The results of the survey were fairly clear cut. Television programmes about parenting have a huge reach. Most parents of children under 16 have watched at least one such programme, and more than three-quarters said they discovered a “parenting” technique that was helpful to them as a result. The poll also showed a noticeable decline in the number of parents who felt that smacking was the best way to teach their children right from wrong. The consequent media coverage of the survey was anything but straightforward, however. Was the Institute ticking off the broadcasters? Were we taking parents to task for not being good enough or daring to ask for help? Were we daring to criticise the “naughty step”, a vital accessory in Supernanny Jo Frost’s armoury, which is now on sale to parents for less than £20 online? Worst of all, were we suggesting that parents shouldn’t be allowed to smack their children?

For me personally, the saga ended with an almost surreal exchange on the Today programme, during which it transpired that presenter Jim Naughtie had never heard of the naughty step (so much for the dumbed-down BBC), while a fellow contributor, an experienced practitioner in the parenting field, attempted to explain to the nation over breakfast that there was no such thing as a naughty child. This led to my decidedly vocal partner and father of my three children, who lives largely in blissful ignorance of the “parenting” industry, being roundly abused in a local café by a man who wanted to know if he didn’t fucking shout at his children either.

There may be some worthwhile lessons in all this about how adroit charities need to be if they want to use the media to get coverage on serious issues. But they aren’t nearly as interesting as trying to unpick the increasingly tangled relationship that is developing between parents, the media and public policy-makers, as the very private act of parenting becomes a very public business.

It is probably worth mentioning here, for anyone else who falls into the Jim Naughtie category, that the outbreak of interest in parenting matters is a relatively new phenomenon. Indeed just more than ten years ago at a seminar, the Media and Parenting Group, with the family and children’s charities in attendance, presented a wish-list for the media which went something like this: more coverage for parenting issues in newspapers; more balanced coverage, and not to portray children only as either angels or demons; for magazines to consider extending coverage beyond that of the 0-5 years age group; and for TV and radio to develop dedicated programmes in the way so many had done for cookery and gardening.

Exciting new genre

One reason for that is the policy context. The New Labour Government, which in fact helped to set up the Family and Parenting Institute in 1999, quickly and correctly took the view after attaining office that “family life is the foundation on which our communities, our society and our country are built” (Supporting Families, Green Paper, 1998). The business of family life and “parenting” has since shot up the political agenda, and many progressive policies on childcare, work-life balance, reforms to the tax and benefits system, teenage pregnancy, marriage and relationship support have followed. The most high-profile of these is probably Sure Start – a national programme of early intervention in the lives of our most disadvantaged children.

Lately this frenzy of policy-making has taken on a new urgency, as the Blair era and the quest for a legacy comes to an end. Everything, from educational under-achievement to yobbish behaviour, is being laid at the door of parents. As the “respect tsar” Louise Casey, director of the 30-strong Home Office taskforce, said in the summer, echoing Bill Clinton: “It’s the parents, stupid”, implying that if we could just get them sorted, everything from anti-social behaviour and conduct disorders, to adolescent mental health issues and school failure, would disappear. This has given some in the media the green light – as if they required one – to divide parents neatly into two crude categories: on one side the feckless, welfare-scrounging begetters of feral yobs, teenage mums and vandals; on the other the hard-working, middle-Englanders that so many politicians cite these days as their target audience and whose lives are presumed to be ruined by their less responsible peers.

Not surprisingly, the families featured in the more sensationalist TV programmes are invariably challenging in some way, which at times conspires to create the impression that all the nation’s young, and their parents, are going to hell in a handcart. As troublesome as they may be, the sort of families, parents and children that Louise Casey refers to are still in a minority. The most bizarre twist in this three-way collision between reality- TV, some in the print media, and the Government, came when ministers announced that they would now be providing a programme of State-backed “supernannies” to run parenting classes for problem families in anti-social behaviour hotspots across the country. In the accompanying media briefing, the Prime Minister talked about the “huge popularity of TV programmes in which experts help parents with their problem kids”. Inevitably the wheel then turned full circle, with accusations of nanny state-ism from many of the papers that criticise the very yob culture such policies seek to address.

It is little wonder, then, that many parents feel confused – they are both feted and vilified by press and politicians, and bombarded with advice and information that may be contributing to levels of anxiety that would astound previous generations. Meanwhile, the complex realities of bringing up a family in the modern world – a job often made more difficult by skilled media marketing and the ever-more sophisticated goods pitched at children – are rarely addressed.

Most parents are probably doing a “good enough” job. Many of those who aren’t are victims of other pressures, such as relationship breakdown, addiction, poverty and poor housing, issues that are way beyond the range of Supernanny, whether funded by the taxpayer or by Channel 4. These wider social pressures often cause parents to lose patience with their children. But even the good-enough parents admit to worrying about not being good enough, according to other polls conducted by the Family and Parenting Institute. They admit to wanting help and support, not only to deal with the “terrible twos” and the excessive marketing to children barely out of nappies, but to cope with TV, the internet, the burgeoning independence of the pre-teens, the lack of decent leisure facilities for adolescents, the fear that the outside world is a much less safe place than it was in our youth and, above all, managing a good work-life balance.

Parents feel blame

Eileen Hayes, editor of My Family magazine, parenting adviser to the NSPCC, and chair of the Media and Parenting Group, thinks there is huge scope for the media to play a positive role in supporting parents, but questions whether they will manage that responsibly in the decade to come. “The media can reach parents in all social groups on a scale not achievable by other means. Important messages about child-care, positive parenting and education can be transmitted. The media can change attitudes and behaviour and reinforce the message that parenting is important while also – and this is a particular role for local media organisations – directing parents to places they can get help and support,” she explains. “However, the trend with some of the reality-TV shows is more worrying. The print media now follow up what happens in the programmes, the presenters are celebrity figures and everyone is now upping the ante to provide ideas that often are irresponsible. And we don’t really know what the effects will be on the children, or indeed whether the advice some of the semi-celebrity presenters are giving is right or wrong.”

One of the more respected parenting gurus on TV, clinical psychologist Dr Tanya Byron, recently announced she was giving up her Bafta-nominated programme House of Tiny Tearaways. Among the reasons was her concern at the direction of the reality TV programmes, in particular a recent ITV offering, I Smack and I’m Proud. Following our survey, Family and Parenting Institute chief executive Mary Macleod wrote to all the programme-makers urging them to be sure they act responsibly towards families who take part, and provide proper follow-up support for the children, many of whom are too young to give consent or to appreciate the long-term effects of having their private lives publicly exposed. She also requested that they try to use their programmes sensibly to deliver high-quality advice from skilled and knowledgeable professionals.

It remains to be seen whether anyone will take notice. At the time of writing, the Jade Goody Celebrity Big Brother row has overshadowed the latest, and possibly most controversial, reality-TV parenting show, The Baby Borrowers, the PR blurb for which reads: “Britain’s teenagers are breeding like rabbits – can they be convinced to wait? We tool-up five teenage couples for the toughest job of all – parenting.” In this BBC3 show five teenage couples were entrusted with someone else’s babies to look after for three days. The babies were then replaced by toddlers, then pre-teens and, finally, grandparents to look after. Subsequent newspaper coverage and any serious ethical questions the programme raised were largely eclipsed by Jade and Shilpa. However it may be only a matter of time before we get a parent and child version of the Big Brother row, providing an enlightened spotlight on the relationship between the media and parenting, and a way forward that can only benefit both sides.