TV or Not TV
Should we feel more or less guilt about how much our kids watch?
by L.J. Williamson
March 23, 2008
Television Guilt falls into two major categories: Time Guilt, i.e. "We should be spending quality time, not watching TV," and Content Guilt, i.e. "I know this show isn't the best thing for a toddler to be watching."
Time Guilt is tough for an outsider to control, but the producers of baby videos are doing everything in their power to eradicate Content Guilt by making shows that they assure us are not only age-appropriate but also educational.
"A recent University of Washington study shows that up to ninety percent of children under two are watching TV. We're addressing that reality by providing a cleaner, safer alternative," says Sharon Rechter of BabyFirstTV. "A lot of companies will put out a video with just some pictures and music and say it's educational. But on our channel, every two-minute segment is supported and approved by an expert."
An expert! Who can argue with an expert? Well, other experts. I asked Rechter if she was familiar with any of the studies that connected infant TV viewing with language delays, and was surprised that she said, "I've never heard of that."
AAP member Dr. Victor Strasburger has. "Twenty-five percent of Americans smoke, so why not have a smoking channel?" Dr. Strasburger quips in response to the ninety-percent-of-kids-are-watching statistics Rechter often cites.
"It doesn't matter how many babies are watching TV; the fact is they shouldn't be," says the AAP's Dr. Strasburger.
"It doesn't matter how many babies are watching TV; the fact is they shouldn't be. It's a drastic mistake. A cable channel that increases the amount of TV for babies is doing a major disservice to people around the country."
When I asked Dr. Strasburger about BabyFirstTV's assertion that AAP thinking on television is "outmoded," he didn't mince words. "She is absolutely, totally wrong. In 1999, when we first suggested that babies shouldn't be watching TV, it was just based on what we thought was common sense. Now in 2008, there are half a dozen good studies to back that up, documenting language delays associated with watching television.
"For us, before you expose a baby to TV, we believe you have to demonstrate some benefit. But there are no studies — zero, zilch, nil — that show benefit. But we can prove harm."
I'm now clear on Dr. Strasburger's position on babies and the blue screen of death. But is TV ever okay for kids?
"If you watch good TV like Sesame Street after age two, it can be quite useful," Dr. Strasburger says. "But the infant brain is unique in that it is not fully developed — it is particularly malleable, plastic, under the age of two. Early infant brains develop in response to stimuli from the environment. If their environment is a screen, their development will be different than it will be if a human can interact with them. If in the future you can talk to your screen and it can talk back, maybe what I'm saying will not apply. But we're not there. Babies need interaction with live, in-person human beings. There is more and more research that says exactly that."
©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?
|
