or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Toddler › Life with a Toddler › TV really a nono?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TV really a nono?! - Page 3

post #41 of 81
Thread Starter 


no im not on a mission to get everyone to watch tv. im on a mission to get everyone to say that TV is ONLY negitive, and bacially you should be ashamed of your self for even letting your kids watch tv. im annoyed of it. there is not scientific proof that tv is horrible for children, just peoples opinions, and im sick of seeing post everywhere where people are blaming tv for other kids problems and that their kids are perfect for they dont watch tv. its just a little annoying, that some people make it not an opinion but make it out to make you a horrible parent because u alow your children limited tv. so i finally decided to just put up a post on what tv (limited) had done for my children, not making it that EVERYONE should to it, but you know dont be so judgemental if you yourself have not tried it. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post


 


I never mentioned not limiting TV. but allowing children to experience some educational TV shows. for yes its better that we teach them our selves but we cant quit always be able to do so, and they don't always find us entertaining! 

 





Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post




you dont have to watch comerical tv. their is netflix, or dvds. but that is your choice, i do know of many i mean many children that watched tv more than i will let my own kids watch and grew up to graduate from high educated school with 4.0s and became very successful in life

 




Maybe it's just your wording but it sounds like you are on a mission to get everyone to let their kids watch TV??? I don't really understand the point of this... I mean, it's totally your choice if you want to let your kid watch TV but why try to convince others to as well? (Especially in the face of evidence that it may not be best for toddlers)... I guess I just don't get the point of this thread, not sure if it was mean to be a vent or a PSA or what...

(Sorry, I hope that doesn't sound harsh, I am just confused!!)


 

post #42 of 81
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemenope View Post

I am actually loving this discussion.  There are a lot of great points.

 

Something I did not touch on in my first post was my ambivalence concerning how educational videos and the products associated with them are being marketed to a younger and younger audience.  Leap Frog being a perfect example.  It really seems to me that products that would be appropriate for kindergartners 10 years ago are now being purchased for 2-year-olds, even infants.  It is the marketing that bugs me, yes, but there is also this anxiety I sense among parents these days that their children are always behind which concerns me.

 

When I get the feeling that a lot of children are only allowed to view Leap frog videos, Wordworld, Dora, etc, I get a little sad.  When DD and I snuggle up and watch a program I would not want to waste my time with these.  Our favorite (and pretty much only) children's program is David the Gnome (circa 1990).  It is great story telling, gentle, and has great environmental overtones.   We also love exploring the world together via the Travel channel and National Geographic type stuff.  There is a lot of great stuff out there.

 

I will admit that my perspective might be a bit skewed, but I could not imagine enjoying a program whose sole purpose was to teach the ABCs.  We do actually go out of our way to avoid that stuff.  I really just wanted to put this out there as a thought.  That maybe some great gentle stories on the tube is better for toddlers than flashy ABC shows.  I am certainly not above it all, though.  I sometimes regret that DD was ever exposed to the website starfall, but we all have our ideals and realities.  And, I also totally understand needing a break.  When DD stopped napping a couple of months ago I did use some vegging out in front of the TV to help with the transition for a week or so.  It got us through. 

 

I think it is important to remember that this issue is really not worth getting defensive about.  But, it does make for a great discussion.



i do agree but as for my original reason for posting was because people didnt think tv could be educational and that their children cannot learn anything from them. i do let my kids watch world world, and leapfrog they like the learning from it, but they also like to watch other shows like cooking, gardening, house work, and all sort of the weird shows you can find that have to do with everyday life. and surprisingly they love anything to do with real people and babies, so we occasionally when i did have cable watch the baby stories, but usually in my house we dont sit and just watch tv, its usually there for background noise and the occasional i need a break for a min to sit down get some energy and start running around again. or "hey mommy look baby!" and then "this book mommy" or something like that. 

 

But i also agree with people being concerned their child is behind. its ridiculous all children learn at different speeds, for example my 18 month old doesnt do half of what my oldest did at his age, and im not like "omg hes behind" hes smart in his own way and i feel that my children will be smart and learn at their own pace and i will not push them for i think pushing them will make them do the opposite and not like learning, just like kids do not want 100% constant parent time, they like independence to learn and grow and figure things out them selves. 

post #43 of 81
Thread Starter 


sorry guys i dont know how to do multiple quotes at once. but anyways i like how you bring up computer games.. i decied once to let my 3 year old play an alphabet game on the super why site. BIGGEST MISTAKE, he was doing it, and trying, and sucseeding but the after effect was horrible. he through fits when i said no more, and got mad for the rest of the day, and i relized wow. i never thought he would react that way and he sill is always asking me to play it, and i say no now. Because with him it just not the right thing. 

 

I also not a big fan of video games of any sort for kids especially non teenagers. for i have a  cousin who is 7 and her mom fights her tooth and nail to do homework, (possibly learning dissabilites caused by distractions) for she sits on her vtech and all that high tech kids games systems and the computer and wii all day and night. and it even anoys me that my aunt would be allowing her to do this all the time instead of interacting with her. but each to their own i guess type deal. but my cousin will come over and im ready for her to leave with in 5 min, for we do have the Wii PS3 Xbox360 and stuff and thats because my husband and i like to play games when the kids are asleep. so she want so fist thing play games and mad cuz we dont have kids games n if she stays the nigh all she wants to do nothing, even if we go to the park she complains. 

 

so i guess in a way its different for every child 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzs View Post

i think it's a great topic for discussion and one that doesn't have to be so emotional so it's great to hear what other people do in this regard. and we're not at the tv stage really yet (a few minutes of specially selected this or that here or there if dd is showing extreme interest in a subject....dogs, babies, ducks...we'll google it or netflix it just to show her what it looks like in action) so i'm always open to new thoughts.

 

on the other hand, i find it kind of ironic that the AAP's statement on screen time is so often used here as ammunition against tv. i mean, here on mdc we blast the AAP's stance on so many things from when to start solids, to withholding foods to prevent allergies, to front-facing car seats, to baby cereals....but now, they say something on tv and we take it as gospel. just seems a little contradictory. and yeah, i know there are plenty of studies out there too but i haven;t really researched them at all. my take on studies seems to be that for every study "pro" something there will be another "anti" so it seems you have to take it all in and go from there.

 

anyway, screen time also includes computer stuff and i have to say, even as someone who has no strong feelings against tv in moderation, for some reason the idea of plopping an under-2 (or even an older two...up to what age, i dunno) in front of a computer game freaks me out (not to judge either, i'm sure there are valid reasons to do it depending on an individual's circumstances.) but as to how it would affect the brain, i would think the impact would be so much greater with computer time. i know how i feel after being in front of one all day. i used to do alot of photo touch-ups, scans, cataloging, etc...for a photographer and i remember after being so zoned in to the 'puter, at times, not really feeling that i remembered how to speak when the phone would ring....and i'm an adult. it can just get you into a weird hyper-focused blanked-out mode.



 

post #44 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post


no im not on a mission to get everyone to watch tv. im on a mission to get everyone to say that TV is ONLY negitive, and bacially you should be ashamed of your self for even letting your kids watch tv. im annoyed of it. there is not scientific proof that tv is horrible for children, just peoples opinions, and im sick of seeing post everywhere where people are blaming tv for other kids problems and that their kids are perfect for they dont watch tv. its just a little annoying, that some people make it not an opinion but make it out to make you a horrible parent because u alow your children limited tv. so i finally decided to just put up a post on what tv (limited) had done for my children, not making it that EVERYONE should to it, but you know dont be so judgemental if you yourself have not tried it. 



 


 


Are you familiar with the many, many peer-reviewed scientific research studies about television exposure at a young age or long time use by children? It isn't "people's opinions." I have opinions about what makes a quality toys and I have a preference for not living in an Elmo-decorated house but my beliefs about television viewing and small children aren't formed by either.

 

You can of course disagree with the research studies themselves (too small a sample size, incorrect questioning methods, outside factors overlooked or poorly weighted, etc.) but I don't think that you can dismiss the vast amount of research that points to a negative outcome as "opinion."

Even if you dispute the scientific evidence you cannot spend very much time on MDC and other parenting boards without coming to the conclusion that addiction and difficult behavior related to television are pretty common in small children.

 

post #45 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post


no im not on a mission to get everyone to watch tv. im on a mission to get everyone to say that TV is ONLY negitive, and bacially you should be ashamed of your self for even letting your kids watch tv. im annoyed of it. there is not scientific proof that tv is horrible for children, just peoples opinions, and im sick of seeing post everywhere where people are blaming tv for other kids problems and that their kids are perfect for they dont watch tv. its just a little annoying, that some people make it not an opinion but make it out to make you a horrible parent because u alow your children limited tv. so i finally decided to just put up a post on what tv (limited) had done for my children, not making it that EVERYONE should to it, but you know dont be so judgemental if you yourself have not tried it. 



 


Ahhh OK I get it... so this was more of a vent... I'm sorry, I read it totally differently.

I think it's like everything else related to parenting -- you just have to trust (in the absence of abuse, neglect, etc.) that each parent is making the choices they feel are best for their child and their family as a whole. I know tons of parents are TV-free until they reach a stage where they can't cook dinner or tend to a younger sibling etc. so then the TV comes on. I know parents who just love TV & feel it's a great social experience to watch shows and movies with their young kids. And then there are people who just don't value TV or believe it's a negative influence, so they don't allow their kids to watch it. And I'm sure there is a lot of overlap and variance in those categories... I know, for example, I was deathly ill one day and trying to take care of my high-needs 18mo and even though he was/is TV-free, I certainly turned the TV on that day. It didn't work (he wasn't interested!) but I tried it, and would again if I was ever in the same situation!! But really, my goal for myself -- not just DS, but me, and my entire family -- is to be completely TV-free again, because I was just happier that way, so there's a lot more to my anti-TV stance than just XYZ study says it's bad. But for the record, there are lots of scientific studies (not just opinions!) that do suggest it may be harmful (although there are also lots of studies saying sugar is bad, and I just ate a cookie!!) I'm glad you clarified your post because I really thought you were trying to get me to let DS watch TV even though I don't want to.
post #46 of 81

Ah, the ever hot 'n spicy debate about television for toddlers.  We did no tv under 2, and now that dd is two, she has seen a few things.  The primary reason I don't want her to have much screen time is because it makes ME lazy.  I noticed this right away after loosening the prohibition shortly after her second birthday.  She watches about 15-30 minutes of commercial free programming a few times a week, and what do I do?  Go straight to the computer to hang out on MDC. 

My ideal is no tv.  My reality doesn't reach that goal. 

 

post #47 of 81

My 2 year old watches some TV during the week. I would love to have no TV, but DH would never go for it. On the weekend we watch more TV, but during the week, DS hardly watches any, especially during this time of year. Winter was hard, but now that it's warming up, there's just so much more to do. I'd say he watches no more than 20-30 minutes a day. Not an issue in my book. It's usually just long enough for me to get something done. I've also noticed that the more the TV is one, the more obsessive he gets about it, so having the TV on in the background doesn't work in our family. Then again, I only have one kiddo right now, and I'm having my second in May, so things may change..we'll see :)

post #48 of 81

We use the TV as a tool when needed.  1-2 hours per week...if that.

 

DD1 is almost 3 and can also do her alphabet and numbers to 10 correctly and up to 20 sometimes and has been for months... not to say your son is not smart, but just to say that I don't think it is the tools you are using and more developmentally appropriate.  

 

We do not do any educational tools like leap pad or sesame street or other type shows.  She watches scholastic books on DVD or Veggie Tales.  

post #49 of 81

I think that the computers are  in a way more dangerous than the TV. "The Shallows" is the book we all need to read!  The author researches  how a human brain is physically changing under the influence of the computers. Scary stuff! The book is backed up by loads of data and is extremely very written. Highly recommended. As for the TV, I honestly see no need in it. My kid never watched it and  is doing just fine.

post #50 of 81

I had high ideals of no tv when dd was born, but by 19 m i just needed to make dinner! We started out only letting her watch videos of herself and she's so intense that having a video on is the only way dh and I can truly relax! So early on we allowed Fri/Sat night movies. For years it was no TV before nap - honestly it was as much a rule FOR ME as for her - I needed to save that for my dinner making time...

It's slippery slope for sure, she now is allowed morning tv (she's 7 yo)... but one thing I have remained adamant about (except when she's at grandma's) is no COMMERCIAL TV - it's PBS or a video

I thought for sure when she started Kindy she'd be like - "Let's put on the disney channel" - But in her world the only things possible are pbs/news and videos! She has caught animal planet before and even though she LOVES animals she doesn't ask to watch that and I don't like the commercials and  quite alot of the programming...

 

I also noticed a while back that if I make her turn off the tv after a bit in the mornings she's suddenly unable to find something to do - if I let it go she get's incredibly creative making amazing things from paper and tape - background noise/company I don't know (I'm right there but if the tv's not on she just won't find something to do)

 

I admire people who can do no tv - but I firmly believe that it's the commercials that do most of the damage (assuming you are not allowing extreme violence, sex etc)

post #51 of 81
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post


no im not on a mission to get everyone to watch tv. im on a mission to get everyone to say that TV is ONLY negitive, and bacially you should be ashamed of your self for even letting your kids watch tv. im annoyed of it. there is not scientific proof that tv is horrible for children, just peoples opinions, and im sick of seeing post everywhere where people are blaming tv for other kids problems and that their kids are perfect for they dont watch tv. its just a little annoying, that some people make it not an opinion but make it out to make you a horrible parent because u alow your children limited tv. so i finally decided to just put up a post on what tv (limited) had done for my children, not making it that EVERYONE should to it, but you know dont be so judgemental if you yourself have not tried it. 



 




Ahhh OK I get it... so this was more of a vent... I'm sorry, I read it totally differently.

I think it's like everything else related to parenting -- you just have to trust (in the absence of abuse, neglect, etc.) that each parent is making the choices they feel are best for their child and their family as a whole. I know tons of parents are TV-free until they reach a stage where they can't cook dinner or tend to a younger sibling etc. so then the TV comes on. I know parents who just love TV & feel it's a great social experience to watch shows and movies with their young kids. And then there are people who just don't value TV or believe it's a negative influence, so they don't allow their kids to watch it. And I'm sure there is a lot of overlap and variance in those categories... I know, for example, I was deathly ill one day and trying to take care of my high-needs 18mo and even though he was/is TV-free, I certainly turned the TV on that day. It didn't work (he wasn't interested!) but I tried it, and would again if I was ever in the same situation!! But really, my goal for myself -- not just DS, but me, and my entire family -- is to be completely TV-free again, because I was just happier that way, so there's a lot more to my anti-TV stance than just XYZ study says it's bad. But for the record, there are lots of scientific studies (not just opinions!) that do suggest it may be harmful (although there are also lots of studies saying sugar is bad, and I just ate a cookie!!) I'm glad you clarified your post because I really thought you were trying to get me to let DS watch TV even though I don't want to.

Oh no im not the one to push people do things, i guess i just didnt word my original thread correctly so i can see how that could effect peoples answers. I guess we learn from our mistakes right? Ill now make sure i make sure things are worded properly. lol. and I honestly would love to barley ever have the tv on, my youngest doesnt watch it at all really but it seems to settle my hyper 3 year old down especially in winter, but during the summer were out side playing all the time that he forgets about tv. i think its really more a winter thing for me and the ocassional ok i need to make supper now leave me alone for the kitchen is a no no in my house, too many un able to childproof areas especially the stove, and ocassionaly it does work and i get the time to cook something that takes time. or sometimes i need a few minutes to do my homework for im also a college student too and cant always wait until my husband is done working for me to do my work, for that takes away from our family time. 
 

 

post #52 of 81

What about interaction? Like my DD really likes TV and she's under 2...I am just trying my best here so please don't judge me. She really interacts with it though. We only do PBS and Veggie Tales and Blues Clues (no commercials) She will clap along and put her hands in with them and sing and basically interact with the program...

She laughs at the jokes and gets really excited.

 

IDK I always thought she was learning...She's really advanced and up to like 30 word vocab at 17 m/o. We do spend plenty of quality time together too though and she plays with a variety of things and we do a lot of outside time.

post #53 of 81

This is interesting to read. We haven't really done TV with our 16-month-old, and the TV is never on during the day - this is mostly because it's in a closed cabinet that, when opened, is not exactly child-proofed, but also because I grew up with the TV always on in the background and I don't like it. DS was sick with croup a week ago, including some time in the hospital. We tried to get him to watch some TV just to keep him entertained and relaxed, especially in the hospital when he couldn't wander around, and he wasn't interested. He will watch a YouTube clip now and then, but otherwise he's just not interested in TV. I'm not completely opposed to TV, and honestly I wouldn't mind having it in our toolbox! But so far, he's just not into it.

post #54 of 81

The research I've seen about TV and young children has, in my opinion, been conducted in an overly simplistic way.  The dominant assumption seems to be that TV carries an opportunity cost of adult interaction.  The research models don't account for children who watch television with their parents, and don't account for situations in which children might be stuck with something even less stimulating than a television show. 

 

By the standards of this thread, my children watch an embarrassing quantity of television.  We don't have cable, so they are, at least, shielded from a lot of advertising.  But they aren't shielded from Netflix, DVDs, or streaming television shows on the internet.  I maintain a fairly enriched environment.  My children visit museums and libraries on a regular basis.  They have access to hundreds of age-appropriate books at home.  We have massive stockpiles of craft materials and open-ended toys like blocks that we encourage them to build and create with.  And they do.  My 9yo devours books.  My 3yo loves to be read to and memorizes her favorites.  They play outside a lot.  They find plenty of time for television anyway.  More than the AAP recommends.  By quite a bit. 

 

Academically, they are both on par with their peers in most areas and somewhat ahead in others, much like I was when I was growing up in a strictly TV-free household.  I don't think anything in the research on television accounts for experiences like watching Avatar: The Last Airbender with a parent and then discussing the story and story-telling methods with caring adults.  Or for watching Rube Goldberg videos on YouTube and then seeing how many changes of energy we can incorporate into a device that moves a marble across the living room.  My BIL is an animator, and my older dd loves to talk with him about the different forms of animation she has seen and how they are created.  Her growing interest in Japanese animation is spreading into Manga, and is something she can talk to a lot of our friends and family about.  When I think of things I do to enhance my children's education, I don't exactly leap to talking about TV as part of that, but I am content with the way they interact with it.  At least in our case, I don't think it's detrimental to my children's social, emotional, or intellectual development. 

 

And I can think of lots of similar situations.

 

I think every family has to make their own decisions about whether (and how much) TV is right for them.  I don't think there is one single answer to this.  I definitely don't think that passive interaction with media is the only option, and I think the research on the topic has largely failed to capture many of the ways that children and families use media.

post #55 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

The research I've seen about TV and young children has, in my opinion, been conducted in an overly simplistic way.  The dominant assumption seems to be that TV carries an opportunity cost of adult interaction.  The research models don't account for children who watch television with their parents, and don't account for situations in which children might be stuck with something even less stimulating than a television show. 

 

By the standards of this thread, my children watch an embarrassing quantity of television.  We don't have cable, so they are, at least, shielded from a lot of advertising.  But they aren't shielded from Netflix, DVDs, or streaming television shows on the internet.  I maintain a fairly enriched environment.  My children visit museums and libraries on a regular basis.  They have access to hundreds of age-appropriate books at home.  We have massive stockpiles of craft materials and open-ended toys like blocks that we encourage them to build and create with.  And they do.  My 9yo devours books.  My 3yo loves to be read to and memorizes her favorites.  They play outside a lot.  They find plenty of time for television anyway.  More than the AAP recommends.  By quite a bit. 

 

Academically, they are both on par with their peers in most areas and somewhat ahead in others, much like I was when I was growing up in a strictly TV-free household.  I don't think anything in the research on television accounts for experiences like watching Avatar: The Last Airbender with a parent and then discussing the story and story-telling methods with caring adults.  Or for watching Rube Goldberg videos on YouTube and then seeing how many changes of energy we can incorporate into a device that moves a marble across the living room.  My BIL is an animator, and my older dd loves to talk with him about the different forms of animation she has seen and how they are created.  Her growing interest in Japanese animation is spreading into Manga, and is something she can talk to a lot of our friends and family about.  When I think of things I do to enhance my children's education, I don't exactly leap to talking about TV as part of that, but I am content with the way they interact with it.  At least in our case, I don't think it's detrimental to my children's social, emotional, or intellectual development. 

 

And I can think of lots of similar situations.

 

I think every family has to make their own decisions about whether (and how much) TV is right for them.  I don't think there is one single answer to this.  I definitely don't think that passive interaction with media is the only option, and I think the research on the topic has largely failed to capture many of the ways that children and families use media.


blowkiss.gif

 

post #56 of 81

What do you all think of the My Baby Can Read series? My baby is 11 months right now and I got the series after seeing an infomercial a long time ago about it and it sounded great (I hate how infomercials do that!). But I have yet to follow it to a T (it says twice a day). I put it on maybe twice a week (since he was 6 months) because I am unsure of whether it's good or bad. I'm sure my own reading is better for him (which I do every night) but is it hurting him in any way to let him watch it? I don't use it as a "babysitter", I watch it with him and read the words, sing the songs, etc.

post #57 of 81

I'm completely unconvinced that the "Your Baby Can Read" series does anything except make parents feel good.

 

One of the great mysteries of educational psychology is how the brain learns to read.  Researchers have defined methods and approaches and the bottom line is we don't know why they work.  You can teach phonics.  You can teach sight words.  You can have an adult read aloud to the child one-on-one for 30 minutes a day.  They all work for most typical kids.  We don't know why. 

 

Personally, I believe that there is a state of neurological readiness involved.  You have to understand that things can represent other things (letters represent sounds, words represent objects and actions and everything else) and that things can be put together to make other things in order to read.  Neurologically speaking, young children need to work on those processes for a few years.  "Your baby can read" does not help with those processes. 

 

My baby, who is now three, does an awesome job of "reading" - if you hand her one of her favorite books, she will recite the whole thing.  She will turn the pages at the right time.  She will use different voices for different characters.  If I was easily misled, I could mistake her for a reader.  But if I hand her an unfamiliar book, she will hand it back to me and ask me to read it to her.  If I point to a word in a book that she knows and ask her what it says, she will look at me like I'm crazy. 

 

I could easily come up with a process for her that would result in the appearance of reading individual words.  But it would just be the appearance.  I could get her to memorize and respond to words as visual cues in a controlled situation.  And while that seems kind of like what people do when they teach children to read using sight words, she would not be able to read as I think of it - she wouldn't be spontaneously reading text for narrative or information.  Most significantly, she probably wouldn't enjoy it. 

 

Some kids do enjoy that kind of thing, and if yours is one, there's no harm in trying it.  But a lot of kids don't.  And if they don't like it at this age, they aren't going to get anything out of it except some damage to their lifelong love of learning. 

 

For babies who don't like the process of learning to respond to words as visual cues for behavior (i.e., pointing to a body part named on a flash card, or matching a picture with a written word) learning to read as a baby is a stupid goal, and pursuing other activities (like unstructured play) that promote neurological development will be a much more useful contribution to the more realistic goal of learning reading between ages 5 and 8, or when neurologically ready. 

post #58 of 81

I think it boils down what is more important in the infant and toddler years, what they are learning, or how there are learning it.   What if by overtly teaching them these things via flashy educational videos really just wires their brains to sit and wait to be spoon fed their education for the rest of their lives?

post #59 of 81

I'm not convinced that learning something earlier is in all cases better or desirable.  If toddlers aren't learning one thing, they're learning another.  I think when they go at their own pace, whatever that is (and it might be early and fast), it's right for them.  Anything else is really an experiment.  I'm thinking of the law on unintended consequences.  We don't know if it makes a negative difference in some other way.

post #60 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemenope View Post

I think it boils down what is more important in the infant and toddler years, what they are learning, or how there are learning it.   What if by overtly teaching them these things via flashy educational videos really just wires their brains to sit and wait to be spoon fed their education for the rest of their lives?

 

I didn't include this in my comments before but I think there is some new research that has shown that the human brain is being rewired from heavy media exposure.



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Life with a Toddler
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Toddler › Life with a Toddler › TV really a nono?!