rotect their families, but now the government is putting itself in the role of parent-and that's dangerous. A national nanny is not the solution to these problems"(Mellillo). It is the parent's role, and should not make any other organization responsible. Ironically, even the newspapers that claim to support use of the v-chip do not print the ratings in their newspapers. One example of this is The Washington Post. "The Post ran a huge front-page piece entitled 'Parents Not Tuned to Vchip.' The story included several reasons why parents seem clueless about the new technology but did not mention that many papers, including the Post, don't run the ratings that work with the chip" (Mundy). This is the example of a rating with explanations from the Center for Media Education: This just displays how parents can't rely on anyone else to get the job done. Whatever the politics and newspapers may say, nobody is concerned with your children except you. Politics are just looking to get support, only caring for them, and will not go with what is right necessarily, but what is popular at the time. Newspapers only want to act interested and keep you reading. Don't get me wrong, you should use these as tools of information, but realize they are not necessarily reporting what is best for your children, but what most people think the way it should be is. Annotated BibliographyMellillo, Wendy. "Taking Aim." Adweek (Eastern Ed.). 40(24): 14-16. (4 May 1999)The main idea of this article is can the makers of violent movies and dangerous products are held responsible for advertising to children. The article points out the gun makers have advertised in children's magazines, and makers of violent video games for mature adults are advertising in Sports Illustrated For Kids. The article includes quotes from senators and the research they have carried on. It is very original how it compares the advertising of violence-related products to Joe Came...
