Divergence
It is sometimes hard to disentangle fact from spin in the way that the media represent children and young people.
There are those whom they gush over sentimentally and want to protect, especially little children, and those whom they demonise, especially teenagers. It is difficult to get a balanced picture, and when the media are presented with facts which are contrary to their gut feelings, they become uneasy. When higher pass levels are reported in examinations, for example, they do not trust the reports and want to find ways of belittling the achievement, rather than celebrating it.
In News Views we mention a number of the issues which have hit the headlines – alcohol, adoption, accidents and so on – and to get a fair and balanced picture of what is going on from all these reports is quite difficult, as they are inevitably wanting to make their points and tend to sensationalise in the process.
Our overall impression is that there are a lot of children who are doing well, working hard in school, enjoying good health, developing physically and mentally, being well brought up by their parents and/or carers, and contributing positively to their communities. These young people have the prospects of good futures, with rewards in the shape of higher education, job prospects, income, opportunities to travel, the chance to achieve and have influence, and high life expectancy.
There is also a sizeable minority who become progressively less eligible, avoiding school, achieving poorer attainments, developing fewer life skills, having lower prospects of further education and job opportunities, getting involved in crime, looking to drugs and alcohol for satisfaction and short-term highs, and having poorer health. Their prospects are worse all round than the achieving group, with the possibility of poverty, less fulfilling work, spells in prison or mental hospital, poorer health and lower life expectancy.
Although this picture risks being over-simplified, the overall impression given by the news is that there is a widening gap between these two groups, despite the efforts of the Government to take children out of poverty.
Research has suggested that people are happier in countries where there is a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, even if the overall wealth of the country is less. If so, there is clearly an argument for investing in helping those who are failing to do better. Is there also by corollary an argument for limiting rewards at the top end of the scale or for reducing the pressure to achieve? That may be a non sequitur, but there could be an argument for less flaunting of the difference if the consequence is serious disaffection on the part of the underclass.
The same may also be true of the world as a whole. If there is a more even distribution of wealth, the world as a whole might become a happier place to live, with fewer disaffected people. It might seem obvious that it will be better for the poorer nations, but it will be in the interests of the richer nations as well if there are bigger markets for their goods and a reduced threat to their security. This would be an appeal to self-interest, which unfortunately appears to be the major motivator in such matters, but it would also be supported on grounds of justice and equity.
Both nationally and internationally, then, divergence should be seen as a sign of failure, not success, on the part of the better off as well as the poorer.
Are you plagued by Spam? Our production manager has found a service which is absolutely fantastic - it removes 100% of spam from your mailbox before it arrives at your computer - you never see it. It really works and makes e-mail a pleasure again. Best of all, it is free for a year. Try SpamJab - it's brilliant! (This is not a paid advert)
SEARCH THIS ISSUE OF THE WEBMAG HERE
the
back isues
