When it comes to raising kids, I sincerely believe one of the best things

a parent can do, is to KILL THE TV- or at least minimize watching.

Why? I think it's bad for young brains, but aside from that, if you eliminate or severely reduce TV, a whole world opens up: A world of playing outdoors, of games and reading, and crafts.

(I'm trying to think of the name of this book that I read years and years ago about how bad for you television is- if anyone can think of a book meeting that vague description, please let me know)

When I was growing up, my parents refused to buy a TV until I was 11 years old, and my youngest sibling was 9. And even after that, our diet of TV was restricted to weekends, and only a couple of hours on those nights.

I continued that when I had a kid. I had a TV, but it was only for videos, and not stacks of them either. I honestly think it was one of the best things I did as a parent.

a book on the subject called The Plug-in Drug.

I think it's more important to forbid the bad stuff. Of course, hours on end of watching TV watching is never good, but I don't think it's essential to severely limit it or get rid of it completely. I think for kids over the age of 2, it can be a positive tool. I don't let my kids watch commercial TV, and limit the amount of time spent. I was allowed to watch TV, more than I let my kids watch and commercial to boot, and I don't seem to have suffered any adverse effects. I think if parents are reading to their kids, and varying their daily activities and keep away from the crap, they're fine.

it's hard to do. TV is seductive and addictive to children. Sounds like you handle it well, but one way to deal with it, is simply to take the big step, and jettison it.

I don't think allowing a small amount of educational TV is worse than not allowing any at all. I think that quality TV isn't seductive or addictive, but a quality teaching tool. Granted, a lot of the stuff out there for kids is crap and nothing but an advertising vehicle. That is the sort of program that ropes kids in and gets them addicted, and gives the whole genre a bad rep. I think it's like a lot of things, like computers and video games. With proper guidance it isn't harmful at all, and can even be beneficial. ETA in other words I don't think that's the most important aspect of parenting. I think it's possible to be a crappy parent with no TV at all, and an excellent parent who let's their kids watch TV. I think the biggest issues are paying attention to your kids, and spending time with them doing engaging activities. Read with them every night. Those are much bigger factors and I think they'll override any negliable damage a little TV may or may not cause.

Studies testing the influence of media on behavior haven't been able to provide a statistically significant conclusion. It is fairly well established that immediate social situations, not those presented by television, music, or video games.

The real danger in letting your kids watch too much TV is in giving the impression they have the right to be entertained at all times. They are unprepared to deal with boredom and monotony, which may lead to antisocial behaviors.

:evilgrin:

and neither did my children. It really is heroin for the brain and should only be allowed in limited circumstances (mostly never before age 3).

Turning off the TV doesn't guarantee that your children will turn out well, though. If you are unlucky enough to have a child with mental health problems or one who is just too independent, they will watch TV at their friends house and pretty much any time they can get it. Beware prohibiting something, lest it become a highly prized object.

Our youngest one isn't really into TV too much so we don't really have the same issue with her as we did with our other two.

Our two year old son (only child) hasn't suffered any by it.

It is disturbing to see his behavior when we're around a television - visiting relatives, in a restaurant... he completely tunes out.

We occasionally will allow him to watch a DVD on our computer - and that's okay, but he does become needy and wants to watch it over and over again. So, we don't break out the DVDs often - limit them to times of illness, or when we have guests that won't appreciate his company as much as we do.





http://www.adbusters.org/metas/psycho/tvturnoff/

our son would burn to death in a house fire- watching TV.

and when he was older he sometimes bitched about how deprived he was. fortunately, he wasn't the only kid we knew who didn't have TV. He grew into a great reader by the time he was 6 and an avid outdoors kid- skiing, hiking, ice climbing, water skiing, soccer, etc.

with the fact your son is all those things. My older son loves to read, and both love to be read to. We have shelves full of books in our house, in multiple rooms. They're also frequently outside. They recently did their first kiddie foot race. All this despite the fact they're allowed some TV.

It is one of the very best things you can do for your children.

for the Elimination of Television" and "In the Absence of the Sacred" by Jerry Mander (Sierra Club Books) are both good reads.

When we moved into this house, for the first 5 years, we didn't have TV.

That's it. How could I have forgotten the name of Jerry Mander??

The sub-title to the second one is "The Failure of Technology & Survival of the Indian Nations." It is, along with the first one, worth DUers reading.

rereading "Four Arguments". It was a remarkable book.

helps people understand that it isn't simply a matter of "content" -- although that is surely one of the most important things that parents should be monitoring. But it's also the "delivery" .... from the idea of a human being acting as a passive intake unit for the bright lights and loud music and commercial messages that children experience watching tv.

One of the best supervisors that I had when I worked at the clinic used to talk about how parents of children with ADHD symptoms often found temporary relief by having their children watch tv. However, he said that the experience actually over-stimulates parts of the brain's hardwiring, and that in many cases, it had the opposite response -- where after an an hour of tv, a child would need an extended period to unwind.

I think that is an example of the blending of genetics and environment. We are changing the landscape of our brains with the friendly television set. Children's brains need stimulation from a great range of sources, not hours upon hours of tv.

it's the medium as much as the message. My brother, a bright and lovely person, was one of those kids that TV did "something to". I can remember being on a trip when we were all fairly little, and there was a TV in the hotel room we were sharing. My brother sat and watched the test pattern at 2 in the morning, mesmerized. I agree that it does something to our brains- and particularly to yound and developing brains.

I lived w/o any tv for 8 years until I moved in with my husband. We only got cable several years ago to enable us to watch KO.

My children watched pbs growing up, but when they grew out of it, I banned tv due to bombardment by commercials. Last year, my son's 5th grade class put on a year end performance based on a show "Smarter than a 5th Grader". He was the only one in his class never exposed to it. It really isn't an issue because now kids are into computers. Both kids and their friends video chat or IM each other. They occasionally watch KO with us, otherwise the television is left off. I really think tvs will be obselete within our lifetime.

That said, as a parent I have new concerns over the computer. Not only do I have to monitor the amount of time, but the issue of content is much more relevant than with tv.

And it causes addiction very quickly. Kids should not be exposed to TV except in small, carefully monitored doses.

Edit for spelling.

monitored their tv watching of the channels we had available. They only watched a few shows a day and no violence or sex (I worried more about the violence). They played outside most of the time, but I understand that parents nowadays are afraid to let their children play the same way because of the fear of abductions and other bad things that can happen to them. I don't really know if there is a greater incidence of these acts or if we hear a lot more of them with the 24 hour news cycle, but I know many parents who are afraid to let their children out of their sight.

tv nazi when my boys were little. I don't think either of them saw a cartoon until they were 4 years old. The could watch Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and a couple of other PBS shows. They had play groups and we went to the park nearly every day. I read to them every night.

I guess they came out okay. They are 30 and 28. One is a prosecutor and the other teaches Kindergarten. They both love video games though which sort of surprises me.

Mz Pip
:dem:

We always read a lot of books. They amused themselves with all kinds of creative imaginative toys - blocks, legos, making tents out of blankets and card tables.

My kids today are in early 30's. Daughter is a voracious reader, 3 or 4 books a week, and works in research with mice. Son is a policeman, watches some sports on TV, and races gokarts.

It's a challenge for parents today competing with so many TV programs, DVDs, games. My philosophy, don't buy that stuff :)

edit to add:
Instead - get kids interested in hobbies. Whether it'd be sports, reading, horses, gokarts, building models, etc. Hobbies can become lifelong interests, and can prevent boredom at any age. :)

deep in West Virginia's Appalachians. Our reception was so bad, we hardly ever watched TV - we only got PBS & CBS anyway. If the weather was right we could watch SNL but it was never live because the local affiliate would censor it before showing it late Sunday night.

Our kids certainly didn't suffer but then they had two streams w/ sandy banks, a big hayfield, apple trees and lots of animals. We did listen to many programs on NPR. A show called The Spider's Web was a favorite. A 30 min daily broadcast of an amazing collection of books read aloud. It came on every evening just as I started fixing dinner. It was great.

not just TV, but cell phones, the internet and all sorts of other idle distractions. It won't be a popular idea, but I firmly believe that some boredom in a kid's life actually leads to creativity, awareness and intelligence.

shutting off the TV or even limiting it isn't always the answer. This is an easy knee-jerk reaction.

I spent a lot of time watching TV while growing up...probably as much as what kids watch now, but I had a loving family who spent time together and made a lot of quality out of the little time we all had together. That should be what matters.

and I stand by my OP. I didn't say turning it off was THE answer. I said that it was one of the best things a parent can do.

are probably also the type of parent who isn't active with their kids, and don't read. It could easily be the lack of reading and social engagement that's doing the damage, and in fact that's where I'd put my money.

with the wide varity of shows and channels...there is enough out there that is not harmful to kids. I don't agree that shutting off the TV is the best way to handle it. I think it's a matter of monitoring what kids watch and talking with them about it.

We don't regulate TV in hour house like that because we don't think that's the answer. The only regulation that goes on is the content of what our son watches plus we talk to him about what he's watching. Denying it doesn't solve anything, IMO.

The medium itself is bad for young minds, and does damage to developing brains. Perhaps an hour or so a day doesn't, but let's face it, the average child watches far more than that. And time watching TV can be much better spent, in any number of alternate activities. "Four Arguments Against Television" makes this argument far better than I can.

TV just isn't healthy for children in even moderate (2 hrs daily) doses.

A computer is a tool that can be used in both negative and positive ways. Many items are nothing more than tools.

It's up the user to handle those tools responsibly.

The problem isn't TV, it is when TV is used as a REPLACEMENT for spending time together or generally parenting a child.

It's not the TV, or video games, or rock-n-roll... it's just being a parent... an ACTIVE participant.

:thumbsup:

"Four Arguments....". TV is insidious, and even as background, it's not a good thing. Why not music instead? Or quiet? Why should TV be an undercurrent? It's funny to see DUers who rage against the MSM, defending the practice of letting TV infiltrate their daily lives.

that's what music is for.

I'm just saying that when it's on it's not a big deal.

I'm not defending the practice of "letting TV infiltrate their daily lives" either. Everything in moderation and nothing to excess, that's my motto. :)

Sorry, but I just don't subscribe to the "all TV is EEEVIL" theory. There is quality programming. KO stands out among 'teevee' newscasts, for examples.

And I'd be hard-pressed to give up Doctor Who, anyway. :P

C&L is proof of that. It wouldn't exist without this infiltration. Clips are posted here and everywhere else on the internet for users to watch if they want. Entire TV shows are available to either TIVO, download or watch on TV. It's everywhere and the best way to handle it, IMO, is to manage it responsibly...not to just shut it off and call it the big evil.

Why not treat TV for what it is? An object...a tool that can be handled one of two ways..responsibly or irresponsibly.

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television argues that the technology of television is not a neutral, benign instrument or tool. The author argues that in varied technologies and institutions such as militaries, automobiles, nuclear power plants, mass production, and advertising, the basic form of the institution and the technology determines its interaction with the world, the way it will be used, the kind of people who use it, and to what ends.

The author argues that far from being "neutral," television predetermines who shall use it, how they will use it, what effects it will have on individual lives, and, if it continues to be widely used, what sorts of political forms will inevitably emerge.

The author's first argument is that while television may seem useful, interesting, and worthwhile, at the same time it further boxes people into a physical and mental condition appropriate for the emergence of autocratic control. The second argument concerns the emergence of the controllers. That television would be used and expanded by the present powers-that-be was inevitable, and should have been predictable at the outset. The technology permits of no other controllers. The third argument concerns the effects of television upon individual human bodies and minds, effects which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium.

The fourth argument demonstrates that television has no democratic potential. The technology itself places absolute limits on what may pass through it. The medium, in effect, chooses its own content from a very narrow field of possibilities. The effect is to drastically confine all human understanding within a rigid channel. What binds the four arguments together is that they deal with aspects of television that ar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimination_of_Television

to educate, to inform and to entertain. It's a matter of how we treat that tool and whether or not we ALLOW it to dictate our thoughts and opinions. I choose to treat my TV and other sources like it, such as the internet, as a tool that I manage responsibly.

It's not the big evil that rots brains despite that idiot's opinion.

of something, such as television, necessarily implies that it has no positive benefits whatsoever, or that is inherently "evil". There are those who can use alcohol or drugs as tools and never succumb to their harmful effects. The gasoline powered automobile has greatly improved life since its invention, but no one would deny the damage it has done as well. I applaud those parents here that have taken an active and managed approach to the use of television in their homes. Would that all parents were able to control how their children make use of their idle time when the parents are not watching.

Idiot? Have you read the book? Of course not. He's not the idiot, but people who call someone they haven't a clue about, an idiot? Well, no comment.

the author thinks that somehow people are zombified by TV with no will of their own. I think that sounds like an idiot. Call me defensive all you like.

The fact of the matter is we control the media in this house and determine how best to use it...not vice versa. I don't know a person who allows an object to control their thinking. Now, influence our thinking...yes, that does exist, and it's the degrees of influence that's the key in this discussion. For some...it's more than others. TV has the potential to influence an opinion, buying choices and more.

You can also thank this horrible evil for a few things. Informing the public. It's done a somewhat decent job at that. Not as well as many of us would like, but I credit bush's approval ratings (for one) which have fallen below Nixon's, IIRC, to the power of TV. Images of the war, Katrina and other endeavors to inform the public has had an affect on the public's opinion of bush.

Anyone who allows the tool to control them and their thinking is an idiot, IMO. Some here have said the TV can play all day long, but it does not influence them the way this author believes it does.

TV continues to have it's benefits despite the negatives. It's in the power of the individual to handle it responsibly and we can't rely on those who bring us the shows, the news, the documentaries, etc to be soley responsible.

Versus watching "Mystery" or C-SPAN or um... "Project Runway"? :shrug: :hide:

no youtube. And my argument is chiefly about children and the negatve impact watching TV has on them.

but about parents who value books and learning vs. parents who don't. :P

Argument One--The Mediation of Experience

"As humans have moved into totally artificial environments, our direct contact with an knowledge of the planet has been snapped. Disconnected, like astronauts floating in space, we cannot know up from down or truth from fiction. Conditions are appropriate for the implantation of arbitrary realities. Television is one recent example of this, a serious one, since it greatly accelerates the problem."

. . .

Argument Two--The Colonization of Experience

"It is no accident that television has been dominated by a handful of corporate powers. Neither is it accidental that television has been used to re-create human beings into a new form that matches the artificial, commercial environment. A conspiracy of technological and economic factors made this inevitable and continue to do so."

. . .

Argument Three--Effects of Television on the Human Being

"Television technology produces neuro-physiological responses in the people who watch it. It may create illness, it certainly produces confusion and submission to external imagery. Taken together, the effects condition for autocratic control."

. . .

Argument Four--The Inherent Biases of Television

"Along with the venality of its controllers, the technology of television predetermines the boundaries of its content. Some information can be conveyed completely, some partially, some not at all. The most effective telecommunications are the gross, simplified linear messages and programs which conveniently fit the purposes of the medium's commercial controllers. Television's highest potential is advertising. This cannot be changed. The bias is inherent in the technology."


Sounds like a conspiracy nut. Funny to see DUers continuously harangue conspiracy nuts and then...

unless you are 18 or 19. There just wasn't that much out there to watch.

any traction on the issue. "Freedom of Expression" seems to be at odds with with many views on this. Every time it's brought up here...the idea that there might be a problem get's roundly trashed.

I would assume you might make some headway with this since it's been over a year since the last post on this one.

Maybe your time for this view will be more "in favor" than the times in the past where one would be laughed off DU.

Not the least of which, it is reinforced by Al Gore's recent discussion of the one-way relationship it forces upon the viewer.

AND, with today's television, or lack thereof, I would be highly regulatory of child viewing habits.

When I was nine, we were already in the garage, welding! Art, bicycles, gokarts. But then we also were very much into explosives. Not all of our activities were carefully supervised.

And like someone mentioned, good parent attention as a replacement, is invaluable.

Hell, by 17 years old, I was already teaching Stanford pre-meds how to interpret electrocardiograms. And in the California Youth Symphony. But I'm digressing...

I had a friend who was heavy into explosives, and my kid adored July 4th, when the maniac would set off dynamite, up on our mountain top. (I hated it- talk about loud)

The TV in the family room is on all the time... and it hardly gets noticed. The kids are far more interested in going to the park, playing outside, playing with each-other, reading, playing their instruments and squabbling than they are in the television.

The littlest one loves Dora and Sesame street. She's four and reading already.

We occasionally pay attention to what's on which is usually Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, Cspan, some Hockey, and Keith Olbermann of course.

It's just on all the time, and therefore it's not 'special'. That may not work in some homes, but it works fine here.

We don't have it on all the time, but often even if we've picked something to watch, we'll end up playing cards or doing something else together instead.

TV isn't any more special than any other activity, so... it often is met with a shrug, even if commercials made us think whatever it is would actually be interesting. :P


Also... what IS that in your sig?! It looks a bit scary!

The TV is only detrimental to kids if their parents aren't involved or if they have nothing else to do. Otherwise it's not much more than an occasional curiosity.

As for the sig, It's absolution. Here's the full version;

Oops... apparently Photobucket is experiencing site maintenance.

The image is by Luis Royo. I see it as the absolution of the tainted angel. The infectious corruption of the world has tainted him, and he is absolved by love. Here's the next best link;



Sometimes it hurts just to look at it... but that's just me.

I grew up in a TV family, so I am used to having the noise of a TV in the background. If a study were to look at the number of hours the TV is on after school in my house, they would think that my kids (3 and 6 y.o) are complete couch potatoes. In reality, they are chasing each other through the house, playing Barbies or trains, reading books, etc. I can't tell you the last time they actually sat down to watch an entire show. And god forbid, my daughter even has one in her room, that she only really turns on if she is home sick in bed.

I know everyone likes to brag about their kids. But, since the belief is that the TV will melt your kid's brains instantly.....my kindergartener's reading list contains words such as 'continental' and 'peninsula', and math problems in class are multiplication and division (Montessori kid).

Like you said, the TV is nothing 'special', so they completely ignore it's dangerous blue glow.;-)

best thing i did. kids still at 9 and 12 watch history, tvland and a&e shows. it was also good explaining to them why we dont get sucked into those shows and the manipulation of young childrens brains. my kids went years they didnt even turn the tv on and stuck to dvd's when they wanted to watch something. only now are they turning tv on a little more at the end of day, after dinner. i dont turn tv on all day. just stopped watching. use to watch news a lot turned that off oct 2004. now i read or computer or other stuff.

Studies (no link, I read it somewhere) show children who play musical instruments from a young age evolve into excellent problem solvers.

will give them the life long joy of reading.

When I was growing during the 50's there really was not that much on TV , there were still shows on radio too .

We watched maybe one show or a movie , on weekends there were a few programs on lime superman of flash gordon but you knew it was si-fi stuff .

Tv was not the main stay or the focus of entertainment at all , books were or just outdoor fun . Plus there was arts and crafts .

Through the years TV brought in more hours of programming and commercials and crap . Now it's completely out of control .

I don't watch TV , haven't for years , my wife watches some so i get a glimse of what's out there if I pass by the set . They have combined sales with shows so everything is a sales pitch in a very real sense .

TV is a danger in that it allows no only the voice but the visual so someone can come on who has some sort of attractive attribute and lie their ass off and get away with it , with just a voice you are then really listening and hear and can separate the lies from the truth , that is if you listen and it is not back round sound .

TV as well as the movies deside how the players will look and sound , in a book it's all up to your imagination .

Think , if these last debates between bush and Gore or bush and Kerry were sound only , there may have been an entire different world right now and the flying graphics used to get people pumped up for the invasion of Iraq would have had no affect .

TV is much more of a toll than any other form of media and it is all planned out to direct a specific message .

You'll notice I didn't say "T.V.", because "T.V." is a nickname, nicknames are for friends, and Television is no friend of mine.

Wait, that's an absolute lie, I just wanted to quote David Cross. My soon-to-be-8-year-old and I watch the science channel together all the time. And I'm OK with my kids watching cartoons, within reason. Of course, all my kids would rather play videogames or use the computer than watch TV anyway. My kids learned to count to 100 playing Crash Bandicoot and to read playing Paper Mario (which has more text than your average novel in my estimation). You see, with a minimal amount of effort, you can trick them into learning through things they want to do anyway.

Like every other thing in existence, it's all in how you use it and moderation is key.

I agree. I started out parenting in a way that heavily restricted television. I considered tossing it completely but my football fan of a husband insisted on having one. I also did not want a television in the family room, but that didn't go over well either. ;) We have televisions all over the damned house.

However, I have a friend who's parents were very much opposed to the tele. She claims she's addicted today. I, on the other hand watched loads of T.V. as a child, and rarely watch now. In fact, I can't stand the television on before dusk. Anyhow, short story long, I decided that I didn't want to make TV a "tabu."

My child is very active - plays for hours daily inside and out, without thinking about the television. She is also an only child, so I'm thankful she's good at making her own fun as I tire of entertaining, in spite of the fact that I make time to "play" almost daily.

Some of our best moments as a family are spent watching a good movie and having a laugh together. That is if I'm dragged in front of it LOL. And, I should mention that we do lots of "stuff" together as a family so TV is not how we relate. We have bonfires, take walks after dinner, etc...

I do wish times were simpler and kids played in groups outside like they did in the past. It seems today parents have to micro-manage their children's lives from a very young age?

Thanks for bringing this up Cali, I respect your views even if I do things differently. :hi:

I remain open to information on this subject.

in the book are not intended to say that people should never allow children to watch any tv. The author recognizes that tv is a tool, with uses that range from good to bad. It does contain a lot of information on how tv can be used in potentially harmful ways. I think that cali is simply suggesting that parents can benefit from reading another instruction manual for the tool we call tv.

I will admit that I am not entirely objective about the author of the book; he includes an interview with my cousin in the updated version.

And if your cousin is interviewed, I must give it a read! I am glad that it's not an "all or nothing" book.

May I ask what your cousins involvement was?

My daughter enjoys the Disney Channel, which we had concerns about initially. However, I enjoyed some of the shows with strong positive female rolemodels, etc... so we let her watch. I also want her to be able to relate to her friends in conversation etc. But, I do see things that concern me about how she's being influenced, so I educate her in hopes to encourage her to think things through.

I also have this book on my current "to read" list: http://www.packaginggirlhood.com/

*gulp

e-mail the answer to you.

I'm set up on PM. Not sure if my email is working as I registered at DU with an old one.

:hi:

Let me know if you get it.

Thanks :hi:

you can trick them into learning through things they want to do anyway."

Bravo.

They watch Discovery and Animal Planet and learned to read with the help of games as well.

The television can be a remakably useful tool... just don't place value on the garbage that comes out.

They are now teenagers. I can tell you that television has great power over them. They are unable to walk past a television that is on, no matter what boring thing is on the screen. They stop, stand, and the jaw drops open and they are oblivious to everything but the screen. The power is immense. Since I noticed that a couple of years ago, I have perpetuated my own habit in front of them, which is to have C-span or CNN on for noise. This has lessened the grip on them somewhat. But they still give it way too much power.

Don't give in to the pressures. Be very selective about the programs-because it's getting worse all the time. Bless you.

It is utter crap that "television rots your brain." It does not. Last night's Nature is a case in point, all about those idiot creationists trying to force their religious beliefs in the science classes of Dover, Pa. Programs like that are a must-see for everyone.

But I hardly feel deprived because I didn't see it. I'm very familiar with the Kitzmiller case, and the cast of characters- Michael Behe, Kenneth Miller, Judge Jones, etc- and I didn't need a TV show, no matter how well done, to familiarize myself with the case and the issues involved.

When it comes to small children, sorry, I do believe that television has a deleterious impact, unless it's restricted to very small doses. As an adult, I don't feel I'm missing much.

But that was the late 60's. I don't think much of what's on these days: Fart jokes, stupidity, denigration of character traits....

Yeah, make them watch 5 hours of Discovery, History, Biography, Science channels, etc... for every ONE of network and basic cable.

Or, she reads.

No t.v.

Period.

Best thing I ever did. She has an attention span.

I just never turned on the tv then. Poor beggers; they didn't knowo what cereal to whine for, so they were well behaved in the grocery store and of course no matter what Santa brought, it was all good since they weren't bombarded with toy commercials.

They're very verbal and some are into jazz after listening to public radio

They had their revenge though; now they stay up late in the summer or use the VCR so they can watch Adult Swim.

"Turning off the TV" is a Republican meme to keep people ignorant.

With so much educational stuff on TV now, with digital cable and satellite, there is no need to turn it off. In fact, we need a DVR to record all the good crap that's on when we are away from the TV, so that we can go back to the TV and catch up on it.

and that's saying something.

"Turning off the TV" is a Republican meme to keep people ignorant.

I'd like to think you aren't serious about this. And Mander's argument- which I also believe- is that it's not merely the content, it's the format. Watching TV is a passive thing. And small children sitting in front of it is not healthy.

why do you think pediatricians and others are so concerned about the TV watching habits of children? Who are you to say that's baloney? I'll listen to the experts, thank you very much.

Killing the tv is not just good for kids but adults also.

If you want to stare at flickering images try a campfire instead.

Pull the effing plug!

Growing up, I was not interested at TV at all except for Star Trek reruns, but my sisters watched it for hours a day, well into the night after I was asleep. Interestingly, I don't remember what my parents thought about TV; neither of them watched it much, and I am guessing they tried to discourage my sisters, but somehow didn't feel comfortable making them not watch.

More frightening to me than TV is the internet, because I know firsthand how addictive and fascinating it can be, depending on what one's curiosities are. The NYT just ran a study showing that a fixation on politics arrouses centers of the brain responsible for anxiety, and when I read that I immediately realized why I have this love/hate relationship with political websites and discussion boards.

My TV is just for watching movies and other DVDs, but I have often watched news or political events/hearings on the internet.

everything in moderation.

not having a tv around in this day and age, when just about every one of your kid's friends are going to have one, will only foster a sense of distrust in your child. "Why don't you trust me enough to have a TV around and not use it in moderation."

Then, when they are old enough to buy thier own damn TV, they'll spend the better portion of their time catching up on all the stuff that YOU made them miss, and likely not contribute much to society in the meantime.

There is A LOT of crap on the tube -- but it does not comprise everything that's out there. Being a responsible, informed parent when it comes to what your children are watching -- and not watching -- is, to me, a much more reasonable tack.

but it's like telling kids that having a drink or smoking a joint is a bad thing because "it isn't good for your brain." Even though that may be true, how do you justify to the child when you have your evening glass of wine and/or joint? Instead you say, "I do this cuz life is hard and it feels good and helps me relax. But that doesn't mean that it's good for you. Humans are fallible and I'm no different. Most important is not to abuse it."

Same tack for TV. "There are shows that I like to watch, hopefully we can watch some together. But there is a time that the TV must go off because too much of it is not good." Hell, I can hum or sing fully the opening songs to most of the shows my kids watch because i've been an active participant in their watching them.

let's face, Americans suck at moderation.

I know who grew up without TV, many of them now in their 20s and 30s?

My son grew up without TV, didn't seem deprived because of it, and at 21 isn't interested in it now.

TV is not good for young children.

TV is not good for young children.

there are quite a bit of informative shows out there for young kids, the baby einstein series comes to mind.

fact is, we are creatures of motion. we respond more to moving images, in person or on a screen.

used in moderation, i'm confident that kids will turn out fine having a TV in the house.

edit: grammar

My son who has HS autism is an avid fan of The History Channel, Discovery Channel, TLC
Animal Planet and A&E.

When we was little, he would watch Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow and Wishbone on KCET- ( our local PBS
station). It helped him immensely and he was able to use that knowledge when he started school.
He needed all the help he could get.

When I later started working for our school district, I found many students in our Alternative Ed. programs
also watched the channels I mentioned above. They told me it helped them learn and they could apply
that knowledge to their classwork.

For that reason I am paying through the nose for cable, which is hard on my budget,
but very much worth it.

We watch our favorite shows for fun.
My favorite is 'Boston Legal'.

But I do hear what you are saying.


:hi:

TV sucked (IF you even had it...I first saw tv at age 13)..

we played OUTDOORS..because to stay INDOORS, meant that Mom could always "find something for you to do"..

The daily plan for us kids, was to get away far enough so we could not hear them calling us home..

If modern kids try this tactic, a state trooper will be tapping them on the shoulder or they will have cops following them in squad cars,and will be answering questions about why they "ran away"...

It's impossible to be an outdoor kid without getting exercise..
We all rode bikes& ran around..from dawn to dusk:)

on an internet message board?

god I was just thinking the exact same thing.

OUT OF MY BRAIN YOU!

just not for kids...because...they don't know any better?

He spends a lot of time watching the internets.

adults aren't. TV can actually impact on brain development. In addition, rising rates of obesity in children are linked to TV watching and a generally sedentary lifestyle. If you're interested in it, read Manders book, discussed in this thread.