This kind of tactic has been in our school systems for a very long time.
When I was in 3rd grade, it was when nixon ran. the "weekly reader" of that time painted nixon as the saver of everything and just the person who would make us happy if our parents voted for him. Weekly reader even encouraged teachers to have a "class room" vote,just like our parents would do. Of course 90% of the students in our class voted for nixon, who was portrayed like mr. kerry is being portrayed now. do you know, that vote haunted me for years, after what nixon did ? I didn't even register to vote for seven years after I turned 18 because I felt betrayed by mr.nixon for his transgressions, my teacher for encouraging something so obviously biased, and myself for being so very duped WAAAY back in 3rd grade! not every kid will be impacted in that way, but those of us with concience and insight will remember stuff like this far into the future.
in the long run the weekly reader did me a favor. I am very careful to look at EVERYTHING I can everywhere about a candidate before I make my way to the voting booth. I might not give something so weighty such careful thought without that awful little classroom excersize , and that fiasco mr nixon created that gave so many of us from my time a distrust for politicians and presidents.
by the way. when my kids were growing up, we had to purchase the weekly readers for our kids yearly. I refused. my kids got to read national geographic explorer when current events stuff came up. they got a slightly different assignment than the others but they weren't swayed by the insiduous words of any propaganda campaign from weekly reader.

Super Baby says:

"Do people honestly believe that kids will act favorably when they hear that they'll receive more tests?"

Maybe not, but kids dont vote and politicians testing literacy and numeracy goes down well with adults (i.e. the voters) because adults see it as the government holding the schools accountable (particularly those lefto pinko government funded ones.) Here it always works a treat, a government wants to make it look like they are doing something for education but it doesn't want to spend money...develop a new set of tests that the kids have to pass to show that taxpayers are getting their moneys worth. YEEEEESSSSSSSS the taxpayers love school tests.

aussie git, regarding your first remarks, in order to be more pithy in my article, I simply referred to John Kerry as Sen. Kerry following my comment about using the phrase President Bush to make my point. I didn't need to use the titles in the rest of my writing because I am targetting my article at adults who should know better (take that comment however you please).

If you didn't see the issue, then I think you have no right judging what was a nuance or blatant bias. Most people I have spoken to question the front page as soon as they see it (without my even commenting). This is a form of visual media. Kids are very visual and these people knew exactly what they were doing.

Point #2 of yours was already adressed and poorly thought out. I believe you need to follow your own advice.

AS for reply#17, your experience doesn't hold any water when it comes to this American subject. There happens to be a whole uproar about the No Child Left Behind program that Bush is pushing. Here, more tests aren't appealing to children or their parents. Super Baby saw right to the point. That would be a positive note only for those few that agree with absolutely anything Bush does not for those who are forming opinions about his policies. Some of us don't think that the government needs to be heavily involved in everything.

Aaron, you got the point exactly! Adults see bias for what it is. Kids in school think anything in writing is the complete truth and are heavily influenced by it.

wulfn1, that is exactly the kind of experience (yours re Nixon) that I want to prevent my children from having. Sure, they don't vote right now, but kids develop long lasting attitudes very early on. You had the wisdom to learn something positive from that experience but many would/did just soak it in and take it for granted. Just like all the people who were taught to never question a person of authority. Parents of my generation were brought up that way and sometimes had to learn the hard way to question doctors (as an example I have experience with).

I question everything when it comes to my children. An important lesson for them should be not to just go along with something just because "everyone else is doing it".

If your kids don't learn what a corrupt and self-serving scumbag George Bush is now, they'll certainly learn in college when they study U.S. history and foreign policy. That is, if they get to college.

As for the Time Magazine, it's no suprise to me. The media has just left the dark woods of pre election year coverage, where any hint of liberal bias or disloyalty to the president is viewed as unpatriotic. News outlets are now free to safely position themselves towards the center and allow their bias to reflect in subtle and not so subtle ways in their journalism, responsible or not.

You'll note that it is the media's responsibility to enlighten the public about candidates with whom they are unfamilar, especially if those candidates are likable democrats with positive messages who smile alot (that boosts ratings). Therefore, you can expect magazines and news outlets to agressively showcase Kerry in an effort to 'fulfill' their democratic duty. Overexposure it may be, but ultimately its up to the news corporations to decide how much more exposure they should give to the challenger of the incumbant than the incumbant himself.

I'm a liberal and I think Bush is vile, but I agree with you, Jill, that this article sounds very biased and should not be used in the classroom. Not only shouldn't kids be forced into an opinion, but ideally they shouldn't even be pressured to make any opinion until they're much older and know more about the world.

Anyway, I still disagree with you about the "President Bush" thing, though it's a minor point. If you try explaining to a kid that President Bush and Senator Kerry are running for president, he'll be confused. He won't know what a senator is and he might not understand why anyone is electing someone that's already president. So calling both candidates "Mr. Bush" and "Mr. Kerry" puts them on even ground, as they are both just adult men running for election, and the kids know what "Mr." means.

Ed, I greatly appreciate your well thought out, reply. I also greatly appreciate that you put political leanings aside to look at the real issue of bias. You made a very good point about leveling the field by using "Mr". I disagree that kids don't know what the titles mean though. At least my son understands them. He also understands that President Bush got to be President for 4yrs and wants to be elected President for 4 more years. He, at the very least, understands that a Senator is an elected official and that Sen Kerry could become the next President. Besides that Ed, if my son doesn't understand something, he asks questions and then learns from the answers. That is kind of the sort of thing I encourage at school.

Using titles is one of those things that not a lot of adults seem to care about anymore. They are just fine with their kids calling them and other adults by their first names. I am not one of those people. Their are precious few kids who show adults any amount of respect these days. I am still willing to fight with my kids over little things like calling adults Mr or Mrs or Dr or Sen or Pres. I guess I am in the minority so that will be something that I will have to struggle on with on my own.

As for St Ying, your opinion of Pres. Bush is just that, an opinion. Journalists have the responsibility to provide "facts". Again, adults know that the media has self serving biases present all the time. It is unacceptable to present school children with anything other than unbiased facts.

A more fair analysis would be something like this:

Mr. Kerry wants the government to help people be able to afford medicine more easily.

Mr. Bush wants people to be able to keep more of the money they earn with lower taxes.

Mr. Kerry wants to protect the environment

Mr. Bush wants to make it easier for businesses to be successful.

Things of that nature are reasonably fair and understandable.

I agree with Brad, that would have been a more "fair and balanced" view of the two people's positions. The best one of course would be numbers, or a "fair" view of the pros and cons of both sides. How Bush's tax cuts would necessitate spending cuts in programs that help the poor and defenseless, and how Kerry's programs viciously take money away from the American people.

Cheers

I went to Time for Kids online and found that what their issues say about the candidates doesn't match what you are saying appeared in their print version. I've pasted the Time for Kids information on some of the topics that you addressed below, but for all of the issues, check out http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazines/story/0,6277,598735,00.html. Is there online version completely different from their print version???

EDUCATION
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires testing to show that public schools are performing well enough

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
Wants to hire more teachers, reduce class sizes and make changes to No Child Left Behind, including giving schools more money for teachers and materials

ENVIRONMENT
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Refused to sign an international treaty to reduce global warming and has drawn criticism from environmentalists for his decisions on air pollution and logging

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
Wants to cooperate more with other nations to fight global warming and to cut pollution from cars and industry in U.S. communities

Their print version is very different than the online version you presented above! The info above would be fine in my opinion. That was not how it was presented in the magazine version given to my son in school. I find it odd that they feel the need to give a different version online.

I figured it had to be different, as from what I have read from you, you aren't the type to randomly make up quotes and start fights out of nothing. I wonder if they had received a lot of complaints and decided to change it...how bizarre.

shades, I appreciate you looking into it. I agree, how bizarre. They never did respond to my email. Maybe it did influence them though.