and precious?

[Decanter]

As much as I can, I prevent my DCs from seeing news that may disturb or scare them, and that they do not NEED to see. E.g. I would tell (if asked, tbh) them in age appropriate terms about terror attacks, or refugee crises, or perhaps a prominent person's death but not about isolated murders etc. We do not read newspapers and never buy them or have them at home, and I am as careful as I can be about them seeing tabloid and trashy magazine covers (take a break) etc. when we are out. They are 4 and 7.

DD(7) told me today that she and a schoolfriend read about a "baby called Liam who was strangled and died". She was referring to the horrific case of little Liam Fee. Turns out her school provided the newspapers for them to cut bits out of etc. for craft.

I am a supporter of Child Eyes, the charity which campaigns for the censorship of sexualised images and headlines, and I believe that a young child reading stories of children being murdered are potentially as scary and anxiety-provoking to a young child.

Would I be U and precious, if I asked the school not to use newspaper for this type of activity?

When I was a small child (five or so and an early reader) I got hold of some Picture Post magazines in my Uncle's house which had graphic photos and captions about the Holocaust and the death camps. I could not stop thinking about what I had seen and it marked a turning point in my small life; the worst part being that I really couldn't express my anxieties and I didn't tell my parents. This is my point; small children cannot deal with horrors , and what has been seen cannot be unseen. We can't protect them from life or from everything that goes on but child murders and other horrors are hard enough for adults to cope with. Let us try to protect the very young until they can at least talk it though at a reasonable level with an adult .

I don't think you are being precious. Childhood is precious and kids don't need to see/know about the horrors of the world as 7. They should be carefree and unaware.

Slowly, between 7-11 is plenty of time to introduce things that go on 'out there' with sensitivity and support.

Not as a headline in a newspaper on their own in school, but with you or an adult who can comfort and answer their questions.

I don't get this 'toughen them up' at 7 attitude.

My dad was a great "fan" of ww2, holocaust, cold war disaster films etc and as a result of having that kind of stuff thrust at me due to his special needs and not realising i was too young, I developed some hideous anxiety as mortality and suffering was shoved in my face (and my equally effected siblings)
When he got custody of us, protection pretty much went out the window and we were up late watching things we shouldn't be at a young age. As a result, I witness the AIDS advert.
This played a huge part in me eventually being sectioned, feeling vunerable and terrified of disease, suffering and death.
We don't have tv or news... but we discuss various subjects with the children when they ask but they create their own imagery so are less afraid but have retained their compassion.
My stepson however, who's mother is not hugely protective and has allowed him to watch and play adult films and games, has a terrible cruel streak and will think nothing of putting slugs on a stick over a bonfire and watching them blister while shouting "die! Die! DIE!!!"
Often in abuse cases, child aged abusers have been witness of violence and abuse in the home and have had access to adult materials etc. It desensitise them and that is disturbing.

Yanbu.
I don't have the news on when my children are around. I switch off the radio when the news comes on.
There is no benefit to children in reading or hearing about gruesome things.
My kids are 8.
They can watch news round for age appropriate news.

YANBU to worry about messing up your kids.... But. You can't control anything really outside of your own home. You'd be doing yourself a favour by letting some stuff go. I wouldn't have liked hearing that from a 7 year old, but as soon as I read it I remembered the same thing happening to me as a child. I read and read and read in a state of shock and amazement, all of the gruesome things that were happening. I still remember what some of those things were. It's just one of those things, I'm not physiologically damaged (much 😁) and I am concerned and careful with what my children see and hear, but when appropriate, I do explain as best I can. It's happened, just leave it. It's worth noting perhaps that in other countries they don't censor news pictures, so you'll be in a shop buying an ice cream, with a newspaper on the stand showing a mutilated corpse. Horrible to see, but it had happened, which was even more horrible.

I'm going against the grain to say YANBU. Adults often can't remember or do not realise how upsetting, new and sometimes confusing these things can be for children. You do not have to bubble wrap children but also you do not have to expose them to things they do not need to be exposed to. If the children know someone who dies they can be helped, they are usually spoken to and given assistance, especially if the death is traumatic. What often happens when children read or see distressing images is that they do not tell anyone, or talk about it. Or if they do they sometimes cannot express their feelings or what they are experiencing. Unlike real life situations they are not given information, help or guidance.

Schools should be using old children's magazines and educational magazines for children to cut out from. My children use a lot of magazines for cutting activities in school but they are only old magazines that the school library subscribes to, not main newspapers, especially tabloid junk and trashy magazines.

By mistake some children in my class got some Page 3 girl pictures when we were doing craft. That made for an interesting discussion. You need to discuss OP not pretend that bad things don't happen.

yanbu at all. I don't let my 4yo see the news. It is all Bad news and images that she's not ready to see. We will into rice her to it gradually eventually at an appropriate age.

introduce not rice

Ds (7) gets very worried about things, so I don't watch the news but he sees the odd flash of it on the TV and bits of newspapers and magazines and gossip at school (quite a few refugees and many immigrants, so world politics comes up a lot).

I try to make clear that when something terrible like a murder is in the news, it's because that practically never happens so it's written about because it's so rare and shocking. Which seems to satisfy him but in the last week we've gone from "why are there wars?" to "why did World War II happen?" and then obviously "so why did World War I happen?" (thank goodness I did history GCSE!) and "is world war III going to happen?" (doubt it - we've got things like the UN in place now...)

When I was 10 we did Current Events weekly at school and were expected to read at least part of a newspaper, so we discussed the Kimberly abuse case a lot. It was why I decided never to marry (it was clear one of the parents had done the murder but not which one, and being married they couldn't be made to testify against each other).

protective and has allowed him to watch and play adult films and games, has a terrible cruel streak and will think nothing of putting slugs on a stick over a bonfire and watching them blister while shouting "die! Die! DIE!!!"

Tv and games DO NOT make children violent. If he is behaving in this way he might be watching violent movies because he is drawn to them, because he already is interested in violence. Torturing animals shouldn't be taken lightly and deliberately cannot be blamed on entertainment. There is something else at play.

My DS is now 12. I protected him from the news for years. Even now I'll switch off the radio or TV if the news is about paedophiles, child killers etc. We talk about the news but more about politics than about nasty things happening to individuals by people who are supposed to protect them. Then as he got older he learned about poverty and war and how children are forced to live in some countries. At primary school they covered the Blitz. Unfortunately a supply teacher told them about the Holocaust, which caused some of the children nightmares for weeks afterwards.
I agree, let children be children as long as you can. I wouldn't mention the newspaper thing to the school though.

YANBU to want to protect your DC from the horrible things that happen in the world.

We wouldn't let a 7 year old watch a film in which, eg, a child is brutally murdered so why is it ok if it is on the news and has really happened? Surely that makes it even worse?

To those posters saying that her child will be more affected because she's not been exposed as much as others: I would want my child to be affected by reading that kind of news story. I wouldn't want her to shrug it off with "it's just the news" or "it's ok because we don't know them" (as one 5yo mentioned upthread said). I still cry at some news stories. We should be affected by the news.

On the other hand, YABU to think you can control everything she's exposed to. Unfortunately I don't think you can require schools to vet every bit of newspaper they use.

Unfortunately a supply teacher told them about the Holocaust, which caused some of the children nightmares for weeks afterwards Do you think it is unreasonable to at least mention this to a group of 10/11 year olds? What about the Roman games in the Colosseum? Henry VIII beheaded his wives?
Nightmares?

YANBU.

My 16-year-old was a great reader and read everything - letters from school in her bookbag, every book she could lay her hands on, newspapers, magazines, random crap on the internet once she was old enough to have any kind of unsupervised access. We thought the reading was a great thing - she was top at English, and how can you criticise a child for reading? But what we didn't know until recently was that aged about 7, she came across stuff that deeply traumatised her, about terrorism and 9/11 and 7/7, chiefly. She is now completely phobic about flying and travelling.

If I could go back, I would have been a lot more careful about limiting what she had access to in terms of newspapers and the internet (we did have age limits on the internet, but I would have been even stricter).

As others have said, what you've seen, you can't ever unsee.

There's plenty of time for kids to find out about this stuff when older. By all means discuss major news stories, but that way you can present them in appropriate terms without all the graphic imagery.

Let children be children, not having to deal with adult worries.

I am super open with my children, I possibly take it too far (the other day I found myself explaining in graphic detail what a stroke was) they are 4, 5 and 7 (plus the 11mo baby but I assume she isn't that interested) the OP has confirmed for me that however careful you are, sometimes news stories get through, and on balance I think I would rather have a policy of open discussion at home so they fee they can talk about events that are scary/worrying them. When we listen to the news they ask questions, and I answer them, honestly. Even horrible ones. They know the whole world isn't safe but I hope they get that they are - and that they are lucky.