New York Magazine - USA (2019-12-23)

december 23, 2019–january 5, 2020 | new york 41

ra ting for consumerism because it’s about

products. But because Frozen 2 doesn’t

promote any consumerist stories within

the story, and the characters themselves

were not toys to begin with, it gets only one

out of five, even though the rating notes

(correctly) that there are “countless mer-

chandise tie-ins.”

In speaking with Common Sense staff,

it’s impossible to come away with anything

other than a sense that these categories and

their definitions come from an abundance

of good faith. They do not think of them-

selves as censors. They are truly just trying

to help legitimately busy parents make

informed choices about how their kids

interact with media.

But the fundamental paradox at the cen-

ter of Common Sense’s mission is what

I find most frustrating and most seductive:

The act of neutrality always requires defin-

ing what “neutral” is. To have a category like

“positive messages” at all implies that posi-

tive has some specific meaning, and that’s

even more obvious for “positive role models

& representations.” The messages section

for Molly of Denali applauds the show’s

“respect for cultural diversity” and “multi-

culturalism.” On the “role models” section of

Finding Nemo, the rating notes that Nemo

“doesn’t let his disability slow him down.” I

happen to agree with how the site generally

defines these categories, although I suspect

the relatively black-and-white morality of a

5-year-old’s “positive messages” may get

much trickier when I wrestle with the

media chosen by a 10- or 13-year-old.

A Common Sense entry does leave some

room to reflect the reviewer’s opinion. In

addition to the age-rating and content-

warning boxes, titles come with a star rating

and a field for the reviewer to assess “Is It

Any Good?” Those sections can be helpful,

but the tonal sameness that shapes the rat-

ings section often drifts down into the lan-

guage of the reviews. Is there a meaningful

difference between Puffin Rock (“Enjoyable

to watch”), Super Monsters (“Exceedingly

delightful”), and Caillou (“He always gets

the life lesson—and viewers will, too”). If

these shows are not in your vernacular, let a

critic offer her opinion: Puffin Rock is spec-

tacular; Caillou is a nightmare.

Especially for younger kids, reviews

tend to focus on the good a show might

do—it could teach sharing, it could intro-

duce kids to stem—rather than the good a

show can be. The “Is It Any Good?” section

for Shaun the Sheep notes that episodes are

“packed with clever humor,” but it’s mainly

about assuaging any worry that Shaun’s

mild mischief could inspire kids to behave

the same way. It does not mention that it’s

a fantastically beautiful show and that its

clever humor is largely the result of

Which Streaming Services

Do You Really Need?

What has better original kids’ stuff,

Hulu or Prime? Where the heck is Sesame Street?

BY KATHRYN VANARENDONK

Sorry! You’ve probably

already lost them to

YouTube, Snapchat,

and video games, and

this guide is useless.

YES

The best mix of big titles

(Octonauts, PJ Masks)

and original shows (True

and the Rainbow

Kingdom, Puffin Rock).

The app allows

downloads for offline

viewing.

The best deal is the

ad-supported bundle

with Disney+,

but children today do

not understand

commercial breaks.

That said, Hulu is the

only place you can

watch all of Curious

George.

What’s

your attitude

toward

commercials?

What’s

their attitude

toward

princesses

and/or cars?

Have you

exhausted

all other

options?

Do they

like to watch

new stuff

all the time?

Is your

child younger

than 9?

Do they

want gentler

programming?

Are you

a Hayao

Miyazaki

fan?

Prime has an add-on

subscription for PBS

shows, plus some

original shows

worth checking out,

especially Tumble

Leaf for younger kids

and Gortimer

Gibbon’s Life on

Normal Street for

older kids. Prime

is a go-to for offline

viewing.

Although Apple does

have some original kids’

shows, and its puppets-teach-

your-kids-coding series

Helpsters is sweet, nothing

about the platform makes it

worth subscribing to on the

basis of children’s

programming alone.

In addition to the newest Sesame

Street episodes (older ones are

also on Hulu), HBO Max,

which launches in May, will be

the only place to stream Studio

Ghibli movies like My Neighbor

Totoro and Spirited Away.

If you do not subscribe to Disney+,

I promise you at some point you will

end up spending much more money to

watch all the Disney and Pixar movies.

NO,

THANKS.

NO.

NOT

PARTICULARLY.

PLEASE, NO.

WHO?

FINE

WITH THEM.

YES.

YES.

My children watch

only cartoons of

artistic quality.

YES.

YES.

LOVE ’EM!

YES.

mon Sense’s rubrics allow for the fact that

a 13-year-old’s two-out-of-five rating for

sex is not the same as an 8-year-old’s. (The

8-plus rating on the 1992 movie

Beethoven, the one about the dog, includes

a two-out-of-five ranking for “sexy stuff,”

as does the 13-plus rating for the CW

show Arrow.) The same is true for things

like language, consumerism, drinking,

drugs, and smoking.

Many of Common Sense’s review cate-

gories celebrate values that would be con-

sidered broadly progressive: diversity, non-

traditional gender roles, understanding

marginalized perspectives. But the reviews

are written in language that is as inoffen-

sive and abstract as possible, often with a

dose of both-side-ism. The rating for

1989’s The Little Mermaid points out that

“many think” Ariel’s story is “problematic

because it reinforces the idea that a woman

should give up her pursuits and opinions

in deference to a man.” “Others can put

this concept aside,” it continues, “to enjoy

the sweetness of the central character and

the universal challenges of love.”

Some categories, like “consumerism,”

seem less quantitative and are used in

occasionally counterintuitive ways. The

LEGO Movie gets a full five-out-of-five

PHOTOGRAPH, PREVIOUS SPREAD: MILES ALDRIDGE/TRUNK ARCHIVE

NO.

TRANSMITTED

Y ___ DD ___ AD ___ PD ___ EIC ________ COPY ___ DD ___ AD ___ PD ___ EIC

2619FEA_KidsTV_lay [Print]_36339551.indd 41 12/17/19 10:19 PM

december23,2019–january5, 2020 | newyork 41

ra ting for consumerism because it’s about

products. But because Frozen 2 doesn’t

promote any consumerist stories within

the story, and the characters themselves

were not toys to begin with, it gets only one

out of five, even though the rating notes

(correctly) that there are “countless mer-

chandise tie-ins.”

In speaking with Common Sense staff,

it’s impossible to come away with anything

other than a sense that these categories and

their definitions come from an abundance

of good faith. They do not think of them-

selves as censors. They are truly just trying

to help legitimately busy parents make

informed choices about how their kids

interact with media.

But the fundamental paradox at the cen-

ter of Common Sense’s mission is what

I find most frustrating and most seductive:

The act of neutrality always requires defin-

ing what “neutral” is. To have a category like

“positive messages” at all implies that posi-

tive has some specific meaning, and that’s

even more obvious for “positive role models

& representations.” The messages section

for Molly of Denali applauds the show’s

“respect for cultural diversity” and “multi-

culturalism.” On the “role models” section of

Finding Nemo, the rating notes that Nemo

“doesn’t let his disability slow him down.” I

happen to agree with how the site generally

defines these categories, although I suspect

the relatively black-and-white morality of a

5-year-old’s “positive messages” may get

much trickier when I wrestle with the

media chosen by a 10- or 13-year-old.

A Common Sense entry does leave some

room to reflect the reviewer’s opinion. In

addition to the age-rating and content-

warning boxes, titles come with a star rating

and a field for the reviewer to assess “Is It

Any Good?” Those sections can be helpful,

but the tonal sameness that shapes the rat-

ings section often drifts down into the lan-

guage of the reviews. Is there a meaningful

difference between Puffin Rock (“Enjoyable

to watch”), Super Monsters (“Exceedingly

delightful”), and Caillou (“He always gets

the life lesson—and viewers will, too”). If

these shows are not in your vernacular, let a

critic offer her opinion: Puffin Rock is spec-

tacular; Caillou is a nightmare.

Especially for younger kids, reviews

tend to focus on the good a show might

do—it could teach sharing, it could intro-

duce kids to stem—rather than the good a

show can be. The “Is It Any Good?” section

for Shaun the Sheep notes that episodes are

“packed with clever humor,” but it’s mainly

about assuaging any worry that Shaun’s

mild mischief could inspire kids to behave

the same way. It does not mention that it’s

a fantastically beautiful show and that its

clever humor is largely the result of

Which Streaming Services

Do You Really Need?

Whathasbetteroriginalkids’stuff,

HuluorPrime?WheretheheckisSesameStreet?

BYKATHRYNVANARENDONK

Sorry!You’veprobably

alreadylostthemto

YouTube,Snapchat,

andvideogames,and

thisguideis useless.

Thebest mixofbigtitles

(Octonauts,PJMasks)

andoriginalshows(True

andtheRainbow

Kingdom,PuffinRock).

Theappallows

downloadsforoffline

viewing.

Thebest dealis the

ad-supportedbundle

withDisney+,

butchildrentodaydo

notunderstand

commercialbreaks.

That said,Huluis the

onlyplaceyoucan

watchallofCurious

George.

What’s

yourattitude

toward

commercials?

What’s

theirattitude

toward

princesses

and/orcars?

Haveyou

exhausted

al

o

Dothey

liketowatch

newstuff

allthetime?

Is your

childyounger

than9?

Dothey

wantgentler

programming?

Areyou

a Hayao

Miyazaki

fan?

Primehasanadd-on

subscriptionforPBS

shows,plussome

originalshows

worthcheckingout,

especiallyTumble

Leafforyoungerkids

andGortimer

Gibbon’s Lifeon

NormalStreetfor

olderkids.Prime

is a go-toforoffline

viewing.

AlthoughAppledoes

havesomeoriginalkids’

shows,anditspuppets-teach-

your-kids-codingseries

Helpstersis sweet, nothing

abouttheplatformmakesit

worthsubscribingtoonthe

basisofchildren’s

programmingalone.

In additiontothenewestSesame

Streetepisodes(olderonesare

also

which

theonlyplacetostreamStudio

GhiblimovieslikeMy Neighbor

TotoroandSpiritedAway.

If youdonotsubscribetoDisney+,

I promiseyouatsomepointyouwill

endupspendingmuchmoremoneyto

watchalltheDisney andPixarmovies.

NO,

THANKS.

NO.

NOT

PARTICULARLY.

PLEASE,NO.

WHO?

FINE

WITHTHEM.

YES.

YES.

Mychildrenwatch

onlycartoonsof

artisticquality.

YES.

YES.

LOVE’EM!

YES.

mon Sense’s rubrics allow for the fact that
a 13-year-old’s two-out-of-five rating for
sex is not the same as an 8-year-old’s. (The
8-plus rating on the 1992 movie
Beethoven, the one about the dog, includes
a two-out-of-five ranking for “sexy stuff,”
as does the 13-plus rating for the CW
show Arrow.) The same is true for things
like language, consumerism, drinking,
drugs, and smoking.
Many of Common Sense’s review cate-
gories celebrate values that would be con-
sidered broadly progressive: diversity, non-
traditional gender roles, understanding
marginalized perspectives. But the reviews

are written in language that is as inoffen-

sive and abstract as possible, often with a

dose of both-side-ism. The rating for

1989’s The Little Mermaid points out that

“many think” Ariel’s story is “problematic

because it reinforces the idea that a woman

should give up her pursuits and opinions

in deference to a man.” “Others can put

this concept aside,” it continues, “to enjoy

the sweetness of the central character and

the universal challenges of love.”

Some categories, like “consumerism,”

seem less quantitative and are used in

occasionally counterintuitive ways. The

LEGO Movie gets a full five-out-of-five

NO.