-
From what I understand, screen time is thought to be detrimental for a child's developing brain because it is a finished product. Designed and created by someone else, it requires no participation or imagination. It is literally designed to be "watched." Consuming someone else's idea is a passive activity that discourages individual play and independent thought.
posted by : goodmama on 5/14/2009 at 12:22 AM Flag For Abuse
-
The latest youtube obsession around here is watching mama cats give birth to kittens, watching toddlers learn to ice skate and watching people's pet ferrets romp around their houses. She's sitting on my lap, talking and asking questions the entire time. It hasn't seemed like a particularly imagination-stunting activity so far.
posted by : catmom on 5/14/2009 at 2:25 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Okay. How many of us grew up watching oscar the grouch discuss the letter A? How many of us may have been a little frightened by those giant, monster letters that decimated the earth on the Electric Company? Now: how many of us have ADD? Even if you throw some happy days and laverne and shirley into the mix, i'm pretty sure that many of us made it out okay, despite the time we may have logged in front of the old fashioned television screen.
The whole idea of computer viewing as something "better" than TV is bogus. This is akin to people declaring that we must kill our televisions, while instead, renting stacks of netflix movies/shows and watching them on expensive laptops (which are probably macs). I agree with the pediatric experts on this...a screen is a screen is a screen. But a bit of screen (read: moderation and wise choices) isn't going to stunt a child's burgeoning intellect. Jeepers.
posted by : dubious on 5/14/2009 at 10:46 AM Flag For Abuse
-
@Dubious: I agree with you. We have a few friends who don't own a tv at all, but are glued to their macs all the time.
posted by : GeneralS on 5/14/2009 at 11:00 AM Flag For Abuse
-
My question about this article is what is the deal with all the Babble writers who think that working from home means they don't need to provide childcare?
Once the kid is up and about, talking and walking, working from home without a sitter is just absurd.
posted by : hire a sitter on 5/14/2009 at 11:56 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Hi, Dan! (We were in RC/East Quad together lo these many years ago.) I do the same thing with my 18-month-old boy. National Geographic owl videos in the morning with his dad; how else would I ever get dressed and get breakfast on the table? And I'm sure the videos won't hurt either of our kids. Carry on....
posted by : knew you when on 5/14/2009 at 12:11 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I just don't understand why you can be an active and engaged partner in tv watching with your child in front of a computer, but not in front of the tv. To me this smacks of the whole people that don't own a tv loving to tell other people that fact.
posted by : NOLA on 5/14/2009 at 1:41 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Had a very similar experience. My daughter watched no TV, but I started showing her You Tube Laurie Berkner videos when she was 2. It felt a little better than TV somehow, even though I knew it didn't make a bit of difference. Unfortunately, once I was pregnant with #2 and nauseous 24/7, the TV got turned on. So watch out. Once you start making justifications about screen time, as this author does, it's a slippery slope. Now I even allow my 9-month old to be in the room with the TV on while my older one watches. I hate myself for it, but it is not always possible to keep her secluded for 1.5 hours/day (allowed TV time in my house). I think that the high % of babies watching TV are because >50% of children are not first-borns.
posted by : Boston on 5/14/2009 at 2:12 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Re: Goodmama's comment, I see your point, but then the question is, aren't all kids' toys "finished products" too? It might certainly be "better for your child" to play with a paper bag rather than a Barbie doll, but that doesn't mean that toys are bad for babies.
I say give kids a variety of experiences, its ridiculous to expect parents to cut computers and TVs completely out of their kids' lives when they are such a big part of our culture. There's plenty of quality kids' media out there--I find it funny that parents are resorting to YouTube when there are great kids' sites with video like sesamestreet.org and speakaboos.com
posted by : LOL at hire a sitter on 5/14/2009 at 2:34 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I can't believe the audacity of this article - YouTube is filmed/videotaped entertainement (and that's a stretch...). How is it different from television? I agree with Nola - this yet another example of "I'm too cool/good/green to admit I have a tv!"
If you need a moment's peace from your child, and we all sometimes do - or want to take a phone call, just own up to it and admit you're providing a distraction for your child.
posted by : nomorecod on 5/14/2009 at 2:43 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I follow these To-TV-or-Not-to-TV discussions fairly closely and am always trying to get to the bottom of the WHY. Is it really the "finished product" argument? What's this about ADD? There was just a story that called all the caution bunk. I mean it makes sense that kids shouldn't watch too much TV, but no TV, really?
It's very confusing and thus I go with common sense in what we expose our son to. TV is mostly garbage, so we don't watch much, but there comes a time of day when relaxation and entertainment seem in order. I mean, my 16-month-old doesn't need to work on his next breakthrough milestone every second of every day, does he? Don't kids require awake "downtime," too? Couldn't TV play a part in that?
Here's the rub, though: I spend all this time thinking through the pros and cons when my son doesn't even remotely (no pun intended) like TV. We mostly don't watch until he's in bed, but I turn it on in the mornings ocassionally for a nature show or a non-commercial PBS cartoon-type thing -- never long enough to know what's going on, really -- and he'll pause and check it out for sure, but then invariably he's on to something else with his toys. Is it wrong to wish he liked it just a little?
posted by : busybee on 5/14/2009 at 3:09 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Dress it up however you want, and your kid is still one of the 90%. No need to apologize or explain - but please! lose the self-righteousness. You think your cuddling on the office chair watching videos while you put off work makes you superior to a harried mom who plunks her kids down in front of a tv for an hour so she can have her hands free? It doesn't - it just illuminates your privileged lifestyle. You're both using the tv for your own admittedly selfish ends. And I'm not trying to sound holier than thou, here - my daughter is one of the 90%, too - but let's drop the pretentiousness.
posted by : JessicaMama on 5/14/2009 at 5:08 PM Flag For Abuse
-
WOW! My kids are tv-free also!
Except for when they watch tv, of course.
Seriously, this article is ridiculous. You're either tv-free or not. It's like being a "little pregnant" or "semi-vegetarian." Those things just don't happen.
posted by : noTVyesTV on 5/14/2009 at 6:11 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Like others have said, it sounds like you are trying to find some loophole in which you can say you are TV-free but are not really. You talk about the choice and control you have with YouTube. How is this different from watching a DVD?
Yes, my son does watch TV when I need a few minutes to do something. For the first year of his life he did not watch TV, but I also never cooked one meal. (And I had previously loved cooking.) Only when I decided a little TV was OK was I able to do a few things for myself and my family.
I understand why it is bad to plunk your kids in front of the tube all day, but I never understood the whole "any TV will ruin your child's brain" thing. Americans just can't understand moderation.
posted by : Cali mom on 5/14/2009 at 9:48 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I'm with so many of the others: Kill the pretensions! Seriously. A screen IS a screen. The main thing that bothers me about kids' programming is commercials. We don't have cable, and PBS doesn't have commercials, so I'm good. I have no problem letting my 2.5 y/o watch TV ALL ALONE (with 18 m/o brother paying attention for 2 mins at a time) while I get dressed, or, yes, waste my time on babble reading shit like this. (Why do I keep doing this to myself?!) As Cali Mom points out, moderation is probably the key. Watching 4 hours of PBS a day, even with a parent by a child's side? I'd call that problematic. Watching 60 mins unattended, even of a show that includes commercials? Not THAT big of a deal. So what if you're sitting with your daughter? She is still consuming the same "stuff" as the rest of our kids.
And call me a curmudgeon, but I actually find it bothersome that parents numb their kids in front of iPods/iPhones/what-have-you in doctors' waiting rooms, for instance. While you may not like the idea of pre-packaged TV (though I still don't understand how this is different than pre-packaged youtube videos whose order you customize), I don't like the idea that TV/electronic entertainment go with us everywhere, cutting us off from "normal" human contact and horrible experiences, like, you know, waiting for the doctor. We all have our principles.
posted by : ChiLaura on 5/15/2009 at 8:52 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Good lord here we go again. I'm not sure why people who claim to be conflicted about the whole tv/computer/youtube debate also act as if they are powerless. If it's not something you want your child doing say "no", a foreign concept to many I realize. I have two boys (5&8) we own a tv with satellite and a computer. They are allowed to watch tv after school on Friday's and they watch the first period of the hockey game on Saturday night. Those are the rules and those have always been the rules and that is why they get followed. They don't watch tv in the car (not even when we drive 16 hours to see their grandparents) and they don't watch tv while they wait to see the doctor - they learn coping skills and figure out how to amuse themselves. My point isn't that tv is bad - I watch it all the time, my point is that I make choices for my kids and we live with the consequences. I'm not sure I'm understanding what your problem is...
posted by : SS on 5/15/2009 at 12:43 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I should have clarified I watch tv when they are asleep
posted by : SS on 5/15/2009 at 12:44 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Thank God I took the time to read these comments. I have enjoyed this site since my husband introduced it to me while I was pregnant, but I gotta say that this TV stuff has made me seriously consider not reading the articles anymore. Finally, in these comments, you all have nailed the reason that these have bothered me so much: the pretension of it all. Come on already - I watched a TON of tv as a child, and more than likely as a baby as well since my parents both worked and had three kids. Guess what - not only do I hold a college degree, I also read. FOR PLEASURE. Newspapers and magazines, even! How is that possible if I corrupted my brain with the evils of television at an impressionable age??? Enough already. Good for you if you don't let you kid/baby/spouse/dog watch tv. But stop telling me that I'm a bad mother because I do. And if you think I'm reading into this too much or being hypersensitive - well, maybe I am. But that's because I AM a good mother and I DO worry about my child. I also need five goddamn minutes to pee/drink a glass of water/rest my arms that are jello from holding him all day/laugh with my baby about the funny puppets on the Baby Einstein DVDs (which I love - deal with it). Thank you, commenters, for making me feel like I'm not alone. For those of you who would like to tell me to shove it and not read these articles if they bother me so much - done. And congratulations on being better than me. For the rest of you, give yourselves a much deserved break and celebrate the fact that you are good people giving your children the best that you can.
posted by : phew on 5/15/2009 at 1:33 PM Flag For Abuse
-
And yes, I realize I made some spelling errors in my post. It must be from all that TV I watch.
posted by : phew on 5/15/2009 at 1:35 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Who says parents don't watch children's television? I frequently watch along with my son and haven't allowed him to watch a show that I haven't checked out first.
I want my son to be well-rounded so I expose him to everything that I can. TV is just one of those things. Certainly now the center point of his day or his life. The less of a "big deal" you make of it, the less appealing it is.
And I echo that what this author is doing is exactly the same as watching TV. It doesn't make you a bad parent. Let's all stop with this superiority and get back to what is most important in parenting - loving your kids and raising them to be responsible, respectful adults.
posted by : KShulman on 5/15/2009 at 2:57 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Sure you watched tons of TV when you were a kid, phew, but likely not when you were a baby. Besides which, your personal experience doesn't really bear any scientific weight.
The fact is that studies have shown that TV has no real beneficial effects and does have noxious effects - especially for young children. Children would be better off doing something else than watching TV.
Now, children would also be better off not eating ice cream or chocolate cake, not spending time commuting in a car each day, etc. etc. We all do the best we can, and we all indulge ourselves (and our children) sometimes. TV is unfortunate in that it is rarely really taken "in moderation" (since when is doing something for an hour or two a day "moderation"?) but it is hardly the most evil activity that one could allow one's child to be involved with. It's neither possible nor helpful to try to schedule one's day for maximum enrichment for your baby at all times.
I really don't understand the whole "I need five minutes" argument used to justify TV for babies. Ask your mother what she did when you were a baby. Did she drop you in front of the TV when she had to go and get a drink? Her mother almost certainly didn't. And yet I am sure these women did indeed go eat lunch / go to the washroom / cook dinner. Going without TV isn't an act of martyrdom, and those who don't happen to watch TV are still able to have some time to themselves. Forgoing TV is no more of a burden on a parent than forgoing feeding your kid sugared cereal - I don't see why people seem to make it out as some sort of Herculean task.
posted by : SD on 5/15/2009 at 3:08 PM Flag For Abuse
-
KShulman - I feel the same way. You said it way less snarkily than I did. :)
posted by : phew on 5/15/2009 at 4:33 PM Flag For Abuse
-
You do all realise that in the nineteenth century people stressed and panicked and phophesised and philosophised about the harm novels were having on the younger generations, particularly girls - those shocking creatures who absorbed themselves in stories and blocked out the world around them, and went on to become equally hideous women with imagination and intelligence, or not, if they weren't imaginative or intelligent.
As an academic type (PhD 19th-century lit no less), I can say I freakin' love television and I have no qualms about the box being on when my six-month-old is in the room. I also listen to the radio in the car and she might not understand where the voices are coming from and think they're part of the car - o noes!
Actually, as a newborn she really loved being in the room when her father was watching the cricket. Green and white pallate, gentle thwack of bat on ball, hum of the crowd, aimless banter of the commentators; it seemed to rock her little, sleepy, not really paying attention world. And it made her daddy and grandpas very proud.
Chill out and start thinking about what you're watching and why.
posted by : NZErin on 5/15/2009 at 10:44 PM Flag For Abuse
-
P.S. By that last sentence, I just mean thinking in general, but you don't have to read/watch/engage with important educational stuff all the time, whether you be adult or child.
posted by : NZErin on 5/16/2009 at 12:57 AM Flag For Abuse
-
NZErin, you're awesome. I totally agree.
posted by : chimama on 5/16/2009 at 5:26 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Loving the comments here. I howled with laughter at all the commenters on the other post who proudly stated that they didn't have a tv, but watch DVD's on the laptop.
Duh!
Does the laptop emit clever-making waves, feed the poor while you're watching it or something?
posted by : Uncool Mum Uncooler kid on 5/18/2009 at 4:16 PM Flag For Abuse
-
It seems like many people who have commented on the supposed feelings of superiority harbored by people with DVD players/computers (Macs? Gasp!) and not TVs--accusations which display a telling defensiveness, in my opinion--are ignoring something the author pointed out: the worst thing about television is the commercials.
By cutting out the TV-based screen time, you eliminate (or at least reduce) your children's exposure to advertising. There are so many other points to quibble over, but isn't this a clear advantage?
posted by : smarah on 5/19/2009 at 11:11 AM Flag For Abuse
-
The worst thing about TV for the very young is not commercials. That's an issue. But, it's not the reason the AAP recommends no TV before two.
Early studies of baby TV appear to establish a statistically
significant link between viewing at a very young age and ADD or
learning disabilities. I don't know how strong the link is, but I do
know this includes moderate TV watchers. It's not just about babies
who watch "too much" (whatever that is). It has nothing to do with the quality of the content. It's about the medium. I's also not because babies might find it scary or confusing.
The AAP does not recommend against tv for children in general. I don't see what the big deal is. Is any parent really worried their kids will be left out because they didn't watch baby videos?
There will be plenty of time for cultural literacy and pop culture. It doesn't need to begin right away.
Can anyone tell if your baby will develop problems because of TV or whether TV will make them worse? No. Are there children who watch and don't develop any problems? Of course. Is the information reliable (ie not hogwash)? Probably. But with newer studies, only time and many other studies can flesh out the full truth.
Maybe this will come to nothing. But I wouldn't expect the AAP to sit around and wait. If you aren't worried or it isn't practical for you, ignore the recommendation. But don't say it is because your baby will be left out of all that playground Baby Einstien chatter.
posted by : JVJ on 5/19/2009 at 2:50 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I've watched TV with my son since he was pretty small. He's alert, active and I do think he's actually learned a few things from watching. But I do watch with him most of the time. I comment on what's going on, sing the songs with him and encourage him to participate. He loves to try to learn the dance routines he sees. I think today's parents are so extreme. Breast milk ONLY! Organic-low-fat-natural everything ONLY! Sugar NEVER! Television NEVER! Give me a break already.
posted by : Melissa Andrews on 6/18/2009 at 12:54 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I think there's a lot of defensive posting going on here-and what's with the anger at mac users? Admittedly, folks can get plenty pretentious, but please don't generalize and put that on every person who uses a mac, or every person who decides tv is not for their family.
I didn't find the article pretentious at all. That said, I may also be somewhat biased as a mac user (gasp!) and someone who decided to let our little antenna tv die with the move to hdtv (a decision based 1/3 on cheapness, 2/3 on wanting to control our daughter's exposure to advertising as much as we can).
So people who found the article pretentious, please point out where you saw it! The decision to avoid tv is not, in itself, a pretentious act. But it is certainly possible to make the decision for pretentious reasons.
Most people have good reasons for avoiding tv, but the point is that it's a personal/family decision either way.
For toddlers, I think the developmental effects on their brain is the most important thing to consider. We really don't know the full effects, since targeting tv at babies is a relatively new thing (especially when studies have to be done over long periods to see the long term effects). That's enough reason for me to try to keep my child's exposure to any kind of screen based entertainment (tv, computer, phones, etc.) limited until she's at least 3 years old. (please note that I'm realistic about this-I know I can't keep her away from screens completely)
And once she's older, the no tv thing is important to me because I don't want her to be conditioned to buy buy buy anything and everything she sees on commercials. I want her to find happiness in family and friends, and in herself-what she likes to do, not what some company says she should like to (pay lots of money to) do. If that's pretentious, oh well. But it seems more like trying to instill my child with my values rather than the "values" we get from commercials.
(And I realize that these are my values-and I'm not trying to push those values on another family. But I did want to try and explain why a reasonable person might want to avoid tv.)
posted by : beffo on 7/20/2009 at 1:58 PM Flag For Abuse
