feedback for "TV or Not TV"

1. A couple of things:
   
   One: "Mothers should avoid parking their kids in front of TV as much as possible," so it's cool if dad's do it?
   
   Two: "you wouldn't want your child to play outside for 19 hours." Well, ignoring the hyperbole, why wouldn't you want your kid to play outside as much as they want?
   
   Three: We've only used tv as a last ditch we're totally sick or on-a-plane-from-England effort only three or four times. Our babe could care less about it. He does not want to watch the screen. He has zero interest in any show we put up, from any of the on-demand pre-school shows aimed just at him. Apparently our efforts to fulfill the APA "no tv" rule have worked too well.

   posted by : mcglory13 on 3/24/2008 at 11:54 AM Flag For Abuse

2. comment one - awesome. i hate how gendered people are in their thinking about parenting still! i used tv very sparingly -- letting my son watch it only when he was getting his daily breathing treatment (15-20 minutes) to make it more palatable...blue's clues only as it was all i could stand myself. no hyper shows or the sound of elmo's whiny, gut-wrenching voice! anyway, since i stopped his breathing treatments, he has not watched it at all and it's not missed. i think if you don't let them get used to it, they don't miss it or depend on it. if you kid is over a year, they can typically play in your vicinity, by themselves, while you put in a load of laundry, or do the dishes. teach them that you need to get a few things done here and there while they amuse themselves isn't a bad lesson. they are not going to die without externally driven stimuli for 15 minutes. in fact, it encourages them to come up with their own stuff to do. i'm not telling anyone what they should or should not do... but i think they can play by themselves if you just don't turn it on, you know? at least that has been my experience.

   posted by : silver zephyr on 3/24/2008 at 1:20 PM Flag For Abuse

3. We do not show television to our toddler at all. Period. When it is on at a doctor's office (which bothers me) or another person's house, she ignores it right now.
   
   However, I anticipate that she will eventually be more exposed to it at other people's houses and may develop an interest in it. And I think a little tv is okay after 2. So, I anticipate keeping my next little one away from the screen being more difficult.
   
   There are PLENTY of things a parent can do with a 1-2 year old to foster some independent play. Turning on the TV is not the answer.
   
   I don't think you are ruining your child by showing a little tv, but I don't think that even "educational" television is actually helpful before they hit pre-school or school age. And I do think more than a little can be harmful. More than anything, it just strikes this full-time stay at home/part-time work at home mom as an unnecessary addition to her day.
   
   As far as the gender issue--yes, they should strive for gender neutrality, but we're talking about a spoken quote...and the use of "mom" reflects statistical reality. So, while it would have been better to say "mom or dad" or "guardian" or "caretaker" or "parent," it also doesn't seem like an intentional sexist slight or anything to me personally.

   posted by : CaLiMama on 3/24/2008 at 1:40 PM Flag For Abuse

4. With a strong genetic disposition in our families towards ADD, we have stayed away from TV completely for our 18 month old. It is never on when he is awake in our house and we do our best to keep him away from it when other places as well. I thought this was a strong article, but I think it missed out on one thing. One of the things that the AAP discusses and that most of the "negative tv" studies point out is that the negative side of TV for infants has nothing to do with content, but has to do with over-stimulation from the speed and lights and movement on the TV, which is generally at warp-speed compared to real life and which can wreak havoc on an infant's developing senses, leading to the ADD/learning issues, as well as other problems. This is rarely discussed in parenting discussions about tv, which generally turn to the content side of things, which is important, but more so for when they get older, not for the babies. I wish this article had focused on that a bit more, as I think it is a fundamental reason the under-twos should not watch tv. As for keeping them busy when you need a break, I think that the benefits of teaching them independence, self-entertainment and patience are long-lasting and well worth the few tears you will (both) go through as you do so.

   posted by : md on 3/24/2008 at 2:00 PM Flag For Abuse

5. We have pretty much stopped watching TV since our now 9 month old arrived. What we have been doing is recording videos of my daughter and letting her watch herself on the computer. She LOVES it. She just goes crazy. I don't know if she knows that she's watching herself. Or, if she has any memory of those moments from a few months back.
   
   Since I started letting her watch herself I'd been opening my mind up to the idea of letting her watch baby-specific programming. I started to wonder if maybe I was being rigid given that we are becoming a screen culture society.I wonder what the effect of our screen living (mobiles, cameras, computers, tvs) is going to have on an infant's mind and memory.
   
   So, I tried her on a few YouTube vids of Sesame Street. She wasn't really interested. And, after reading this article I think I will hold off for a bit longer.
   
   The grandparentals are more liberal in their outlook and there has been tension so it's good to hear about these studies because it makes me feel like I'm not being rigid about insisting we all find other ways to spend time together. I agree with md about the overly stimulating effect of TV motion.

   posted by : cocoa on 3/24/2008 at 2:21 PM Flag For Abuse

6. "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.
   
   WTF?? Of course a child can play outside for 19 hours a day or even 3 days in a row on a camping trip. That is not harmful.
   
   Of course a child can read a book for 19 hours a day. Ever heard of Harry Potter? That is not harmful.
   
   TV is.
   
   
   My 6 month old has never watched TV, and will not do so untill she is much much older. If I need a break I put her on her playmat with a toy (or a kitchen utensil, or a book or anyhting else she hasn't examined before) and -hey presto- me time!
   
   Why on earth would I teach my child to watch TV?

   posted by : citymama08 on 3/24/2008 at 3:02 PM Flag For Abuse

7. Alright, I see mostly the no-TV crowd has commented it so far, so I'll chime in from the other end of the spectrum.
   
   My one-year-old isn't sitting down in front of the TV and watching programs. But the TV is often on (ESPN, our first child) in the evenings. FINE, it's always on in the evenings. One of us is usually on the floor with Baby and not paying attention to the TV, but there is incidental TV viewing.
   
   I'm not worried that TV viewing is replacing face-to-face time for Baby. I'm worried about MD's comments about ADD and the brain wiring itself at this phase of life.
   
   Writers of articles like this always take an all-or-nothing stance. They think we're parking our babies in front of the TV for hours. Geez, my baby won't pay attention to it more more than 30 seconds. And obviously when he starts understanding we'll have to be more picky about content. But is the incidental viewing affecting him? Will someone please answer the question from a middle-of-the-road reality?

   posted by : EG on 3/24/2008 at 3:51 PM Flag For Abuse

8. "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,"
   
   Worst quote! Um, if my kids wanted to read books or play outside all day? Sure!

   posted by : bookmamaaaaa on 3/24/2008 at 4:39 PM Flag For Abuse

9. For godsake I think the "nineteen hours a day" comment was more about sleep than anything else - a kid needs more than five hours of sleep, right? That's all I took from it! That's why it wasn't "ten hours a day" since that would be cool - we often spend ten hours a day outside in the summer time - reading, playing, eating, etc.
   
   As for TV, I am not in the "NEVER!!!!" camp, but I have quit watching TV for the most part simply because there isn't enough time in the day. A few years ago my husband and I would watch shows we taped after the kids went to bed, but now there really isn't enough time. I spend the hour and a half after the kids are in bed doing chores and prepping for the next day. And, I don't miss it!
   
   My children crave TV in small spurts - the oldest likes a little sports here and there. The middle likes a couple of kids shows. The baby is not interested (yet.)
   
   I'm not worried about their cognition or behavior. I think most of us do fine trusting our guts....

   posted by : BBBGMOM on 3/24/2008 at 10:20 PM Flag For Abuse

10. We don't own a TV, so we have no guilt about that. What we have had to monitor, and it has been an insightful experience, is how and where we do get screentime and what message that passes on to our child. We get much of our news on the net, so we have a laptop lying around like the newspaper. I do get guilt about that sometimes. I don't think that TVs or computers are evil, just inadequate when compared to a live empathetic (or even pathetic for that matter) human being.

    posted by : GonzoMama on 3/24/2008 at 11:38 PM Flag For Abuse

11. I don't have much of an opinion on this, but I'm curious. Like others, I wasn't able to get my kids to watch TV until they were at least 4. I remember the transition well because we were suddenly able to sit easily through a 3-hr plane ride (thanks, JetBlue TV screens!). For the first 4 years, with both of my kids, they would only pay attention for 5 mins or so before getting bored and walking away. I actually remember wishing that my son would watch TV one time when he was sick....
    
    So I'm curious, for those with young kids who do watch TV, is that something that they were drawn to naturally or did you sort of have to train them for it?

    posted by : hi on 3/25/2008 at 11:35 AM Flag For Abuse

12. I find it interesting that many of the comments here about kids who won't even watch TV (such budding intellectuals!) are about kids who aren't even 2 yet. When my daughter was 2, I couldn't get her to watch TV even when I wanted to (like when I or she was sick or something.) I, too, was very smug about how "my kid doesn't even like TV!"
    
    Well, enter age 2 1/2 and all of a sudden, TV "works" (in that, it buys me some time to do things that were otherwise nearly impossible while she was up and about.) We use TV in moderation, but if Sesame Street or Dora (on demand, so no commercials) gets me through my shower in the morning, I will not feel guilty. I'm curious if any of the previous commenters will change their tune once their kids are older. Maybe they won't--I'm just curious...
    
    Also, what I don't understand about the "little or no TV under age 2" thing is, what do you do when the older sibling is, say, watching Sesame Street? Won't subsequent children be exposed that way? Again, just curious how others handle this.

    posted by : NoVa Mommy on 3/25/2008 at 1:24 PM Flag For Abuse

13. Lordy, NoVa Mommy, nobody's trying to make you feel inferior, or brag that our kids are "budding intellectuals." Most of us are complaining that we would have liked the tv to work as a distraction and it didn't which is hardly a moral high ground. Maybe they will gain the patience to watch tv when they're two, which would be great because that's when the tv restriction wears off.

    posted by : mcglory13 on 3/25/2008 at 7:16 PM Flag For Abuse

14. hi: My 21-month-old does watch TV. I suspect this has to do partly with the fact that his dad is the stay-at-home parent and grew up in a family where the TV was just always on in the background (whereas I grew up in a family that only turned it on to watch specific shows we'd picked out of the TV Guide beforehand). But mostly I think he just likes controlling objects. He will come into our bedroom, turn on the TV/DVD player (usually with a Baby Einstein or Classical Baby DVD), sometimes point to stuff so that I name it for him, and then he'll go sit down and flip through a book or play with a puzzle or other toy. He did the same thing with his LeapPad, just turning it on for the music and then going off and doing something else, but within earshot. I think he just thinks of TV as another of his many toys. While I occasionally use it as a distraction so I can take a shower (if no one else is home), mostly my husband or I watch the shows while cuddling and talking to him.

    posted by : raincitykitty on 3/25/2008 at 8:09 PM Flag For Abuse

15. First, I'm intrigued by those who said above they'd be glad for their kids to read for 19 hours a day. Really? Wouldn't a child spending 140% of his/her awake time in a solitary activity suggest some difficulty in social interaction, or at least create a lack of opportunity to learn social skills?
    
    Is content irrelevant -- would you really be proud of a child who read read 19 hours a day exclusively of Captain Underpants? Even the Harry Potter books referenced above came out once a year at most; if a child spent 19 hours every day rereading them, that might suggest a problem.
    
    Now, the author snarkily dismisses baby TV's "experts" without evaluating their credentials, but automatically defers to those with the title of "Doctor" without looking into their claims. Let's take the language acquisition study the pediatricians cited. Here are a few things to know about that study:
    
    1) Development overall can’t be measured by a single aspect, and while development proceeds in a relatively standard progression for all children, the pace varies widely. Vocabulary may be an easily monitored indicator of cognitive development, but the authors note that it is “only partially predictive.”
    
    2) All baby DVDs and videos are lumped together into one category, and described with generic formal features; however, each brand has its own format and curriculum. Even within one line, episodes may have different learning goals. One might assume, as with all media content, that the level and quality of research behind each product varies widely.
    
    It appears that the study didn’t ask specifically which baby videos the children were watching and whether they were intended to promote vocabulary growth, or explore whether the videos accomplished their unique goals.
    
    3) The authors emphasize that they found a correlation, not causality. They note carefully that parents who are concerned about their children’s development may be more likely to turn to outside products, or that parents who use baby videos may do so because they are less motivated or feel less able to promote their child’s learning themselves. The authors recognize that this is a self-reporting measure, and so less attentive parents may be more likely to under-report vocabulary.
    
    4) While there is a deficit at 8-16 months, it has turned to a mild positive by 17-24 months. The author notes “the impact of baby DVDs/videos on development may be transient.”
    
    5) Other forms of media don’t show the same negative correlation with vocabulary among the youngest children. In fact, children who watch movies and non-educational TV are most similar to those with parents who tell their children stories at least once a day, and just behind those whose parents read to them. Should we recommend that an hour of cartoons promotes vocabulary? (Or perhaps babies who are exposed to non-educational programs and movies are more likely to be co-viewing with older siblings?)
    
    6) The second most powerful negative coefficient among the younger children is for parents who allow no media viewing. Also, there is a reasonably positive relationship between frequent parental co-viewing and vocabulary.
    
    There is a lot we don't know about the positive and negative potential of media for young children. What we know for certain is that one group loses when BOTH baby media sellers and activists play the "guilt card" -- parents.

    posted by : here because of ashley on 3/26/2008 at 9:38 AM Flag For Abuse

16. Ok, to this:
    
    "First, I'm intrigued by those who said above they'd be glad for their kids to read for 19 hours a day. Really? Wouldn't a child spending 140% of his/her awake time in a solitary activity suggest some difficulty in social interaction, or at least create a lack of opportunity to learn social skills?"
    
    My first caveat was "ignoring the hyperbole." No kid does anything 19 hours a day. The doctor said not to let your child watch tv 19 hours a day, just like not reading or not being outside. Who exactly is letting their child watch tv 19 hours a day? Thus my statement "ignoring the hyperbole." Kids eat, they sleep, they take baths, they go potty, they go to school, etc. No kid does ANYTHING for 19 hours a day. Basically, my opinion is that 19 hours=a lot of time, in the doctor's initial statement, and that was how I was understanding and using it. I have no issue with my child spending a lot of time playing outside. I have no issue with my child spending a lot of time reading. I do have an issue with my child spending a lot of time watching tv.

    posted by : mcglory13 on 3/26/2008 at 11:35 AM Flag For Abuse

17. How many of you are working moms, who get away all day and leave your kid with a nanny or daycare? Just curious. I am a stay at home mother of a 27 month old and let me say: I DONT know what I would do without TV. She only watches DVDs of my choosing (mostly PlaySchool imported from Australia, which is just lovely). But I feel like I give her SOOO much mom time all day that dammit if i am going to feel guilty about popping her in front of TV so i can put her baby sister down for a nap or take a shower, etc. It is really hard to leave a toddler alone (as in, on another floor while you are showering or dealing with another kid) so TV serves as a decent--if flawed--babysitter. Sounds bad, I am sure. But just being honest.
    Easy to have a no TV rule if you aren't home with the kid all day....

    posted by : cm on 3/27/2008 at 9:43 PM Flag For Abuse

18. I'm a SAHM (actually, I do paid work during her nap and when she goes to bed) and my 20 month-old watches no television.
    
    So, I don't think it is fair to assume this is just some unrealistic rule handed down by parents who then escape the consequences.
    
    As far as "here because of ashley"--
    
    I almost fell on the floor when I saw the word "curriculum." Talk about loaded and misleading language!
    
    I'm no zealot. We choose "no tv" but frankly, I don't look down upon parents who choose to show limited tv. TV under two (yes, of ANY type) is not helpful. Excessive amounts may be detrimental. However, 15-20 minutes a day is not going to be the straw that broke the proverbial camels back. So, its up to mom and dad (or guardians...whatever).
    
    That said, policy recommendations should recognize the *ideal*, which is NO TV under 2.
    
    After 2, limited viewing may benefit school aged children (especially, from what I have read, those who are from "at-risk" backgrounds). However, the trend in our society is still way too much, rather than "selective" and "interactive" viewing.
    
    And I don't think the multi-billion dollar baby entertainment industry really needs bolstering against the big bad medical researchers. It is like the formula companies vs. the breastfeeding advocates. It is such a David and Goliath match-up that claims of bias in favor of the small researchers and advocacy groups, who have little or no potential financial gain in the situation, is laughable.

    posted by : CaliMama on 3/28/2008 at 2:13 PM Flag For Abuse

19. Try reading The Read-Aloud Handbook by Jim Trelease. He provides lot's of helpful information about TV viewing and children. It will be available at your public library. He isn't an extremist either.

    posted by : Tooners on 5/21/2008 at 12:32 AM Flag For Abuse

20. Interesting article and even more interesting comments.
    
    I have to admit that I do feel a little guilty that my TV is on most of the day as 'background noise'.
    
    However, that is exactly how my 2 and a half year old daughter views it: 'background noise'.
    
    To get her to sit and actually watch it for any length of time would mean tying her up and physically pointing her at it against her will! It's just not possible, at least in my experience.
    
    It is there for her if she wants to watch anything in particular. I take requests, as long as what she asks for is suitable for her age.
    
    As for the suggested negative influence on vocabulary development, I think that is hogwash. I would even suggest that the opposite is true, under certain circumstances.
    
    At the end of the day, TV and other similar media are an integral part of all our lives and while I do believe such exposure should be limited when it comes to babies, I think it is unreasonable and possibly even harmful to cut it out altogether.
    
    Just my 2 cents. There is a happy medium and I believe our children are capable of showing us if we are swaying too much in any particular direction. The trick is to be able to read the signs and react appropriately.

    posted by : Sarah M on 8/12/2008 at 7:47 AM Flag For Abuse

21. Ok, he says 30 minutes at most, right? I am a SAHM with a 3 year old and a 2 year old. 30 minutes out of the day I am supposed to be able to sit them in front of the TV, and during that time I can prepare breakfast, lunch, dinner, sweep, mop, vacuum, dust, do all the laundry and put it away, and shower dress and put on makeup? No, it's not going to happen. My kids DO have the TV on in the background all day. They rarely if ever sit there in front of it (about an hour out of the day the little one does while on breathing treatments which he takes 2-3 times a day). They run around the house chasing each other, they color and read books and push cars and fly airplanes and make up pretend games and play dress up. They play outside, they do puzzles, and they eat. Through all this the TV is on, purely because they like the background noise. If it was off, they'd do the exact things they do now. They've learned songs I didn't know and words in another language from having that box on, so I guess it isn't all bad. The sounds of kids shows do drive me crazy, but they're happy, active, healthy and intelligent, so I don't think it's hurting them at all. If they were the type (like my friend's kids) who literally SIT DOWN and WATCH the TV whenever it is on, I'd probably turn it off though.

    posted by : Sabrina on 8/24/2008 at 12:28 PM Flag For Abuse

22. I don't understand the "TV is ok as background" arguments. If kids will do the same things if the TV is off, why not just turn it off? If they can tune it out as background noise, why not give their brains a break so they don't have to filter it? I grew up in a household where the TV was always on, and yes...I turned out fine, I got into and attended strongly academic programs throughout my school years, et cetera. But I'm consciously choosing not to turn on the TV or DVDs for my children. I feel there's a real loss when we aren't able to hear the silence in our own heads or learn how to entertain ourselves when the TV isn't running in the background.

    posted by : Anon mom on 8/28/2008 at 4:11 AM Flag For Abuse

23. We allow our boys 3 & 1 to have the TV on their shows for 3-5 hours a day total.  They are developing slightly ahead of pace and are socially just fine.  I don't like the TV on but my SO is obsessed with it.  I'm working on lessening TV time. 
    

    posted by : honesty now on 5/28/2009 at 12:30 AM Flag For Abuse