andreea appreciate one another and are appreciated
and respected by the human co-hosts of their TV shows. This is something that
I've not really seen anywhere else.

I'm not convinced that kids learn lessons like these better when it's spelled
out for them.

~~~
tclancy
I am old enough (40) with a daughter who is almost 3, to be a little horrified
by kids' TV. It's not that there isn't a ton of "good" stuff for her, it's
that there is only "good" stuff. There isn't anything not geared toward
teaching her math, reading or morals. When I was a kid, that was PBS and a
handful of other shows and the rest of it was people whacking the crap out of
each other to make me bug my parents to buy toys. I don't think either extreme
is particularly wise, but it's strange to me there's _nothing_ aimed at her
age range that's simply fun.

Left to her own devices (literally), she scans youtube for videos of off-
screen adults playing with toys (which depresses the crap out of me) and
1990s-quality offshore Flash video of the same "Johnny finger" song in various
copyright violating incarnations. The song is horrific. Do not go look it up
unless you plan on having kids and want to inoculate yourself now, but writing
this out I wonder if it's not her looking to simply enjoy something rather
than constantly be prompted to solve a shitty math puzzle so we can move on
with the plot.

All of this sounds like I am an awful father but in reality we limit her daily
screen time to no more than 24 hours.

~~~
david-given
Go look up some old British children's television. It was made in an era
when... um... let's just say that it wasn't focus grouped.

Chorlton and the Wheelies:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ng7VMqet0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ng7VMqet0)

Noggin the Nog:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bKAYH3Sl8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bKAYH3Sl8s)

The Trapdoor:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eEXyg1lsZc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eEXyg1lsZc)

Bod: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfFoj-
gFP2M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfFoj-gFP2M)

Bagpuss:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9beAp3TG2E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9beAp3TG2E)

...and, of course, the Clangers:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Golf34zPQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Golf34zPQ)

(There's a new series of the Clangers being made. Haven't watched any, I'm too
scared it won't be up to the standards of the original...)

Oh! And I nearly forgot the Magic Roundabout:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3DcChXNyYQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3DcChXNyYQ)

~~~
DanBC
I _love_ Bagpus.

There's also Mister Ben (not sure this stands the test of time) and Ivor the
Engine.

(And I have fond memories of Danger Mouse, but I'm not sure that's any good
either).

~~~
david-given
Well, you can't go wrong with Oliver Postgate, who I now notice made nearly
half of the programs in my (completely randomly selected) list...

Also I appear to have remembered a fairly small selection of the 'children's
television on drugs' genre. See also: Banamaman, Jamie and the Magic Torch,
Roobarb and Custard, Captain Pugwash...

While talking about children's television: it's not British, and it's slightly
later, but any person of any age who doesn't like Fraggle Rock has no soul.

~~~
stevekemp
You've given me a nostalgia-trip.

In return I give you: The Wombles!

~~~
rahimnathwani
I used to think the theme tune went 'The wombles of Wimbledon: common are we'
but actually it's 'The Wombles of _Wimbledon Common_ are we'. I had never
heard of Wimbledon Common, although it's only 4 miles from where I was born.

~~~
stevekemp
I find that strangely adorable, thanks for sharing.

------
ups101
You missed Bamse ("Teddy"): A self-absorbed egocentric narcissist, taking
advantage of his naive, little-minded friend Kylling ("chicken"), episode
after episode with zero negative impact. After +20 years he's now joined by
Bruno, also a teddy bear, sharing similar personal flaws except with much
refined insults bordering on psychopathic abuse, bullying kids instead of
chickens, believing firmly that the world exists solely to please him in every
which way.

However, mostly you may have missed the subtle, educational point (yes, there
is one) underpinning these characters: Critical thinking. Is it right to
behave like this, even if there is no negative consequence (as is often the
case in real life)? Do you emphasize with someone taking advantage of their
friends? In Denmark, we have this crazy idea that kids are interested in
distinguishing right from wrong, even when the answer isn't spoon-fed by a
morally correct television character - and maybe exactly because it isn't.

The kids don't like Ramasjang because it's a training ground for inspiring
film makers. The like it because naughty is fun. And, if done right, it just
may induce some critical thinking. It'll take more than a few days of
watching, but just like the kids, you'll see the point :-)

Best regards from a grown-up, bottle-fed on Bamse, somewhat certain of right
from wrong.

------
johnjuuljensen
As a Citizen of Denmark and a father of two (4 & 1), I absolutely love the
danish stuff on Ramasjang and hate most of the American (foreign) stuff. The
programs produced in DK are rude and fun and slow and scary, while the foreign
stuff is mostly lame attempts at education (Dora the explorer is a
particularly nasty example of this) or over the top animations with too much
moral crap, too pretty characters and backed by toy franchises and whatnot.

I seems to me that the author actually enjoyed the shows and I mostly agree
with his assessment, but he can't have been watching too much because he
missed some important shows that are in fact educational.

Most prominent of the educational shows is Mr. Beard, who teaches numbers,
counting, simple math, letters and simple spelling. The show is weird and
quirky, but also features some great songs. The whole thing is backed by some
pretty great apps, which expand on the educational stuff.

There's also a great show about kids helping animals in trouble. They don't
pretend that the kids do most of the work, it's a professional that does the
heavy lifting, but the kids get involved as much as possible.

I don't mind watching these shows with my kids, but I'll leave as soon as Dora
or Thomas the tank engine or Chuggington starts.

If you're interested in watching some completely outrageous danish childrens
TV, go watch "Carsten og Gittes vennevilla". It's created by the duo "Wulf
Morgenthaler", who have produced some the weirdest stuff on danish TV.
Particularly the one where Carsten creates a fox is a hoot.

------
aedron
The most astute observation is that characters on Danish kids TV are often
completely, unapologetically flawed. This makes them relatable to kids, and
kids enjoy watching them in all their dysfunction.

And I actually disagree with the premise that this contains no lessons or
morals. Children are able to see clearly how ridiculous and ill-advised the
behavior of these characters is, and so learn to recognize it in themselves
and others.

Someone once pointed out that while Mickey Mouse is the mascot of Disney in
the U.S. and the main character of the franchise, in Europe it was Donald Duck
who became popular. Europeans like the flawed anti-hero, while moralizing
America (sorry!) preferred the do-gooder know-it-all Mickey Mouse.

~~~
david-given
In Britain, the nihilistic Looney Tunes cartoons like Bugs Bunny, Tom and
Jerry and (above all else) Roadrunner were _vastly_ more popular than anything
by Disney.

In fact, I don't think I've even seen a single Mickey Mouse cartoon...

~~~
riprowan
I'll take Bugs Bunny and the Roadrunner v Wile. E. Coyote _(supra-genius)_
over Disney any day of the week.

~~~
Noos
of course, because those are adult cartoons filled with adult references a
cultured person would get, and more or less robbed the 1940s for comedy. It's
more about how dynamic 1940s culture was compared to our own, I think.

If you go a bit later, to when they started doing new animation for Looney
Tunes tv specials in the 70s and 80s, the cartoons got dumber as well.

------
ulrikrasmussen
I'm a Dane, and grew up with Danish children's television, including the shows
mentioned in the article. I just recently re-watched one of my favorite shows
"Nanna", which you can now stream from the archives of DR. Even as an adult, I
still enjoy watching it for its humor and creativity, and for the fact that it
doesn't speak down to its audience. I don't think that can be said about most
other children's shows.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1kBNCRB6hw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1kBNCRB6hw)

Nanna: "What're you doing?"

Mother: "We're having sex, what're you doing?"

~~~
Munksgaard
Some might even recognize the dad as Jesper Christensen, who portrays Mr.
White in the recent James Bond movies.

------
iamthepieman
I just turned off the television after my kids watched more television in one
morning than they have in an entire month. The reason? Rio Olympics track and
field. Finally had to turn it off because I wasn't getting any work done.

Other than that, in the summer time anyways, I'll usually toss them a book of
matches and tell them to start a fire or go build a dam in the brook.

We usually have lofty educational goals at the start of summer but quite
honestly I can't be arsed when the weather is warm and there's so much great
romping to be had. When we watch TV it's usually youtube for something we're
curious about as a family. The "Fun" T.V. most always leaves my kids grumpy
afterwards so we avoid it, not for moral or educational or child development
reasons, but because i don't like grumpy kids.

After a couple kids and being the oldest of a large family I've realized from
my individual scientific survey of one that kids will develop and learn in
spite of their parents. We get too much credit and too much blame.

You gotta water if the sun's hot and it won't be raining for a while and you
should try to get a load of fertilizer at least once a year. I guess you
should weed after the first planting but you certainly can't make them grow.

If this comment is too rambling for you maybe you should go watch something
with a moral in it[0]

[0][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xMb3X7fDYQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xMb3X7fDYQ)

------
tronje
> _But until then, they seem utterly unharmed by a childhood of hearing about
> the queen’s bottom and watching grandma light some bodily gas on fire._

Is that really as surprising as is implied? To me, none of what the article
describes seems like such a bad thing. Sure it's a little weird, but it seems
right up there with the humor children enjoy. And not everything has to have a
message or a moral at the end of it.

~~~
lintiness
that's the point the author's making.

------
wodenokoto

        > And God he says, lives in heaven with Santa Claus and 
        > their dog Marianne, implying that the Supreme Being 
        > is not only imaginary, but also gay.
    

That is like saying Ernie and Bert are gay. I'd appreciate if the author tried
a little harder at interpreting childrens television from a childs
perspective.

~~~
alex_hitchins
If we are all made in his image, a bit of him must have been gay, trans,
fluid, etc. etc.

Or is this not how it works?

~~~
dragonwriter
> If we are all made in his image, a bit of him must have been gay, trans,
> fluid, etc. etc.

Or gender, like nationality and status under human laws, is an element of the
material condition of humanity irrelevant to the manner in which humans
participate in the image of God; consider, e.g., Gal 3:28: "There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and
female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (text from the NAB, but the sense
isn't shifted in any other version that I am aware of.)

------
ganzuul
"And God he says, lives in heaven with Santa Claus and their dog Marianne,
implying that the Supreme Being is not only imaginary, but also gay."

Or, you know, a woman.

------
TeMPOraL
At the risk of making a _tu quoque_ argument - if you want to see unhealthy
children television, look no further than Cartoon Network.

~~~
wodenokoto
I don't know what they are showing on CN in general right now, but I'm an
adult who watches the regular show and Steven Universe, and would very much
watch the latter together with my children if I had any.

~~~
mack73
My two kids (6, 9) fell in love with the regular show years ago. It's the only
show I can watch with them. The writing is strange and psychadelic with hidden
messages I'm sure only I pick up on and the artists (is this show computer
animated?) are great.

~~~
egypturnash
Pretty much every new cartoon you see is done at least partially with the
computer. In the case of Regular Show, Wikipedia tells me that it's animated
traditionally, on paper, then goes through digital ink and paint. Which is
pretty retro for a show that premiered in 2010.

------
koolba
> Probably most striking, though, is another thing lacking: education. Quite
> simply, there is none, academic or moral.

I already love this!

If there's one thing that children need to experience at an early age, it's
that the majority of what they'll deal with in life will have no redeeming
qualities whatsoever. Life should be enjoyed for life ... it doesn't always
have to be a backhanded way to learn to count.

------
silvestrov
This link to "Ramasjang" might (or might not) work from outside Denmark:

[https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/onkel-reje-og-boernenes-
brevkasse-s1...](https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/onkel-reje-og-boernenes-
brevkasse-s1/onkel-reje-og-boernenes-brevkasse-6#!/)

Most bakers sells "Kaj Cakes", we don't mind eating the cute puppets:
[https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/c72.0.495....](https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/c72.0.495.495/13734503_295893287429006_1357333032_n.jpg)

~~~
farhaven
Works fine from Germany. And now I'm watching bizarre Danish children's TV.
There goes my day.

------
jonah
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Mr. Roger's Neighborhood yet. One of the
best if not the very best childrens' program in the US. It was slow-paced and
deliberate like the Danish shows are described, but instead of being crass and
letting things play out, he dealt with serious topics in a simple, honest, and
caring way. He also encouraged curiosity and investigation and broke gender
and ethnic mores way before it was the in thing to do.

Well worth checking out.

------
gurkendoktor
I see a lot of fellow Europeans in this thread who prefer local TV series to
preachy US cartoons (me too). This is slightly off-topic, do you have an
opinion on the old Dutch show Alfred J. Kwak[1]? It was extremely political,
but somehow I didn't mind when I was a kid. I wonder if it was simply surreal
enough to make up for all the reality that it depicts? Has anyone re-watched
this series again with kids, 25 years later?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_J._Kwak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_J._Kwak)

------
goodJobWalrus
> Ramasjang is entertainment, not a replacement for parents or school. Parents
> are expected to know when to switch it off (but just in case, the characters
> go to bed at 8.00pm, and are shown sleeping until the morning) rather than
> pretend that it is self-improvement.

yes, I grew up watching mainly old American cartoons (like Tom and Jerry), and
I don't remember them being particularly "educational", and it was well
understood that we are watching them for entertainment, and the last one was
at 7:15 pm on our television.

------
zeristor
Hi kids, don't forget we live in the future; seems odd to discuss something
and not have a link to it.

Onkle Reje:

[http://www.dr.dk/Ramasjang/Onkel_Reje/forside.htm](http://www.dr.dk/Ramasjang/Onkel_Reje/forside.htm)

It may be in Danish, but it is for 4 year olds.

What would Rasmus Klump do?

------
mankash666
Denmark - Crass, potty mouthed but entertaining kid shows. USA - Clean,
preachy, educational kid shows.

Denmark - No gun crime, low homocide rate, high Human Development Index (HDI)
USA - High gun crime, high homicide rate, lower HDI.

So - What exactly do kid shows have to do with long term success of the kid,
or the general society they contribute to?

------
chvid
As a dane I was deeply traumatised by the show "Poul og Nulle i hullet".

------
zeristor
You can download the DR app on an Apple TV and watch Danish television.

Strangely a lot of reshot UK programmes.

My particular favourite was putting a camera on the front of a train:
Helsingør to Helsingborg the long way round.

I'll get my coat.

------
repler
95% of the population needs to be brainwashed means 95% of the children's
shows are going to be garbage.

It's just math. Make sure your kids are in that 5%.

------
spullara
None of my kids watch traditional television at all, everything they are
interested in is on YouTube, both for entertainment and education.

------
galfarragem
They are using 'vaccination' logic: a small dosis of reality makes kids
healthier in the long term.

------
arethuza
"Supreme Being is not only imaginary"

I was immensely proud when my son at 4 years old decided to stand up in his
pre-school class and point this out to everyone.

~~~
lintiness
i've never met a more evangelical (from the greek) crowd than atheists.

~~~
nitrogen
You really ought to get to know some Mormons ;) (spoken as a former believer).
One reason some groups, like atheists or evangelicals, are so vocal is because
they believe that the damage done to society by others not sharing their
beliefs will be irreparable. This is why beliefs and decisions need to be
rooted in reproducible evidence, rather than the reverse.

~~~
sverige
There are many kinds of evidence that are not reproducible.

~~~
justinjlynn
Evidence refers to that which can be evidenced on demand, or rather more
apropos, produced upon demand. Therefore, unless you mean something other than
the commonly accepted meaning of the term 'evidence', then evidence must be
reproducible. Perhaps if you could share some examples, we could explore your
definition more fully?

~~~
sverige
I disagree that all evidence must be reproducible, which is the standard for
experimental evidence (simple physics comes to mind). Just off the top of my
head, there is historical evidence and geological evidence, for example.

Historical evidence (whether documentary or archaeological or otherwise) is
certainly producible, but not reproducible in the sense that you can provide
the exact same thing again.

Geological evidence (again, very simply, like rock strata) is not
reproducible. Even saying that this kind of formation _always_ accompanies
another kind isn't reproducible. (The "all ravens are black" problem.")

There are other logical kinds of evidence that don't meet the "scientific"
standard, and yet are quite valid. My objection really is that the original
statement was far too narrow.

------
sixhobbits
Can we please edit the title to match the (correct) original "children's"
instead of the modified (incorrect) "childrens'"

~~~
iammyIP
'childrens' is 'more correct' because it makes the most grammatical sense.
Since it's genitiv, why would you apostrophe it, add another character for
what reason? Whose ball is it? The dogs ball. Whose exhaust is it? It's the
rockets exhaust. The apostrophe is used to mark silent letters inbetween the
slew of two words. It is -> It's ~ It(i)s.

~~~
asjo
Obligatory Bob the Angry Flower educational cartoon link:
[http://www.angryflower.com/247.html](http://www.angryflower.com/247.html)

See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case)

~~~
iammyIP
That flower's partially wrong. I disagree with the angry flowers possesive
case. The apostrophe in possesive case is confusing and illogical.

~~~
asjo
That's fine, but that's how english works.

~~~
iammyIP
I would refactor this.

~~~
asjo
The users of a language decide, so you just need to get everybody to follow
your idea.

