Parents 1, Baby Einstein 0
If you bought a bunch of Baby Einstein videos and hoped to use them to create a genius out of your infant, I’ve got bad news for you. Not only does research indicate that little kids who watch a bunch of TV—educational or otherwise—score lower on language tests; the company itself falsified claims that their videos made kids smarter, and now has to pay for their dastardly deeds.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, kids under two shouldn’t watch any television. The thing is, less than 10% of parents know that—and almost 50% of parents think that educational videos are good for their developing toddlers.
Recently a class action lawsuit was filed against Disney for continuing to make these claims of “good for kids” videos. Given that the claims were unscientifically based, the company is now offering refunds for anyone who bought the Baby Einstein series DVDs from mid-2004 up to September 2009.
That’s a pretty wide time gap, so if you think you might have purchased a DVD during this time, I say go for it. You can fill out this form on the Baby Einstein website to get your refund.
Did you fall into the Baby Einstein phenomenon? In a word, yes, I did. Though I didn’t purchase the DVDs (and attempted to keep my child away from TV while she was little), I did get into the club where we received books, CDs and a few “educational” toys each month. My daughter enjoyed the books and toys, which is enough to make them worth it for me; the music, not so much. I wasn’t very impressed with the books myself; she had plenty of others that seemed to be more interesting and meaningful. We liked the Brainy Baby series better as well.
But I did get the Baby Einstein DVDs through Netflix while I was pregnant just to check them out. (My husband and I still generally screen most things before our child watches them, save for the few movies we see in theaters each year.) While I wasn’t that impressed, I could see where the appeal was. They did seem to be educational, if not boring—which, in our schools, is sadly often the same thing. That’s probably why we figure it’s got to be good for you, right?
Some groups say that the DVDs and other merchandise should be removed from the shelves entirely. Though I’m all for freedom of speech, I’m inclined to agree. Anything marketed toward kids is unethical, and even though it’s up to parents to raise their own children, if half of them think that watching TV is good for them—when it has been scientifically proven that it’s quite the opposite—it’s detrimental to kids as a whole to have them even available.
Then again, if parents are going to let their babies watch movies that would scar them for life—say the latest episode of South Park or maybe The Departed; we once heard a baby crying in the back of the theater on date night as we were watching Untraceable, a very violent film—perhaps it’s better to have them around.
Comments
I don't feel that TV is bad
I don't feel that TV is bad for kids, it just shouldn't be their only form of entertainment or education. I watched plenty of Sesame street and such at a young age, but also my mom spent plenty of time teaching me things like counting and addition and subtraction prior to kindergarten. I think I turned out to be pretty intelligent.
Science has shown that
Science has shown that television has no value for children under two, and can actually cause harm during that prime developmental period. While I, too, grew up on Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers, I also had an attentive mother; many kids do not have both, with parents letting the TV take the place of education. TV is a passive activity and children under age two cannot distinguish between what's real or fake--so essentially it has the possibility of inflicting harm rather than aiding in development.
Also, to go with that argument--many of us survived sleeping on our bellies, smoke-filled wombs, alcohol while in the womb, smoking throughout our childhoods and many other things we now know are bad for children (as well as adults when applicable). I know I did, and though I didn't die I suffered (and still suffer) from allergies, asthma and other effects as a result. That doesn't mean it's OK for our own kids.
After age 2, some shows--not all--that are considered to be educational have been proven to offer some merit, but usually only when included with parental interaction during viewing (for example, asking children questions about the programs).
When it comes to these
When it comes to these studies, I am always slightly skeptical. I recall many studies saying something was harmful and then the next study says it's safe and vice versa. I think the bottom line is that the effect of many things on children comed down to the parents' involvement in the child's development.
I watched lots of tv as a child, saw porn & violent movies at age 8 or 9(possible younger), was exposed to vulgar language throughout life (my dad commonly called us his little shitheads). I never used profanity or vulgar language among my elders or authority figures, wasn't sexually promiscuous, and am very intelligent.
You can quote the stories & i'll quote real life experience. I think we are too often looking to place the blame externally and not internally.
My mother often called me "a
My mother often called me "a little shit" as well--are we possibly from the same tree somehwere along the line? :)
A study alone isn't enough for proof, but if the American Academy of Pediatrics makes a recommendation, it's usually based on strong grounds. Blame can be misplaced, but on the whole argument of nature versus nurture I've always leaned more toward blaming nurture--or the environment--for how a person turns out. This environment isn't solely the caregiver (but much of it--particularly during the early years--is); it's also composed of the child's education system, treatment (or mistreatment) by peers and relatives, and things that caregivers allowed into his or her life--including television and other media, experiences, travel, all sorts of things.
While a person's life cannot be summed up and explained by a single program he or she watched, certain experiences and events, over time, accumulate, and evidence supports that, as a whole, these certain things can cause a predilection for certain behaviors and activities.
Citing personal experience can be beneficial to some extent, but overall, if it's only considering a single study, its unreliable to make inferences as a whole. Citing personal experience that includes multiple subjects can be more validated, but still lacks the conclusiveness of a wide scope of subjects and experiences.
If we were going by personal experience alone, I would say that kids should never watch TV, particularly of a violent nature--as, though I came out okay, I know plenty of kids who dumbly turned to the television, failed courses in school, never developed good communication or thinking skills, and bullied me, a younger child, to do their homework. :)
I can still remember the bland, open-mouthed expressions on their faces as they watched television day in, day out. And while you might argue that this was their parent's fault rather than the television--and it was their fault, since the parents allowed them to watch it in the first place--therein lies the issue: though the parents were at fault for giving TV time, TV time itself was detrimental. If a parent gave his child alcohol, it would certainly be his or her fault--but that doesn't mean that alcohol, also a popular adult pastime, is appropriate for children if given in conjunction good parental care. The matter still comes down to science--alcohol, along with many other pastimes reserved for adults, isn't healthy for a young developing child; neither is television.
There will always be exceptions; not every person exposed to asbestos gets mesothelioma, not every person who gets raped goes through therapy, not every person who went to Vietnam came back with PTSD, not every person who went to Woodstock got stoned. But a heck of a lot of them did. ;)