Little kids watch TV; alert the media!

Little kids watch TV; alert the media!
Jacob Sullum

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20031031.shtml

When my daughter's attention span developed to the point where she would
sit and watch TV or a videotape for more than a few minutes, I was
delighted. It meant that she could entertain herself for reasonable
stretches of time while I worked in the next room.

I'm a terrible father. Or so I gather from the Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation's recent study of "exposure" to electronic media among
children 6 and younger. Based on a national survey of parents, Kaiser
reported that "even the youngest children in America are growing up
immersed in media, spending hours a day" -- just under two hours on
average, to be more precise -- "watching TV and videos, using computers
and playing video games."

Naturally, this discovery should be viewed with alarm. "The American
Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under 2 not watch any
television," the Kaiser report notes, "and that children over 2 be
limited to one to two hours of educational screen media a day. Despite
these recommendations, in a typical day, 68 percent of all children
under 2 use screen media . . . and these youngsters will spend an
average of two hours and five minutes in front of a screen."

It seems I'm not the only one who has been flouting the AAP's child
rearing guidelines. Maybe that's because they don't make much sense.

According to Michael Rich, a member of the AAP's committee on public
education, kids younger than 2 should not watch any TV because they need
to interact with the real world for their brains to develop properly.
"They should be spending time with siblings, with parents, with mud," he
says. "They should not be spending time with TV."

Far be it from me to slight the educational and entertainment value of
mud compared to, say, "Teletubbies," but isn't it possible for toddlers
to play with wet dirt even if they also watch the occasional Baby
Einstein DVD? How busy are these kids' schedules that they have to
choose between "Blue's Clues" and quality time with their families?

In case parents need more reassurance on this score, Kaiser's survey
found no evidence that TV watching displaces other activities among
children 3 and younger. It also found that "the portrayal of television
watching among young children as a highly solitary activity is not
accurate," and that parents were "more likely to see positive than
negative behaviors being copied" from TV.

Press coverage of the study ignored or played down these and other
upbeat findings, instead emphasizing results that could be cited as
cause for concern. Among 4- to 6-year-olds, for example, those who
watched TV two hours or more a day "spent an average of 30 minutes less
per day playing outside and eight minutes less per day reading" than the
other kids.

As the researchers concede, it's not clear what these findings mean. It
could be that kids in cold climates or dangerous neighborhoods tend to
stay inside, for instance, and therefore watch more TV. And kids who
have trouble reading are less apt to enjoy it and may therefore be more
inclined to watch TV instead.

That was not the interpretation preferred by the news media. "'Tuned-In'
Toddlers Need a TV Timeout," according to the headline in The Washington
Times. "For Media-Savvy Tots," The Washington Post warned, "TV and DVD
Compete With ABCs." The Detroit Free Press ran an editorial scolding
parents to "turn off the TV and read with your kids."

The press took its cue from Kaiser's researchers, for whom the absence
of evidence that kids are harmed by "using screen media" is cause for
worry rather than reassurance. "We know the first two years are a
crucial development period," said Vicky Rideout, the study's lead
author, "but at this point we don't have a clue about the impact of all
this media." The researchers, of course, want more research, focused
mainly on all the problems that electronic media consumption might
cause, ranging from cognitive impairment to obesity.

The AAP's Rich not only concedes that research so far has not
demonstrated a difference "between kids raised on media and those raised
on more interactive play." He also says, "I don't think we'll ever have
(those) data." But a lack of evidence will not stop his organization
from issuing edicts that imply most people cannot be trusted to raise
their own children.

It seems I'm not the only one who has been flouting the AAP's child
rearing guidelines. Maybe that's because they don't make much sense.

A lot of parents have been ignoring that advice. From another article:

On a typical day, the study found, 59 percent of children 6 months to 2
years watch television, and 42 percent watch a videotape or a DVD. The
median time they spend watching some form of media or another on the screen
is slightly more than two hours. ...
According to the study, 10 percent of the babies and toddlers from 6 months
to 2 years have a television remote control designed for children. And 32
percent have videos from the "Baby Einstein" series, created seven years ago
as a way of exposing infants to poetry, language, music and art.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/national/29BABY.html

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
It seems I'm not the only one who has been flouting the AAP's child
rearing guidelines. Maybe that's because they don't make much sense.

Or maybe because you ideas are not good ones.

A lot of parents have been ignoring that advice. From another article:

On a typical day, the study found, 59 percent of children 6 months to
2
years watch television, and 42 percent watch a videotape or a DVD. The
median time they spend watching some form of media or another on the
screen
is slightly more than two hours. ...
According to the study, 10 percent of the babies and toddlers from 6
months
to 2 years have a television remote control designed for children. And 32
percent have videos from the "Baby Einstein" series, created seven years
ago
as a way of exposing infants to poetry, language, music and art.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/national/29BABY.html


Yet this does not mean that these programs are a good idea for kids or a
good substitute for adult interaction or better than self directed play.
Just because TV is available does mean that is a good idea to use it.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

[...]

Yet this does not mean that these programs are a good idea for kids or
a
good substitute for adult interaction or better than self directed
play.
Just because TV is available does mean that is a good idea to use it.

Hehe. Yeah, better to have kids plunked in daycare centers, watching
(learning from?) all sorts of dolts.

JG, who grew up with TV and runs into lots of people (gee, even some
here, on mkh! g) who might have benefited from such programming as
"Schoolhouse Rock."

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:52:47 GMT, "JG" wrote:

The press took its cue from Kaiser's researchers, for whom the absence
of evidence that kids are harmed by "using screen media" is cause for
worry rather than reassurance. "We know the first two years are a
crucial development period," said Vicky Rideout, the study's lead
author, "but at this point we don't have a clue about the impact of all
this media." The researchers, of course, want more research, focused
mainly on all the problems that electronic media consumption might
cause, ranging from cognitive impairment to obesity.

Some parents take their cue from anti-vaccine kooks, for whom the
absence of evidence that kids are harmed by "mercury-containing
preservatives" is cause for worry rather than reassurance. "We know
the first two years are a crucial development period," said Barbara
Fischer, chief of the anti-vaccine propaganda group masquerading as a
"National Vaccine Information Center," "but at this point we don't
have a clue about the impact of all this mercury." The researchers, of
course, want more research, focused mainly on all the problems that
mercury exposure might cause, ranging from cognitive impairment to
autism.

I'll concede, JG, that there are a lot more important things to worry
about. I spend about zero percent of my check-up time talking about
television exposure to parents. I just had to point out the analogy
that some of the anti-vaccine nuts (e.g., Roger) might want to
consider as they worry about things with no evidence to back them up.

PF

"PF Riley" wrote
I'll concede, JG, that there are a lot more important things to worry
about. I spend about zero percent of my check-up time talking about
television exposure to parents. I just had to point out the analogy
that some of the anti-vaccine nuts (e.g., Roger) might want to
consider as they worry about things with no evidence to back them up.

I am more anti-TV than anti-vaccine, but I am having a little trouble with
your analogy. The people who buy "Baby Einstein" presumably think
that it is beneficial. No one thinks that mercury consumption is
beneficial.

If parents want their kids to watch TV or get vaccines or not, it is
fine with me. I mainly object to interest groups telling people what
to do based on bad science.

No wonder there are three times as many overwieght children then forty years
ago, www.storydata.com for the stats.



"JG" wrote in message
...
Little kids watch TV; alert the media!
Jacob Sullum

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20031031.shtml

When my daughter's attention span developed to the point where she would
sit and watch TV or a videotape for more than a few minutes, I was
delighted. It meant that she could entertain herself for reasonable
stretches of time while I worked in the next room.

I'm a terrible father. Or so I gather from the Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation's recent study of "exposure" to electronic media among
children 6 and younger. Based on a national survey of parents, Kaiser
reported that "even the youngest children in America are growing up
immersed in media, spending hours a day" -- just under two hours on
average, to be more precise -- "watching TV and videos, using computers
and playing video games."

Naturally, this discovery should be viewed with alarm. "The American
Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under 2 not watch any
television," the Kaiser report notes, "and that children over 2 be
limited to one to two hours of educational screen media a day. Despite
these recommendations, in a typical day, 68 percent of all children
under 2 use screen media . . . and these youngsters will spend an
average of two hours and five minutes in front of a screen."

It seems I'm not the only one who has been flouting the AAP's child
rearing guidelines. Maybe that's because they don't make much sense.

According to Michael Rich, a member of the AAP's committee on public
education, kids younger than 2 should not watch any TV because they need
to interact with the real world for their brains to develop properly.
"They should be spending time with siblings, with parents, with mud," he
says. "They should not be spending time with TV."

Far be it from me to slight the educational and entertainment value of
mud compared to, say, "Teletubbies," but isn't it possible for toddlers
to play with wet dirt even if they also watch the occasional Baby
Einstein DVD? How busy are these kids' schedules that they have to
choose between "Blue's Clues" and quality time with their families?

In case parents need more reassurance on this score, Kaiser's survey
found no evidence that TV watching displaces other activities among
children 3 and younger. It also found that "the portrayal of television
watching among young children as a highly solitary activity is not
accurate," and that parents were "more likely to see positive than
negative behaviors being copied" from TV.

Press coverage of the study ignored or played down these and other
upbeat findings, instead emphasizing results that could be cited as
cause for concern. Among 4- to 6-year-olds, for example, those who
watched TV two hours or more a day "spent an average of 30 minutes less
per day playing outside and eight minutes less per day reading" than the
other kids.

As the researchers concede, it's not clear what these findings mean. It
could be that kids in cold climates or dangerous neighborhoods tend to
stay inside, for instance, and therefore watch more TV. And kids who
have trouble reading are less apt to enjoy it and may therefore be more
inclined to watch TV instead.

That was not the interpretation preferred by the news media. "'Tuned-In'
Toddlers Need a TV Timeout," according to the headline in The Washington
Times. "For Media-Savvy Tots," The Washington Post warned, "TV and DVD
Compete With ABCs." The Detroit Free Press ran an editorial scolding
parents to "turn off the TV and read with your kids."

The press took its cue from Kaiser's researchers, for whom the absence
of evidence that kids are harmed by "using screen media" is cause for
worry rather than reassurance. "We know the first two years are a
crucial development period," said Vicky Rideout, the study's lead
author, "but at this point we don't have a clue about the impact of all
this media." The researchers, of course, want more research, focused
mainly on all the problems that electronic media consumption might
cause, ranging from cognitive impairment to obesity.

The AAP's Rich not only concedes that research so far has not
demonstrated a difference "between kids raised on media and those raised
on more interactive play." He also says, "I don't think we'll ever have
(those) data." But a lack of evidence will not stop his organization
from issuing edicts that imply most people cannot be trusted to raise
their own children.