In the article "Children of the Screen" by Hannah Baylon, it seems as though she is arguing that we are all influenced by pop culture, and in so doing we lose our sense of individuality. Personally, I do believe we are all children of the screen. It’s inevitable these days. No matter what we do, in some way we will be influenced by the media. It comes out in what we wear, what we buy, even how we decorate our homes. No one can live a life that is completely media free.

However, I must disagree with her statements "A negligible fraction of today’s society is free to explore and nurture their creative potentials," and "While watching television may seem a harmless break from the duties and routines of our daily lives, there is a higher cost to the consumer than is purely financial." I believe that there can be harmful effects of watching television, but there are some benefits. I also don’t believe that only a small portion of society is free to be creative. Look at it this way, without television or video games, sure people would be more active. But, for those who actually created those shows, movies, and games it’s a loss. That was their creative expression. The media allows so many opportunities for people to get out there and create a work of art.

A movie can have a positive effect upon a person. It’s not exactly detrimental to our health if we watch a few. Everyone is still "free to explore and nurture their creative potentials". No on is stopping that. It’s up to us what we choose to do. Whether or not we take the opportunity to do so is our own fault. Taking away the media wouldn’t change a thing, except taking away the creativity of the actors, screen wrights, directors, musicians, etc. Just because someone takes four hours out of their day to watch television, doesn’t meant that if it wasn’t there they’d be doing something extraordinary. The ambitious are the ones who will be creative. The media can’t take that away from them.

And I have to say, in her final paragraph she is a tad bit dramatic. We will not be spiritless just because we are influenced by the media. I think the article does have a point, but to say that all media is negative, I just can’t agree. Take, for example, the history channel. That’s an excellent way for people to learn who really won’t pick up a book. It’s probably more beneficial to read the book, but visual aid can’t hurt. And when she discusses the Darwinism take on the matter and our adaptation to our environments, I must say we’ve created an environment that has adapted to us, I think the key word being "created". We haven’t lost our sense of creativity. Some people just choose not to use it.