Strollerderby

"Three-quarters of all kids live in homes where the TV is always on."

Really? That seems like a lot. I can't imagine that so many parents don't mind their children being exposed to so much tv.  I know every household does things differently, but leaving the tv on at all times just seems so excessive.

My son watches about a hour before school and 1-2 hours depending on the day/his mood/weather etc before bed. He is 3. Is that bad? Am I hurting him?

Oh for crying out loud. Background tv? And I've also heard these same researchers feel the same about music and noise machines as well.

I have an idea. Let's keep our kids in bubbles til they're 18 and then see what happens.

I don't buy this crap. "Researcher" is just code for idiot who can't get a real job half the time. It just seems like there is research being done about every tiny aspect of our lives these days. Enough is enough, use your brains and common sense people and stop reading researches and statistics.

You can't TIVO sports... what's the point?

I can see how having the tv on in the background all the time can be a bad thing. Most of us (kids & adults) can't help but become zombies when it is on.  

I have wondered though, if the same goes for always having music on in the background...which we frequently do. JC seems to have read something about this?

Just curious...

Happy Mama, here's a very brief piece about music and other kinds of background noise and potential interference with language development.  

www.parents-choice.org/article.cfm

Oh god, my mother has the TV on all day long as background. And it's LOUD. I can never call her without first asking her to repeat whatever she says and then demanding her to lower the volume already. argh!

""Researcher" is just code for idiot who can't get a real job half the time. It just seems like there is research being done about every tiny aspect of our lives these days. Enough is enough, use your brains and common sense people and stop reading researches and statistics."

As a professional researcher, I take offense. Idiot that can't get a real job? Umm... we have PhDs. We study intensely for many many years to do this work.  

In your effort to boycott "research" please stop using all medications (because we researchers have to look at the potential effects), and please toss out your child's car seat (researchers had to study how safe it is), oh and please don't forget to turn off Sesame Street and any other educational television that your kid watches, because those shows are designed by us "idiots." And certainly don't listen to your doctor about anything health related to your child. S/he reads "research" and "statistics," so s/he must

be an idiot.

But seriously...

I am not saying that we all should not be skeptical of any scientific research, but perhaps it is more important to look at the studies themselves and see what they say. This study, for example - how many children were used? For how long after the TV was on did the effect continue? Did they do a follow up in a month? A year? Has this study been run multiple times?

What this study seems to say (and I haven't had the opportunity to read the entire study), is that the 50 children, under age 3, played significantly differently in terms of focus after having been exposed to a TV show playing in the room.

This makes perfect sense. Of course they were distracted by it. It is noise in another part of the room. Part of their brain hears it and reacts. DUH.

What is important to look at is if prolonged background TV exposure has an impact on children's focus in the long-term. JC, since you don't believe in this stuff, can we please use your kid for this study?

While I'm not a children's media researcher, I am a media research and have had to take and teach classes in children's media effects. There is no doubt in my mind that TV exposure affects children's cognitive development. Does that mean that my kid never sees a screen? No. Does that mean that I try to limit his exposure? Certainly.

But, hey, JC, don't listen to me and my 10 years of studying media effects... I'm just an idiot who can't find another job.

kpearce, thanks for that comment!

I'm with Madeline Holler--having the TV on all the time "in the background" is distracting to everyone, not just children.

And really, don't children make enough noise on their own? Why do people turn on the TV just for noise? I don't understand.

<i>My son watches about a hour before school and 1-2 hours depending on the day/his mood/weather etc before bed. He is 3. Is that bad? Am I hurting him?</i>

This sounds like a *lot* of TV for a 3 yo.

"Three-quarters of all kids live in homes where the TV is always on." Where did this come from??

Is your 3-year-old watching too much TV?

Well, The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under 2 years old be exposed to no screen time. For older children, the AAP suggests no more than 1-2 hours a day.

"Screen time" is computer, TV, video games, etc.

So, yes it sounds like a lot to me.

@Liane et al. - if you poke enough statistics, they fall right the heck apart.  It probably came a) from someone's imagination, b) from an erroneous interpretation of overly stretched statistics (like how that whole, kids have too high cholesterol thing happened) or c) is just plain wrong.  

kpearce, you are awesome. snap!!!

Liane & leahsmom,  re the 75% households have TV always on:  In the paper, they're actually referring to households that have the TV on about half the day or more, regardless of whether someone is in the room or not.  The particular study they're referencing is a Kaiser Family Foundation report, which surveyed just over 1,000 families of kids 6mos-6yrs  (www.kff.org/.../7500.pdf).  But many other studies have found similar percentages, in the 65-75% range.   If you're looking at families who have the TV on all the time, it's more like 30-35%.

And thanks, kpearce, for defending the researchers.  I was too mad at the "idiot" comment to do it myself.  These researchers aren't anti-TV activists, they're good scientists.  In fact many of them have helped to develop some of the highest quality kids programming out there (Sesame Street, Dora, Blue's Clues, etc.).

I think for whatever reason, people are very polarized in their reactions to media research like this.  If you've already made the decision to limit TV use in your household, then you get to wave the anti-TV flag and feel good about your choices.  If you watch and enjoy TV, then you get defensive and dismissive of the results.  Either way, you're sort of missing the point of the research, which is to objectively consider the media environment kids are already growing up in, and investigate its effects on development, good or bad.  

TV is so pervasive in our culture, shouldn't we all want to figure out how to maximize its potential to help kids learn, and minimize its potential for harm?

Go kpearce! You hit the nail right on the head!

I completely agree with no screen time until after 2 years old, and then minimal after that! my family and my husband's family have the tv on ALL THE TIME and it drives me batty to visit them with our little one! And when they visit us, they expect it to be on here, too, and when it's not, they're forced to [gasp!] talk and maybe even pay attention to their grandchild/niece... aye, the horror! Sorry, I get pissed about the family sometimes. and about tv as babysitter for parents who don't have the energy to engage their children creatively.

The problem isn't the research - it's how it gets boiled down and reported when it hits the news reports.  Very often the headlines will emphasize the most sensational part of the research and the articles may barely mention the main findings.  I'm sure our scientists here can attest.  (There are good blogs out there that dissect media reports/actual research.)  Another big problem is that stories will get released on research that's been presented at a conference but not yet peer reviewed (where it may later get squashed).  

It's too bad, because the cumulative effect is that people start to roll their eyes and think "whatever!" every time a new headline comes out, especially when it's presented as: Scientists Find Something Totally Obvious.  You have to read the actual study (or at least the abstract) if you want to have the true picture of what they actually studied and what they really found (i.e., is it a correlation or a actual double-blind experiment and how do the results actually break down) to judge the validity.  Sometimes the research itself is poor quality or doesn't have any value to add, but that certainly doesn't mean the whole profession is worthless.  

Personally, I hate visiting where the TV is always on 'cause I don't know how to act.  Are we watching it or talking over it or what?  And I love my TV shows - I just like to do one or the other.