Several items that touch on the current effort to turn the whole world into a unitary rationalized industrial scheme:
The items might seem ill-assorted, but a broader view brings out features that might be missed. One point is that liberalism makes it impossible to respond intelligently to the problems it creates, because it subjects everything to the same narrow analysis. The nursing homes are in trouble, for example, because liberalism understands freedom as a purely individual thing. If there's a conflict between the patient's freedom to kill himself at a particular nursing home and the nursing home's freedom to pursue its mission of not killing people the patient's freedom wins. The nursing home's freedom, which is the freedom of those associated to come together to provide particular goods, simply doesn't matter.
Gatto runs into a somewhat similar difficulty. He insists on family and community but he's a late-20th-century American and therefore a liberal in his theoretical outlook. For that reason his solutions emphasize "independent study," "private uniqueness," and "plac[ing] the child alone in an unguided setting," even though he knows and even mentions what children today do in independent unguided private settings: watch hours and hours of TV. His liberal preconceptions about what solutions are legitimate thus prevent him from dealing with the issues actually presented.
Related problems pile up in the APA report and give the whole discussion an air of unreality. The APA are medical professionals, so they've got to be neutral and scientific. They're respectable, so they have to be liberal. That's a problem because the situation they're dealing with is a consequence of liberalism. As a result, the point they make first and foremost is not anything substantive but a complaint about discrimination: there are more male than female figures in popular entertainment, and male figures aren't as likely as female ones to be presented as objects of sexual interest.
Why are they telling us this? So far as I can tell that's always been true of all entertainment. It was true of the Iliad, and it was true of the fairy tales peasant grandmothers used to tell. The size of Cinderella's foot mattered a great deal, but who ever cared whether Jack of Jack and the Beanstalk fame was handsome?
Later the APA gets somewhat more substantive, but never particularly analytical. All they say is that images of girls in pop culture are becoming ever more sexualized, and it's starting at ever younger ages. I could have told them that. The question is what it all means and what to do about it, and they don't have anything to say on the point. What's the point of all that learning and professional machinery if it doesn't help people come up with something illuminating?