Letters to the Editor
-
I actually don't give a rat's ass what you choose to do with TV in your family.
Did I say I did?
I object to people trying to say that more TV viewing rather than less is somehow benign.
It's not.
Waaaaaay back when, I studied with Eron & Huesmann. Let's just say I was convinced, and all the aforementioned mealy-mouthed equivocators since haven't convinced me otherwise.
I've always found it completely contradictory to understand that fads and behavior get promulgated in rather astonishingly successful ways by TV - by both ads and program content, but that people pooh-pooh the equivalent success of violent or otherwise undesirable behaviors being promulgated successfully in precisely the same ways by the same medium.
As TV viewing goes up, good outcomes go down, and some pretty undesirable outcomes go up. Pretty simple stuff, really.
It's just not that hard just to turn the damn thing off. YMMV, of course.
Am I brusque? Well, I am large, and contain multitudes. "Brusque" is just one of those things. I kind of prefer "trenchant" or "succinct" myself. Surely, if becoming defensive is your first reaction to my posts, one might wonder why that might be.
Moderation in all things, TV watching especially.
Have a nice day. :)
-
TV or not TV?
I was born in late '61, and as a military brat, I lived in places where there was either no TV or limited transmission hours. We had radio, and my mom would play with me one-on-one, even teaching me words out of the newspaper. I was able to read simple sentences by the age of 3. In school, I was a good student -ADHD had not been 'invented' yet. Also, I ate food which had regular ingredients in it in small servings- no High Fructose Corn Syrup or giant servings. I remember that Oreos and Chips Ahoy were about the size of a silver dollar, and did not have the 'crap' ingredients in them. Nor did the milk have hormones in it.
My brother, who is nine years my junior, had a lot of TV time as a kid. We were back in the US by then, and he was glued to it. In school, he had trouble paying attention, and was labeled 'hyperactive', since he could not sit and pay attention. Around that time, food companies started putting HFCS into foods- and while my brother did not become obese (thank the hyperactivity for that), it was clear the these ingredients and the growing serving sizes were generating more and more obese kids.
Mom could not use the TV as a 'baby sitter' for my sister and I- she used a playpen to keep us in a safe place, and we learned to entertain ourselves. Our toys didn't talk, flash or move unless we did that ourselves. The only thing that needed batteries was the flashlight. Everything else wound up. (We had some really cool Japanese wind-up robots.)
If there's a 'downside' to my lack of early TV time, it's the 'gap' in my knowledge of TV trivia during most of the sixties. I'd rather have that than a short attention span. I was twelve when we finally got back to the US and regular TV broadcasts. By then, my reading and radio habits were set- and are still with me today. NPR loves me.
-
What's wrong with moderation?
If you enjoy having a TV in your house and want to make sure it has an innocuous effect on your kids, this book's advice seems sensible. Limit TV watching, don't leave the TV on in the background, be careful about the shows your kids watch, watch TV with them and discuss what's going on, and avoid shows with lots of commercials for fatty and sugary food. That doesn't sound horrible to me.
-
"We Don't Know Exactly What They're Getting"
I got the feeling, as I read this interview, that Guernsy's real objective in researching this book was not so much to understand the impact of television consumptionn on young children, but to absolve her of any lingering guilt for having injudiciously thrown her kids in front of the tube when she wanted to talk on the phone or empty the dish washer (which, oddly, seems to be very important to her).
I don't need a weatherman to know that encouraging a lifetime of filling up every spare moment in one's life with the chance to stare at a monitor is not the best way to emerge a well adjusted, intellectually curious human being. Guernsy herself admits that it's anyone's guess as to how really young children process the information they receive from tv--are those good odds for one's children? We can't say for sure, based on studies, if it is the chicken or the egg when it comes to whether ADHD influences tv consumption or if it's the other way around. However, common sense tells me not to side with the tv set.
Research into child psychology and development is a fairly fluid field, these days, and simply cannot be trusted. It wasn't so long ago that the industry gave the green light to prescribing anti-depressants for adolesents. Only later, a little red-faced I'm sure, that the same egg heads admitted that there is a likely correlation between those meds and teen suicide--and these people are going to tell me that tv isn't making kids fat? That too much may or may not be an indicator of inappropriate behavior?
An honest book about the impact of tv on child development would need fewer qualifiers. A tv being turned on in the background is somehow a greater threat to conversation between parent and child than gluing the kids to "Blues Clues" and checking your email? I can't help but to wonder who's interests is Guernsey trying to protect?
-
Maybe moderation isn't so great
Several letter-writers chimed in with a sentiment that, at first glance, seems very reasonable: sure there's no benefit to watching TV, but it's probably not harmful either, so why not let kids watch 30 minutes or an hour a day?
I have a problem with this argument. First, as yet other letter writers pointed out, TV is there because it serves the purposes of advertisers. Even children's programs on public TV serve as long advertisements for character toys and other junk. Why let your child be manipulated into wanting things that he or she really doesn't need in order to be a happy, engaged, learning individual? Why set yourself up to be whined into buying this sort of crap?
Second, there's no denying that TV can be a pleasurable experience. But it is rarely satisfying in the way a good book is. It cannot compare to the experience of doing something difficult or constructive or even just useful, and feeling the sense of accomplishment from that. Having the TV on, whether it is the parents, siblings or the child who is watching, decreases the amount of time in which these other rewarding experiences can occur. That can't be good.
Third, you could argue that very young children (say, less than 2.5) are easily overruled when they ask for TV merchandise, and they aren't going to be reading on their own. But they WILL be running around interacting with their environment (including looking at picture books) if they are not watching TV. And if they are watching TV, they are forming a habit that will last a long time, and will be very difficult for parents to break later.
If you don't want your kids to be brainwashed, and if you'd rather they develop character than be defined by what they consume, turn the TV off and keep it off.