Mothering Forum banner

TV really a nono?!

4K views 80 replies 38 participants last post by  goldenwillow 
#1 ·
So i was browsing around while procracinating on my reasearch paper at my local college library and noticing how much people are agianst toddlers watching TV. this got to me. i can see how something are just point less for they dont learn anything from it. like my mistake to let my son watch IronMan which hes addicted to and thinks he can fly and all taht fun stuff... but i got him into Word World and Leap Frog and those are the best things i think that he got into. he has learned so much. hes going on 3 and can almost do his whole alphabet not allways in order but in a sequence, as well as can count to 10 sometimes skips numbers but he count much more than that he one day suprised me by saying 14 15 16 17! i mean i feel that is a tramendus up for a child his age! i practice with him as well alot but i feel that just us as parents cant make it as fun as a simple show can. i feel that not only is he learning how to do his ABC 123 but hes learning how to put things together recognizing things not in order, spelling! yes i said spelling. so dont down all things tv. give it a try and you will be suprised!
 
#2 ·
Well... My ideal is for my DS (19mos) to have no tv at all. Do I follow my ideal perfectly? NO WAY! There are some days when I've just got to let him watch some tv for my sanity. (I do notice that he's super whiny afterwards tho)

I think why so many of us are against tv is because the APA says no screen time under 2yrs. I'm a reading teacher for grades 1-3 and my boss is always giving us research to show how the fast moving images on screens (tv/computer) can actually mess with brain development and eye development. Babies are supposed to be exploring their world by physically picking things up, feeling textures, experimenting with dropping things, fitting items into other items, etc. They want to learn by interacting with other real people. Babies don't get to do these things when they're sitting passively in front of the tv. My boss would strongly argue that your little one could learn the alphabet, etc. and all those things if you'd just teach him, in lieu of the tv. (I know, we mothers don't always have the luxury of sitting down w/ baby to do so).

Of course many of these warnings apply to babies who are plopped in front of the tv for hours, not the baby who watches the occasional show. At least, that is what I tell myself when I cue up Caillou on the 'pooter so I can chop veggies for dinner, haha.
 
#3 ·
i'm not anti-tv by any means. except usually here it's an adult show on in the background. i've just dabbled in teaching preschool but i have a friend who is a career k-4 teacher who swears that even "educational" shows like sesame street mess with kids' attention spans on a wider scale because it teaches them to respond to quick fast-paced bits. but i suppose then you could just pick something for them to watch that was slow but still captivating. my kiddo loved the documentary "babies" when i put it on to see if she would respond, for example. also, we do use it as a tool, maybe not an educational tool per se but something to really pique her curiosity in the world. we're at an age where dd is discovering everything so if one day she's obsessed with sheep, i'll put on some youtube videos of sheep and she is fascinated. and then we'll go from there (go to the zoo...oh my gosh...there's cows!.....repeat.....)

there's also an interesting chapter in the book "culture shock" about how "good" tv (the kind with moral lessons) is actually worse for kids than more violent action packed cartoons. supposedly the lessons in the show are too long so the kids see say, 20 minutes of "problem" (say...a kid being mean to a friend, for example) and only a couple minutes of "problem solved" at the very end. so they learn more negative behaviors in terms of emotional violence and bullying type things from these shows than straightforward knock-em-down stuff from a action cartoon like he-man or whatever.

what's interested me is that i notice a marked difference in dd's ability to play independently when there IS tv on in the background...as in she plays better. i know i've seen research quoted that says otherwise but i really do think the background noise actually helps her concentrate and go about her business. i experience it first hand because we keep shabbos which means a full day with no tv, no music, no electronics, no radio, no computer, no phone....nothing....and it's a really tough day for us. for some reason my usually independent toddler becomes so reliant on me for entertainment that i can't even get in a magazine article. bringing me books non-stop, clinging, following me everywhere. then the next day with background noise she can sit for an hour and play with her bean box or even be upstairs playing all by herself without me. what gives?
 
#4 ·
I wouldn't let it get to you, OP. I think it is fine to let your intuition be your guide on this one. I think the AAP does recommend to limit TV time to 2 hours a day after the age of 24 months. But, it is just a guideline.

For me, my intuition says that TV time would displace time for creative play and parental interaction. It just would. There are only so many hours in the day. Also, I am weary of aggressive behavior in a minority of children's programming, as well as advertisements. This is really what keeps the TV off in our house. But, we do enjoy some videos every now and then. (~ an hour a week.)

I am also aware of studies that have shown a negative correlation with number of hours of TV and academic achievement. (Although, IIRC there were some positive correlation in the early elementary years, which might be the result of some excellent PBS type shows out there.) I believe that the ADHD correlation were pretty weak but they have been published. Certainly, a child who is accustomed to watching flashy fast paced cartoons all day will not be too excited about a slide show at school.
 
#5 ·
I second the previous posts about limited or no television before two years old. From what I understand it is not about the programming so much but the fact that babies learn three-dimensionally, not two dimensionally.

I'm not anti television by any means, but even at almost five, we limit DD's exposure because 1) it is a passive thing and I would prefer that she do something with her brain and hands (as opposed to passively taking in information), and 2) I can't stand advertising and how it is geared toward kids (I want to limit arguments about Cocoa Puffs and Pop Tarts!).

That being said, as she gets older and is perhaps less influenced by images on television, then we certainly will let her watch more. My favorite thing to watch when everyone is asleep is real trashy stuff like Housewives of Orange County. I admit it! It is pure entertainment for me, so it is not like I'm an elitist when it comes to content. Sometimes I just need to zone out. I tend to be a little more cautionary with DD, however.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzs View Post

what's interested me is that i notice a marked difference in dd's ability to play independently when there IS tv on in the background...as in she plays better. i know i've seen research quoted that says otherwise but i really do think the background noise actually helps her concentrate and go about her business. i experience it first hand because we keep shabbos which means a full day with no tv, no music, no electronics, no radio, no computer, no phone....nothing....and it's a really tough day for us. for some reason my usually independent toddler becomes so reliant on me for entertainment that i can't even get in a magazine article. bringing me books non-stop, clinging, following me everywhere. then the next day with background noise she can sit for an hour and play with her bean box or even be upstairs playing all by herself without me. what gives?
That is so odd. When I read about background TV it seemed so cut and dry. It was one of the few things I read about TV and kids where everyone seemed to agree: Background TV not so good for kids.

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/headstart/2009/i-Kids-0902/schmidt-et-al-2008.pdf

ETA: I am not trying to be rude. Really. I think it is really interesting that you are experiencing this. I always thought I could study better with the TV on in the background even though that seems counter-intuitive.

I also thought the bit about preschool TV in culture shock was interesting to say the least. It totally makes sense, and I don't think I'd ever have thought of it like that.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemenope View Post

ETA: I am not trying to be rude. Really. I think it is really interesting that you are experiencing this. I always thought I could study better with the TV on in the background even though that seems counter-intuitive.
I also found it easier to study with the TV on. Somehow silence, or background music are more distracting to me than TV. Maybe some memory center of the brain is activated by the visual stimulation and allows the info i'm studying in the book to sink in better - I don't know. Just a theory from left field.

I let DS watch TV under 2 years old because he liked it, he learned from it, and it kept him from non stop whining while I was trying to cook dinner. Sometimes he will help me cook, but often not and we have to eat. I don't think the hour or so a day of TV has hurt him any. I guess you have to look at the alternatives - maybe some kids watch TV instead of interacting with others or their environment - and that's not good, but my kid watches TV instead of spending the better part of an hour throwing a tantrum at my feet because he cannot have my undivided attention 24/7.

Plus, he's a very auditory and visual learner. He talks to the characters on TV and then reports to me what is going on in the storyline.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemenope View Post

That is so odd. When I read about background TV it seemed so cut and dry. It was one of the few things I read about TV and kids where everyone seemed to agree: Background TV not so good for kids.

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/headstart/2009/i-Kids-0902/schmidt-et-al-2008.pdf

ETA: I am not trying to be rude. Really. I think it is really interesting that you are experiencing this. I always thought I could study better with the TV on in the background even though that seems counter-intuitive.

I also thought the bit about preschool TV in culture shock was interesting to say the least. It totally makes sense, and I don't think I'd ever have thought of it like that.
no, i agree, it seems really counter-intuitive and it still puzzles me. maybe some people need stimulation to concentrate (kind of in the same logic that truly ADD people need speeding up to slow down....but different)

i know i sleep better with city noise and when i moved to a quieter neighborhood it was really hard for me to fall asleep, while my parents, on the other hand, moved to a noisier neighborhood and still have trouble with it.

i was also thinking about the whole tv thing this morning and i think the key is, if i would have the tv on for dd (which we haven't really done yet, she's only 18 months and could care less) it's not really "quality time wasted" because those would be the times when i would not otherwise be spending time with her. does that make sense? like, if i'm using tv as a last resort distraction then it's because i wouldn't or felt like i couldn;t be engaging her otherwise and she wasn't engaging herself. so i don;t see it as a loss when used like that.
 
#9 ·
I'm of two minds.

First, I feel that TV is not good for children, and particularly under 2. Anything they learn from TV could be learned by reading to them, and it would involve interaction with the parent and would not involve the harmful effects of TV. (If you want info about the harmful effects I would google "toddlers television harmful".) Also, I don't think learning something earlier necessarily means they're learning more. With toddlers, if they aren't learning one thing, they're learning another. The fact that they learned letters at that point instead of a little later doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

On the other hand, while I do limit TV, I don't ban it, and I think that it is something we could all relax a bit about. I don't think some TV watching is going to ruin kids or anything. On the other hand, I don't think it's beneficial either. (How many hands is that?) I see TV as being negative before 2, and being somewhere between neutral and negative after 2, depending on age, how much TV, and what is watched.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post

I'm of two minds.

First, I feel that TV is not good for children, and particularly under 2. Anything they learn from TV could be learned by reading to them, and it would involve interaction with the parent and would not involve the harmful effects of TV. (If you want info about the harmful effects I would google "toddlers television harmful".) Also, I don't think learning something earlier necessarily means they're learning more. With toddlers, if they aren't learning one thing, they're learning another. The fact that they learned letters at that point instead of a little later doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

On the other hand, while I do limit TV, I don't ban it, and I think that it is something we could all relax a bit about. I don't think some TV watching is going to ruin kids or anything. On the other hand, I don't think it's beneficial either. (How many hands is that?) I see TV as being negative before 2, and being somewhere between neutral and negative after 2, depending on age, how much TV, and what is watched.
I agree with this. We are pretty strict with the no-TV thing with my 2yo, although every once in awhile we'll do an exercise video together or watch a 3-minute thing on youtube (i.e. how the earth revolves around the sun or how to change a car battery
lol.gif
) Certainly NOT watching TV has not harmed him in any way -- he has known the alphabet, numbers, etc. since he was 18mos -- the only negative (and I don't really consider it a bad thing) is that he has no clue what people are talking about when they ask him if he likes Elmo or Dora or whatever. I don't really believe that TV is beneficial for young children but I do think it can be beneficial for the parents... and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, every parent needs to do whatever they need to do to stay sane!!!
 
#12 ·
I think everything in moderation is fine. Some days my DD watches no tv and then some days she'll watch 2 hours b/c we're doing a movie night or I'm exhausted and need the break. Just so long as the tv isn't doing more parenting than me I'm ok with it.
 
#13 ·
for me a downside of being "strict" about tv rather than just blase (that "e" gets an accent...blas-EY) about it is that occasionally, and i'm sure depending on how you do it, it turns the tv into this "forbidden fruit." my neices and nephews theoretically have no tv, although they do watch occasional videos and movies and you should see them at their grandparents' house or at our house. oh....my....gosh......they go nuts. they freak out, they fight, they won't turn it off, they yell (at adults!) who dare to block their view or change the channel or turn it off, they cry. seeing them really makes me want to have a more laissez faire attitude about it. respect for adults and others is really big in my book so if their version of "no tv" is causing these major attitude violations at times, then "no tv" is doing no good in my book.

i guess my goal would be to let dd have access to it without sitting in front of it all day. maybe that means only letting her watch what we want to watch or only truly educational stuff...i dunno...i can talk big but we're not there yet. i remember as a kid really only watching documentary-type stuff and science programs with my parents at night....nova and newton's apple stuff. i don;t see a kid getting all cracked out on stuff like that.
 
#14 ·
In my ideal mommy world I would not even have a TV. .. but in reality I let DS, 17m watch one (occasionally two) Signing Time video a day. But hey, in my ideal mommy-world, I'd also have extended family around to help me. The reality is that DS is high needs and sometimes I really need to cook dinner and it would be impossible without the distraction. I don't feel great about it, but I keep it limited and he has actually learned a lot of sign language from the DVDs. Of course I reinforce that by using the signs myself, but he truly loves those videos. And now he has seen them all so many times, that he will often just play while they are on, but get upset if I turn it off before it's over. So, I definitely can relate to the child playing better on their own with the TV on.

I was brought up without a TV in the house till I was 10 or so and I was one of those "weird" kids who would totally zone out if I saw a TV, b/c I was so unaccustomed to it. My friends used to tease me about it when I'd go to their house and I couldn't ignore the TV as background.

So I guess I'm aiming for something in the middle for my kids, some moderation, but not total banishment of media.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post

I'm of two minds.

First, I feel that TV is not good for children, and particularly under 2. Anything they learn from TV could be learned by reading to them, and it would involve interaction with the parent and would not involve the harmful effects of TV. (If you want info about the harmful effects I would google "toddlers television harmful".) Also, I don't think learning something earlier necessarily means they're learning more. With toddlers, if they aren't learning one thing, they're learning another. The fact that they learned letters at that point instead of a little later doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

On the other hand, while I do limit TV, I don't ban it, and I think that it is something we could all relax a bit about. I don't think some TV watching is going to ruin kids or anything. On the other hand, I don't think it's beneficial either. (How many hands is that?) I see TV as being negative before 2, and being somewhere between neutral and negative after 2, depending on age, how much TV, and what is watched.
I was going to say something along these lines. While it is amazing the things my daughter has learned from TV shows like some numbers or some ABC's, I know that she could also learn them from me and I wouldn't be taking chances with potential ADHD problems should that turn out to be factual, or that she may even learn them more concretely (in hands on activities, etc.). On the other hand, I am human and frankly have no idea what I am doing some days. The fact that DD learned about "teamwork" from the Wonderpets probably isn't worth bragging about, but Ms. Independent sure is willing to receive some help if I say that magic word now. I'm not sure how I would have ever explained the concept in a way she would be excited about if it weren't for that show. DH used to use the TV as a source of entertainment a lot as he also didn't know what to do, was tired from work, etc. So we do have a battle over it but it's getting better.

As for the background TV - I once did a research paper on toddlers and TV for my child development class. The articles I did read about background TV tended to be about violence, advertising, and other adult media in the background. Definitely a HUGE no no. I never found a great article for educational TV in the background though.

I did find some interesting stuff like Barney was rated really well on it's educational qualities. And Blues Clues was good because the show really makes an effort to involve the LO by asking questions and leaving a big pause for them to answer. Anything that had an infrequent change of screen shots was better for the ADHD concerns too.
 
#17 ·
No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever. And even if the research was different we probably wouldn't because I hate advertising directed to kids and I detest how licensed characters get shoved down our throats EVeRYWHERE.

Well revisit at a much older age.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever.
This is pretty much us too. Although J has watched a couple of YouTube clips with Daddy. I have said that I will make an exception for things which are culturally significant (by my definition
winky.gif
). I would have let her watch the moon landing for example. And for our one family tradition which involves TV. Each year on Boxing Day my family gets together for lunch and watches the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. For me the family togetherness trumps the TV issue on this occasion.

As far as learning the alphabet, numbers etc I am not concerned with her learning them early. I don't see any particular benefit and, if I did, I'd rather teach her myself.

I can see the benefits to the parent who has more than one child and needs to keep an active little person quite so they can attend to a baby or something or if a person is sick with no help. But that, for me, is a parent benefit only.
 
#19 ·
We kept the tv on a very short leash until my kids were 8 and 10 years old. Not only are they both gifted, but I have teachers brag to me all the time about my kids carrying novels around with them. They also play an instrument and draw well. You don't get mastery of some of these things if you are "plugged in " all the time.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by samstress View Post

no thanks, I'll stick with limiting the amount of television my children see.
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!
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever. And even if the research was different we probably wouldn't because I hate advertising directed to kids and I detest how licensed characters get shoved down our throats EVeRYWHERE.

Well revisit at a much older age.
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
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever. And even if the research was different we probably wouldn't because I hate advertising directed to kids and I detest how licensed characters get shoved down our throats EVeRYWHERE.

Well revisit at a much older age.
Wow, those are some pretty judgmental statements to make. While I am sure that there are some children who will fit your description I'm not sure how you would find conclusive proof that tv is to blame.
 
#24 ·
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!
ah, yes, but you did say to give tv a try, and i simply said "no thank you".

just because our children don't always find us "entertaining" doesn't mean i'm going to let them indulge in some rubbish that they do find entertaining. and, honestly, what are "educational tv shows"? i'd much rather my child be doing something rather than staring at people doing things.
 
#25 ·
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!!)
 
#26 ·
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
Yep, I agree. I watched WAY too much TV when I was little, and played lots of video games. On my Comodore 64 (showing my age! eeeek!!) I could type L O A D "*" ,1,8 to get the list of my computer games to come up before I even knew that I was typing the word "load" . I still graduated top of my class, went to college, no ADHD, and am doing fine in life. I often credit my Tetris obsession for my excellent organizational and spatial skills.

Moderation. I would rather my son not watch TV. I would rather spend more time with him teaching, reading, playing - and we do lots of that already, but when something has to get done that he cannot participate in, I don't think I am harming him by letting him watch Nick Jr. A sane mommy is a better mommy! If you can manage to be TV free, I think that's great, but there is certainly no reason to beat yourself up over TV in moderation.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top