The frenzy over the Old School DVDs (my two cents)
It seems that Australian TV's beloved Channel 10 has pretty much lived up to its own dodgy news standards.
Not only is it jumping on the bandwagon of making unwarranted fuss, it is also jumping on it somewhere in the region of a month or two after US media decided to kick up a stink about it. In short, the Old School DVDs were mentioned on the news with the introduction of "The Sesame Street episodes that children weren't meant to see", with the typical tone of voice of someone abusing his position as a newsreader.
Frenzied members of the media have jumped right on this, citing everything from political correctness gone mad to the trippier content of 70s Sesame Street being "drug induced". Now, the time must come for people to take a deep breath, settle down, and just look at the bare facts.
It is a fact of life that times change. If Sesame Street is going to be doing its job properly, it has to change with the times. The whole point of Sesame Street in 1969 was (as it has been in the years since) to use the popular television techniques which always engrossed kids, and get them interested in using the television to learn. Television has changed a lot since those days, so it must be acknowledged as a possibility that using early-70s television gimmicks may not be that effective for today's children.
Have I always supported the changes to Sesame Street? No. In my opinion, is the show as good today as it used to be? No. Do I think that the Sesame Street of today would be better if it learnt from its former, more vibrant, more character-driven, Elmo-less self? Absolutely.
While I do not philosophically agree with every change the show has seen, it is still a simple fact that the show has changed, and in many ways needed to change. Sure, sometimes Children's Television Workshop/Sesame Workshop has got it wrong in some people's opinions. Sure, healthy debate and commentary on the issue is needed. But please, anyone who is going to fuss over it, fuss over it for the right reasons, and not because of an exaggerated interpretation of a necessary disclaimer.