Parenting Report

A place for parents to share stories, swap ideas, get help, or just vent

You are here

Parents 1, Baby Einstein 0

Replies

Todd Detmer's picture
Submitted by Todd Detmer on

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.

sarajean's picture
Submitted by sarajean on

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).

Todd's picture
Submitted by Todd on

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.

sarajean's picture
Submitted by sarajean on

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. ;)

Leave a Reply

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <i> <b> <img> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <div> <strong> <p> <br> <u>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.