Is TV that bad?

[AngelofTroy]

My kids have full enriched lives. They all belong to a sport club, well, K is in ballet. They got to child care twice a week (quality childcare). The older two have school most days, then swim club three times a week. They ride their bikes until dinner is ready, and after dinner until bathtime. I read stories, play with them, take them on hikes, to beaches, to parks, they have been overseas, and on numerous vcations and ski trips. They have playdates regularly. i highly doubt a few hours of TV is going to screw them up or make them dumb. When its raining, or they are tired....yes, they most certainly can and do watch tv or play video games (age appropriate).

To add....I grew up without a TV. Its was harmful and embarassing. I couldnt join in conversations, complete homework, and I still dont know what people are talking about. I hav nver seen Bambi. I just saw Cinderella the first time recently. I was teased and FELT dumb!! This is the world we live in. The people we interact ith daily. I am still upset about that part of my childhood (birth to 16 when we got our first tv). I am sure no one gets it, but it was a big deal.

It's sad but true that certain things in childhood are a bonding experience. My OH doesn't like football and it really affected his ability to make friends with other boys. We had a tv but no video player so I've also never seen Bambi, Mary Poppins etc!

I think tv before 2 is different though, they're not gathering round the sand tray at nursery discussing the cliffhanger in last night's Charlie and Lola!

 

[fieryphoenix]

My kids have full enriched lives. They all belong to a sport club, well, K is in ballet. They got to child care twice a week (quality childcare). The older two have school most days, then swim club three times a week. They ride their bikes until dinner is ready, and after dinner until bathtime. I read stories, play with them, take them on hikes, to beaches, to parks, they have been overseas, and on numerous vcations and ski trips. They have playdates regularly. i highly doubt a few hours of TV is going to screw them up or make them dumb. When its raining, or they are tired....yes, they most certainly can and do watch tv or play video games (age appropriate).

To add....I grew up without a TV. Its was harmful and embarassing. I couldnt join in conversations, complete homework, and I still dont know what people are talking about. I hav nver seen Bambi. I just saw Cinderella the first time recently. I was teased and FELT dumb!! This is the world we live in. The people we interact ith daily. I am still upset about that part of my childhood (birth to 16 when we got our first tv). I am sure no one gets it, but it was a big deal.

I grew up without a tv too. It's really not a big deal. Someone mentions a movie, just say I'm not sure, never seen it! You shouldn't feel dumb about it or feel that kids Need to watch tv. It's been proven that kids under two get no benefit from watching tv, it essentially fries their little brain and confuses them. My lo doesn't watch tv, I don't own one and plan to keep it that way.

 

[MommyJogger]

My kids have full enriched lives. They all belong to a sport club, well, K is in ballet. They got to child care twice a week (quality childcare). The older two have school most days, then swim club three times a week. They ride their bikes until dinner is ready, and after dinner until bathtime. I read stories, play with them, take them on hikes, to beaches, to parks, they have been overseas, and on numerous vcations and ski trips. They have playdates regularly. i highly doubt a few hours of TV is going to screw them up or make them dumb. When its raining, or they are tired....yes, they most certainly can and do watch tv or play video games (age appropriate).

To add....I grew up without a TV. Its was harmful and embarassing. I couldnt join in conversations, complete homework, and I still dont know what people are talking about. I hav nver seen Bambi. I just saw Cinderella the first time recently. I was teased and FELT dumb!! This is the world we live in. The people we interact ith daily. I am still upset about that part of my childhood (birth to 16 when we got our first tv). I am sure no one gets it, but it was a big deal.

I watched TV constantly as a kid. I wasn't allowed outside without supervision and no one ever wanted to go outside, so I stayed inside and watched TV with them. But we had 5 channels when everyone else had cable or satellite. So I still grew up not knowing what the heck everyone else was talking about and without the ability to "bond" over shared television interests because I didn't have nickelodeon . It wasn't a big deal to me, either. I learned the art of changing the subject and developed the ability to learn more about my peers in order to find other shared interests.

 

[meli1981]

My kids have full enriched lives. They all belong to a sport club, well, K is in ballet. They got to child care twice a week (quality childcare). The older two have school most days, then swim club three times a week. They ride their bikes until dinner is ready, and after dinner until bathtime. I read stories, play with them, take them on hikes, to beaches, to parks, they have been overseas, and on numerous vcations and ski trips. They have playdates regularly. i highly doubt a few hours of TV is going to screw them up or make them dumb. When its raining, or they are tired....yes, they most certainly can and do watch tv or play video games (age appropriate).

To add....I grew up without a TV. Its was harmful and embarassing. I couldnt join in conversations, complete homework, and I still dont know what people are talking about. I hav nver seen Bambi. I just saw Cinderella the first time recently. I was teased and FELT dumb!! This is the world we live in. The people we interact ith daily. I am still upset about that part of my childhood (birth to 16 when we got our first tv). I am sure no one gets it, but it was a big deal.

I watched TV constantly as a kid. I wasn't allowed outside without supervision and no one ever wanted to go outside, so I stayed inside and watched TV with them. But we had 5 channels when everyone else had cable or satellite. So I still grew up not knowing what the heck everyone else was talking about and without the ability to "bond" over shared television interests because I didn't have nickelodeon . It wasn't a big deal to me, either. I learned the art of changing the subject and developed the ability to learn more about my peers in order to find other shared interests.

But its a big deal to her, its not wacky or weird, her feelings are valid. And if she thinks tv is an important part of childhood then thats her perogative as her childrens mother. We dont need to hear it fries their brains(i know you didnt say this) btw, i watched plenty of tv as a child and got straight As

 

[JASMAK]

My kids have full enriched lives. They all belong to a sport club, well, K is in ballet. They got to child care twice a week (quality childcare). The older two have school most days, then swim club three times a week. They ride their bikes until dinner is ready, and after dinner until bathtime. I read stories, play with them, take them on hikes, to beaches, to parks, they have been overseas, and on numerous vcations and ski trips. They have playdates regularly. i highly doubt a few hours of TV is going to screw them up or make them dumb. When its raining, or they are tired....yes, they most certainly can and do watch tv or play video games (age appropriate).

To add....I grew up without a TV. Its was harmful and embarassing. I couldnt join in conversations, complete homework, and I still dont know what people are talking about. I hav nver seen Bambi. I just saw Cinderella the first time recently. I was teased and FELT dumb!! This is the world we live in. The people we interact ith daily. I am still upset about that part of my childhood (birth to 16 when we got our first tv). I am sure no one gets it, but it was a big deal.

I watched TV constantly as a kid. I wasn't allowed outside without supervision and no one ever wanted to go outside, so I stayed inside and watched TV with them. But we had 5 channels when everyone else had cable or satellite. So I still grew up not knowing what the heck everyone else was talking about and without the ability to "bond" over shared television interests because I didn't have nickelodeon . It wasn't a big deal to me, either. I learned the art of changing the subject and developed the ability to learn more about my peers in order to find other shared interests.

But its a big deal to her, its not wacky or weird, her feelings are valid. And if she thinks tv is an important part of childhood then thats her perogative as her childrens mother. We dont need to hear it fries their brains(i know you didnt say this) btw, i watched plenty of tv as a child and got straight As

Thank you, yes.

Absolutely no tv is different than five channels. I remember one example clearly....the first time I realised I was the odd person. I was in grade 1 or 2, so this was over 30 years ago...and I still remember how I felt that day. We were going in a circle....talking about our favorite commercial. What? Hars a commercial? I listened to others and when it was my turn, I made something up. Have no idea what. But, everyone laughed at me, and the teacher called me a liar in front of everyone. There are other times when conversations were about tv shows, and I felt very left out....perhaps made worse that I often felt left out already as my friends had lots of money, and we were very poor.

Currently, we have only six channels....and the kids are only allowed to watch two of those channels. There is a massive difference, and yes, it was a big deal to ME.

 

[kit10grl]

The thing I don't understand about how people say that toddlers learn new vocabulary (for example) from television is this: in the 20-30 min they're watching TV and learning new words, what would be so bad about having them with you and teaching them about what you're doing? The new word doesn't have to be "sky" (I don't mean to single you out, whoever this was, just an example). It could be "bowl" or "soap" or "scrub" or "rake" or something learned from watching what you're doing and having you explain it to them and let them help in some way. I guess I'm not in much of a rush anymore when I do things? I just feel like it's worth it to take the time to slow down and teach them about day-to-day activities rather than them learning about engines or porcine relations.
And if the parent is sitting there watching, too, wouldn't it be more educational and psychologically calming to stroll around the neighborhood pointing out things and talking about them? Teaching to stop at stop signs and look both ways or "I spying" something new every day? Or starting a little "garden" to talk about seeds and plants and fruit/vegetables?
I guess I just feel like if there's so much empirical evidence that it's not good and that evidence doesn't have serious flaws, why do it if it's not somehow an absolute necessity or a one-off-type deal? I totally get using it if you're sick and just need a few minutes for some medicine to kick in or you have multiple kids and the other one is sick and demanding an unusual amount of attention, but as a daily/regular thing? I feel like it would be healthier all around to figure out another solution, like a busy box or a selection of little toys rarely rotated in so they're kept fresh. We have a crawly tunnel and tiny party tambourines that only ever come out if we really, really need to get something done, for example. Or we throw the spice jars into a box and give him the box. Maybe look into making some busy baby toys that can easily be reset? (We collected old hinge-top formula buckets and cut different sized holes, then collected different sized recycled caps that were too big to swallow. We put stickers (letters, numbers, animals) on the caps and dump the caps so he can put them back in, shape-sorter style. When he finishes, we just dump them back out and he can shove them back in again. We can cruise by in the middle of what we're doing and talk to him about the different colored letters and noises the animals make.) Just a thought for those who happen to be concerned about the amount of television their los get and would like to think of replacements.

I know you said your not singling me out but I do feel like your implying I don't sdo this stuff. To clarify my child doesn't sit and watch tv with me while I'm sat with my feet up. He watches tv while I tend to my DD's needs (she is disabled and requires absolute supervision during feeding etc).Any time she doesn't need my complete attention but he is watching ie if I am washing dishes or whatever we DO talk about what is happening in his show.

To add to that my DS goes to waterbabies, football, little gym each week. DD goes to special needs swimming, baby gym and baby sensory each week. They also both go to three playgroups together each week. Plus however many doctors appointments DD has in each week (minimum of 2 each week anywhere up to 10 in a week)

My kids lead a full and interactive life. Kids DONT need to be interacted with 24/7.

And that's not counting the fact that we talk all through the day about where we are or what we are doing. So if occasionally I leave him to 'just watch tv' then is there really anything wrong?

Again I know you said you don't mean to single me out but you kind of did. I know people who don't have disabled children who don't do as much in the way of activities with their kids. My time as a SAHM is well used. Shoot me for having a cup of tea while my toddler watches Thomas instead of planting a seed garden.

 

[JASMAK]

The thing I don't understand about how people say that toddlers learn new vocabulary (for example) from television is this: in the 20-30 min they're watching TV and learning new words, what would be so bad about having them with you and teaching them about what you're doing? The new word doesn't have to be "sky" (I don't mean to single you out, whoever this was, just an example). It could be "bowl" or "soap" or "scrub" or "rake" or something learned from watching what you're doing and having you explain it to them and let them help in some way. I guess I'm not in much of a rush anymore when I do things? I just feel like it's worth it to take the time to slow down and teach them about day-to-day activities rather than them learning about engines or porcine relations.
And if the parent is sitting there watching, too, wouldn't it be more educational and psychologically calming to stroll around the neighborhood pointing out things and talking about them? Teaching to stop at stop signs and look both ways or "I spying" something new every day? Or starting a little "garden" to talk about seeds and plants and fruit/vegetables?
I guess I just feel like if there's so much empirical evidence that it's not good and that evidence doesn't have serious flaws, why do it if it's not somehow an absolute necessity or a one-off-type deal? I totally get using it if you're sick and just need a few minutes for some medicine to kick in or you have multiple kids and the other one is sick and demanding an unusual amount of attention, but as a daily/regular thing? I feel like it would be healthier all around to figure out another solution, like a busy box or a selection of little toys rarely rotated in so they're kept fresh. We have a crawly tunnel and tiny party tambourines that only ever come out if we really, really need to get something done, for example. Or we throw the spice jars into a box and give him the box. Maybe look into making some busy baby toys that can easily be reset? (We collected old hinge-top formula buckets and cut different sized holes, then collected different sized recycled caps that were too big to swallow. We put stickers (letters, numbers, animals) on the caps and dump the caps so he can put them back in, shape-sorter style. When he finishes, we just dump them back out and he can shove them back in again. We can cruise by in the middle of what we're doing and talk to him about the different colored letters and noises the animals make.) Just a thought for those who happen to be concerned about the amount of television their los get and would like to think of replacements.

I know you said your not singling me out but I do feel like your implying I don't sdo this stuff. To clarify my child doesn't sit and watch tv with me while I'm sat with my feet up. He watches tv while I tend to my DD's needs (she is disabled and requires absolute supervision during feeding etc).Any time she doesn't need my complete attention but he is watching ie if I am washing dishes or whatever we DO talk about what is happening in his show.

To add to that my DS goes to waterbabies, football, little gym each week. DD goes to special needs swimming, baby gym and baby sensory each week. They also both go to three playgroups together each week. Plus however many doctors appointments DD has in each week (minimum of 2 each week anywhere up to 10 in a week)

My kids lead a full and interactive life. Kids DONT need to be interacted with 24/7.

And that's not counting the fact that we talk all through the day about where we are or what we are doing. So if occasionally I leave him to 'just watch tv' then is there really anything wrong?

Again I know you said you don't mean to single me out but you kind of did. I know people who don't have disabled children who don't do as much in the way of activities with their kids. My time as a SAHM is well used. Shoot me for having a cup of tea while my toddler watches Thomas instead of planting a seed garden.

Pffftttt...and who cares if you did sit with your feet up! Heaven forbid a mom takes a break, or isn't 'on' 24/7!!! My child also has a special need and sometimes to have her just sit for a 1/2 hr and tun out gives me a chance to put my feet up too! Dont listen to anyone. There is always another scrutinizing mom being judgey. You are a good mom...tv and all. TBH, the parenting style of some is more helicopter parenting....and I think that is a diservice too!

 

[meli1981]

Thx guys this makes me feel so much better! I have a new baby, a two yo and a seven yo. When my two yo naps, i take my baby uostairs and try to nap too. My seven yo tends to herself whether that be watching tv or playing with her toys. I often feel guilty about this, but i need sleep where i can get it! Thx for taking some of the guilt off, its nice to see not everyone looks down on alittle "mommy" time

 

[kit10grl]

The thing I don't understand about how people say that toddlers learn new vocabulary (for example) from television is this: in the 20-30 min they're watching TV and learning new words, what would be so bad about having them with you and teaching them about what you're doing? The new word doesn't have to be "sky" (I don't mean to single you out, whoever this was, just an example). It could be "bowl" or "soap" or "scrub" or "rake" or something learned from watching what you're doing and having you explain it to them and let them help in some way. I guess I'm not in much of a rush anymore when I do things? I just feel like it's worth it to take the time to slow down and teach them about day-to-day activities rather than them learning about engines or porcine relations.
And if the parent is sitting there watching, too, wouldn't it be more educational and psychologically calming to stroll around the neighborhood pointing out things and talking about them? Teaching to stop at stop signs and look both ways or "I spying" something new every day? Or starting a little "garden" to talk about seeds and plants and fruit/vegetables?
I guess I just feel like if there's so much empirical evidence that it's not good and that evidence doesn't have serious flaws, why do it if it's not somehow an absolute necessity or a one-off-type deal? I totally get using it if you're sick and just need a few minutes for some medicine to kick in or you have multiple kids and the other one is sick and demanding an unusual amount of attention, but as a daily/regular thing? I feel like it would be healthier all around to figure out another solution, like a busy box or a selection of little toys rarely rotated in so they're kept fresh. We have a crawly tunnel and tiny party tambourines that only ever come out if we really, really need to get something done, for example. Or we throw the spice jars into a box and give him the box. Maybe look into making some busy baby toys that can easily be reset? (We collected old hinge-top formula buckets and cut different sized holes, then collected different sized recycled caps that were too big to swallow. We put stickers (letters, numbers, animals) on the caps and dump the caps so he can put them back in, shape-sorter style. When he finishes, we just dump them back out and he can shove them back in again. We can cruise by in the middle of what we're doing and talk to him about the different colored letters and noises the animals make.) Just a thought for those who happen to be concerned about the amount of television their los get and would like to think of replacements.

I know you said your not singling me out but I do feel like your implying I don't sdo this stuff. To clarify my child doesn't sit and watch tv with me while I'm sat with my feet up. He watches tv while I tend to my DD's needs (she is disabled and requires absolute supervision during feeding etc).Any time she doesn't need my complete attention but he is watching ie if I am washing dishes or whatever we DO talk about what is happening in his show.

To add to that my DS goes to waterbabies, football, little gym each week. DD goes to special needs swimming, baby gym and baby sensory each week. They also both go to three playgroups together each week. Plus however many doctors appointments DD has in each week (minimum of 2 each week anywhere up to 10 in a week)

My kids lead a full and interactive life. Kids DONT need to be interacted with 24/7.

And that's not counting the fact that we talk all through the day about where we are or what we are doing. So if occasionally I leave him to 'just watch tv' then is there really anything wrong?

Again I know you said you don't mean to single me out but you kind of did. I know people who don't have disabled children who don't do as much in the way of activities with their kids. My time as a SAHM is well used. Shoot me for having a cup of tea while my toddler watches Thomas instead of planting a seed garden.

And just to add now that I have thought about it more. Even teaching ym son about his sister as I'm tending to my DD's needs the words he would be learning are 'NG-tube' 'syringe' 'medicine' 'secretions'. Still think its more beneficial for him to learn about what I'm doing or whatever warm and fuzzy thing is on Thomas?

And You mentioned its better than learning about engines? Are engines not a valid thing to learn about? But I also said he is learning Makaton from tv. So it is helping him learn the language his sister will use to communicate (and yes it is like a second language in our house) so how is THAT not a valid thing to learn?

ETA: 'just going for a walk' also isn't that easy with two kids never mind a disabled child who has feeding tubes and pumps and other equipment to take with them. Not everyone has a situation as easy as yours.

Sorry but your post made me mad.

 

[MommyJogger]

Like I said, didn't mean to single you out. I saw several posts stating that kids learned things from tv and yours was the easiest to make my point with because a new word is straightforward. Honestly, I don't feel qualified to comment on how to manage a family when a child has special needs. It must be really difficult for you and I'm sorry. I assumed the thread was about children in general and not special needs children specifically.
As for the insinuations that people against tv are against "down time" or are helicopter parenting somehow (wtf?), that's a bit of a leap. I never said anyone has to always be on and many seem to be ignoring the fact that "no tv" does not equal constantly entertaining your kid with no independent play time (ps. tv definitely doesn't count as independent play). It just means it's possible to let them entertain themselves with something other than tv if they're under 2yo. Not everyone's situation is as easy as mine, but many of them here are.
And I still think that letting your infant/toddler watch TV so that they'll have something to talk about with other kids in elementary school is stupid. Why not just wait until they start elementary school?

 

[kit10grl]

Like I said, didn't mean to single you out. I saw several posts stating that kids learned things from tv and yours was the easiest to make my point with because a new word is straightforward. Honestly, I don't feel qualified to comment on how to manage a family when a child has special needs. It must be really difficult for you and I'm sorry. I assumed the thread was about children in general and not special needs children specifically.
As for the insinuations that people against tv are against "down time" or are helicopter parenting somehow (wtf?), that's a bit of a leap. I never said anyone has to always be on and many seem to be ignoring the fact that "no tv" does not equal constantly entertaining your kid with no independent play time (ps. tv definitely doesn't count as independent play). It just means it's possible to let them entertain themselves with something other than tv if they're under 2yo. Not everyone's situation is as easy as mine, but many of them here are.
And I still think that letting your infant/toddler watch TV so that they'll have something to talk about with other kids in elementary school is stupid. Why not just wait until they start elementary school?

It wasn't about children with special needs. DS is typically developing, and I joined the discussion based on his tv watching. DD's special needs are part of why I let him watch tv sometimes. I don't believe that just because you believe in no tv that you don't have down time but wanted to make clear that just because we use tv as a means of entertainment doesn't mean I don't spend time doing stuff with my kids either. And no tv time isn't independent play but it does help inform his independent play as he has toy train sets and will sit and have imaginary conversations with his trains etc So I agree there is definitely a difference. An I also agree 'giving them something to talk about' isn't a great reason either when there are so many other things to talk about.

But yeh a bit of tv isn't all bad. Everything in moderation.

 

[Larkspur]

This thread continues to annoy me because it seems that if you say "It seems best to limit television as much as possible when children are under two", most people choose to read that statement as:

- "Don't let your children watch any television ever, not even when they're a teenager."
- "You're a bad mother if you ever let your child watch any television, even if it's just for a few minutes while you do something urgent."

or think that if you say your child doesn't watch television regularly, it must be because

- you never ever take a break because you're some kind of endlessly self-sacrificing martyr
- your child is some kind of special, easily-placated angel with no innate interest in television

It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion when people won't discuss it reasonably, and instead make up straw men to rail against.

Few people ignore the AAP's recommendations when it comes to feeding, carseats, vaccination, SIDS prevention, etc, or at the very least if they decide to do something different, they think pretty carefully about it, and rarely justify their decision with, "I just used my common sense about [stomach-sleeping/non-vaxxing/when not to bother using a carseat/weaning early/whatever]."

It just seems weird to me that if you point out the AAP actually has a very stringent recommendation about television use, most people dismiss that recommendation as irrelevant unless the child is watching a patently ridiculous amount of television.

If the AAP recommends zero television time under the age of two, I don't see why it's an unreasonable idea that, say, half an hour every day might be quite a way above a "common sense compromise". But if you suggest that, you get shouted down by people claiming you're being totally unreasonable or judgmental.

 

[kit10grl]

I do understand what your saying. But I must admit I have said many times on this site about many different subjects Guidelines are exactly that. They suggest a best practice and the parent then decides the best way to implement/ignore that for their own situation. (unless of course its a law for example car seat use in which case those should be stuck to by everyone)

In this case it might be stringently sticking to the suggested zero tv but for others a compromise on this issue might be the thing they choose to do.

I do compromise on this as discussed earlier in the thread but for example I absolutely waited till six months before we weaned DS because that was something I felt strongly about. Everyone has a thing they prioritise over other stuff.

For me TV isn't a big deal however I would never suggest that a parent who doesn't let their children watch tv was a bad parent. Because although they are strict on tv that doesn't mean they maybe didn't wean their baby at three months old. Its just different priorities.

 

[Foogirl]

I'm going to jump in here in the SN thing as something has touched a nerve. It incenses me when I explain that under two my child watched television a fair bit and this was because she was immobile and it was virtually impossible to find any age appropriate "toddler" toys that she could independently play with. A large number of them are designed for kids on their feet. Sure she had stuff she could do, but most of it needed supervision. And a full day of constant supervision is not good for either mummy or child. So, when I needed to cook, pee or goddammit just sit and take time away from the pressures, she watched TV (or played with the ipad). Not to mention the amount of time needed to organise doctors, physios, OT, HV, nurseries etc. And I'm not talking about snatching five minutes peace twice a day, she easily watches a couple of hours TV in a day, usually as she is doing something else.

When I explain this I get "oh well if she is SN then of course it is ok, the TV or ipad use is totally acceptable". So because her legs don't work, I'm supposed to just accept I am doing something terrible for her or she has a substandard learning/entertainment environment despite the fact she is well advanced in her cognitive skills, speech etc.

The fact is, AAP recommendations and similar from other countries are a guideline based on information available which, in some cases, is really quite flimsy. For every study that shows good, there is one that shows bad and often there is simply a correlation and any causal link is subjective. Adjustments for all sorts of other factors are not taken into account and frankly, until they take half a million under twos, who are identically raised in every other way and stick them in front of telly and another half million and ban TV time totally then follow these children for the rest of their lives, I'll stick with what works for us as a family.

As I said, our four year old has a vocabulary which rivals that of most kids years older than her. One of her first word was firefly - a word we would never use living in Scotland and that was purely down to the fact we quite often would sit and watch TV together and discuss what was going on. I refuse to accept she has had some kind of sub standard home life because her SN makes it ok for us to let her watch television.

 

[JASMAK]

How did the topic turn into under 2? Just curious because the original poster said "how do you feel about tv in general'. Her child was an infant, but I am assuming 'in general' means all ages. My view on tv for infants would be different (my kids never paid attention to the tv until 2+) than 'in general'. I still think under 2 children may enjoy, such as Baby Einstein' and if mom/dad need a break/shower/cook and hats what works...then....ya know, maybe other people are better parents. I have three, one with autism. I can turn the tv on and take a Shower, knowing, likely, they will still all be on the couch 20 minutes later. My kids are all 3 and older, but I see no harm.

 

[JASMAK]

This thread continues to annoy me because it seems that if you say "It seems best to limit television as much as possible when children are under two", most people choose to read that statement as:

- "Don't let your children watch any television ever, not even when they're a teenager."
- "You're a bad mother if you ever let your child watch any television, even if it's just for a few minutes while you do something urgent."

or think that if you say your child doesn't watch television regularly, it must be because

- you never ever take a break because you're some kind of endlessly self-sacrificing martyr
- your child is some kind of special, easily-placated angel with no innate interest in television

It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion when people won't discuss it reasonably, and instead make up straw men to rail against.

Few people ignore the AAP's recommendations when it comes to feeding, carseats, vaccination, SIDS prevention, etc, or at the very least if they decide to do something different, they think pretty carefully about it, and rarely justify their decision with, "I just used my common sense about [stomach-sleeping/non-vaxxing/when not to bother using a carseat/weaning early/whatever]."

It just seems weird to me that if you point out the AAP actually has a very stringent recommendation about television use, most people dismiss that recommendation as irrelevant unless the child is watching a patently ridiculous amount of television.

If the AAP recommends zero television time under the age of two, I don't see why it's an unreasonable idea that, say, half an hour every day might be quite a way above a "common sense compromise". But if you suggest that, you get shouted down by people claiming you're being totally unreasonable or judgmental.

OP said tv 'in general' not just under 2

 

[JASMAK]

The thing I don't understand about how people say that toddlers learn new vocabulary (for example) from television is this: in the 20-30 min they're watching TV and learning new words, what would be so bad about having them with you and teaching them about what you're doing? The new word doesn't have to be "sky" (I don't mean to single you out, whoever this was, just an example). It could be "bowl" or "soap" or "scrub" or "rake" or something learned from watching what you're doing and having you explain it to them and let them help in some way. I guess I'm not in much of a rush anymore when I do things? I just feel like it's worth it to take the time to slow down and teach them about day-to-day activities rather than them learning about engines or porcine relations.
And if the parent is sitting there watching, too, wouldn't it be more educational and psychologically calming to stroll around the neighborhood pointing out things and talking about them? Teaching to stop at stop signs and look both ways or "I spying" something new every day? Or starting a little "garden" to talk about seeds and plants and fruit/vegetables?
I guess I just feel like if there's so much empirical evidence that it's not good and that evidence doesn't have serious flaws, why do it if it's not somehow an absolute necessity or a one-off-type deal? I totally get using it if you're sick and just need a few minutes for some medicine to kick in or you have multiple kids and the other one is sick and demanding an unusual amount of attention, but as a daily/regular thing? I feel like it would be healthier all around to figure out another solution, like a busy box or a selection of little toys rarely rotated in so they're kept fresh. We have a crawly tunnel and tiny party tambourines that only ever come out if we really, really need to get something done, for example. Or we throw the spice jars into a box and give him the box. Maybe look into making some busy baby toys that can easily be reset? (We collected old hinge-top formula buckets and cut different sized holes, then collected different sized recycled caps that were too big to swallow. We put stickers (letters, numbers, animals) on the caps and dump the caps so he can put them back in, shape-sorter style. When he finishes, we just dump them back out and he can shove them back in again. We can cruise by in the middle of what we're doing and talk to him about the different colored letters and noises the animals make.) Just a thought for those who happen to be concerned about the amount of television their los get and would like to think of replacements.

I know you said your not singling me out but I do feel like your implying I don't sdo this stuff. To clarify my child doesn't sit and watch tv with me while I'm sat with my feet up. He watches tv while I tend to my DD's needs (she is disabled and requires absolute supervision during feeding etc).Any time she doesn't need my complete attention but he is watching ie if I am washing dishes or whatever we DO talk about what is happening in his show.

To add to that my DS goes to waterbabies, football, little gym each week. DD goes to special needs swimming, baby gym and baby sensory each week. They also both go to three playgroups together each week. Plus however many doctors appointments DD has in each week (minimum of 2 each week anywhere up to 10 in a week)

My kids lead a full and interactive life. Kids DONT need to be interacted with 24/7.

And that's not counting the fact that we talk all through the day about where we are or what we are doing. So if occasionally I leave him to 'just watch tv' then is there really anything wrong?

Again I know you said you don't mean to single me out but you kind of did. I know people who don't have disabled children who don't do as much in the way of activities with their kids. My time as a SAHM is well used. Shoot me for having a cup of tea while my toddler watches Thomas instead of planting a seed garden.

And just to add now that I have thought about it more. Even teaching ym son about his sister as I'm tending to my DD's needs the words he would be learning are 'NG-tube' 'syringe' 'medicine' 'secretions'. Still think its more beneficial for him to learn about what I'm doing or whatever warm and fuzzy thing is on Thomas?

And You mentioned its better than learning about engines? Are engines not a valid thing to learn about? But I also said he is learning Makaton from tv. So it is helping him learn the language his sister will use to communicate (and yes it is like a second language in our house) so how is THAT not a valid thing to learn?

ETA: 'just going for a walk' also isn't that easy with two kids never mind a disabled child who has feeding tubes and pumps and other equipment to take with them. Not everyone has a situation as easy as yours.

Sorry but your post made me mad.

No, you def do not have to 'teach' your child all day long. That is crazy! It is one thing if your child wants to learn/watch, and you are okay with that, but you dont have to hover your child all day to monitor and explain very vision, word, and thought that may enter their head.

 

[MommyJogger]

How did the topic turn into under 2? Just curious because the original poster said "how do you feel about tv in general'. Her child was an infant, but I am assuming 'in general' means all ages. My view on tv for infants would be different (my kids never paid attention to the tv until 2+) than 'in general'. I still think under 2 children may enjoy, such as Baby Einstein' and if mom/dad need a break/shower/cook and hats what works...then....ya know, maybe other people are better parents. I have three, one with autism. I can turn the tv on and take a Shower, knowing, likely, they will still all be on the couch 20 minutes later. My kids are all 3 and older, but I see no harm.

90% of the participants are speaking of their experience with TV in their under 2s and saying "moderation is fine" and "I don't think it does harm" and "just 20min here and there". That's what turned it there for me at least.

 

[JASMAK]

Here it states it is MORE than just tv that makes children who watch tv score low on language/communication.

In her initial analysis, Schmidt found that babies who spent more time in front of the TV performed worse on language and motor-skill tests at age 3 than those who watched less. But once Schmidt and her team controlled for other factors — the mother's educational status and household income — the relationship between TV-viewing and cognitive development disappeared. That means that TV-viewing alone did not appear to influence babies' brain development; a parent's education and finances mattered more. "Initially it looked like TV-viewing was associated with cognitive development," says Schmidt, "but in fact TV-viewing is an outgrowth of other characteristics of the home environment that lead to lower test scores."

Read more: https://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1882560,00.html#ixzz2d1sLOgjc

 

[Larkspur]

OP said tv 'in general' not just under 2

OP posted it in Baby Club originally so the assumption is that we're discussing TV for babies.