TV or Not TV
Should we feel more or less guilt about how much our kids watch?
by L.J. Williamson
March 23, 2008
Okay, but what if you're a full-time parent working at home and you just need a break?
"Mothers should avoid parking their kids in front of TV as much as possible," Dr. Strasburger says. "That doesn't mean that you can't do it a couple of times a week for thirty minutes — they're not going to suffer irreparable brain damage. But the idea is to be careful and cautious. Parents do need help, but the help shouldn't be coming from the television set."
Arthur Pober, BabyFirstTV's resident expert in early childhood education, comes right back with the reassuring words we want to hear: "When they say don't just leave your child in front of a TV they're right. We don't recommend three hours of exposure to this. But we're also realistic enough to know that you need a break. BabyFirst is trying to offer an opportunity where you can utilize the time for all of the things parents want or need to use the television for, and it gives them a sense of security."
Security is the name of the game at BabyFirstTV.
Is the babycentric- television- industrial- complex just addressing the reality of the parenting trenches?
There is absolutely nothing that could even vaguely be construed as offensive — just images of parents singing "The Itsy Bitsy Spider" to their adorable, wiggling toddlers, cute little squirrels hiding acorns, magical rainbow-colored ponies prancing to classical music. But let's face it — if we're talking about six-month-olds, they'd probably be just as entranced by an episode of 24. That's because infants will typically orient to any TV screen, no matter what the content.
While reading their promotional materials, I can't help but notice that BabyFirstTV is trying to have it both ways. On one hand, they emphasize the benefits of using the channel as something to experience with your child. On the other, they say it's there to give parents a break. Perhaps we could do a little of both — but then we'd have to forget the dire warnings from the AAP, which say that for kids under two, we should do neither.
Is the babycentric-television-industrial-complex just addressing the reality of the parenting trenches, while the AAP looks down their noses at us from an ivory tower fantasyland? Or is it the sellers of babytainment who are marketing a false fantasy of effortless enrichment?
"You shouldn't let your child watch TV for nineteen hours a day, just like you wouldn't want them to play outside for nineteen hours a day or read books for nineteen hours a day," says Dr. Pober. "Children should be exposed to multiple images and multiple experiences. There needs to be balance. And BabyFirstTV can be part of that balance."
His words are as soothing as the gentle sounds of Baby Einstein's Lullabye Time. But then again, sometimes, I feel like the whole concept behind educational TV is just to help me to pretend that something that's less than optimal is in fact A-okay. "Educational TV" must be more wholesome than plain old regular TV, isn't it? Then again, a "Nature Valley Pecan Crunch Granola Bar" sounds so much more wholesome than "Nestle 100 Grand," doesn't it? But check the back of the package; they've got the same number of calories.
©2008 L.J. Williamson and Nerve Media
About the Author
|
|
Related Articles
|
|
L.J. Williamson is a writer from Los Angeles. Her complaints have been printed in The Los Angeles Times, Salon.com, and Utne, to name a few. She lives with her husband, Monkey Man, and their two children, Fifi Bird
and Sugar Guy. Her website is ljwilliamson.com. |
|
|
-
by Jean Railla
Why today's women are choosing to have babies alone.
-
by Miriam Axel-Lute
Official advice about lead poisoning is either too scary or not scary enough.
-
by Kathi Alexander
Is "child-centered" parenting producing a generation of brats?
|
