Those who dont let you lo see/watch the tv...

[lisaf]

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XhfsQ7ELTCw/TRbw3UUqJmI/AAAAAAAAABw/OKyXCetvk4o/s1600/get-off-your-high-horse.jpg

 

[Nut_Shake]

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XhfsQ7ELTCw/TRbw3UUqJmI/AAAAAAAAABw/OKyXCetvk4o/s1600/get-off-your-high-horse.jpg

that is a VERY high horse!

 

[highhopes19]

Isabelle has just finished watching 'come dine with me' and later on this evening jamie olivers xmas special.... Very educational!


I'm determined to get her cooking xmas dinner this year

 

[whit.]

Lets keep it on topic, ladies. I'm entertained by this thread and fully intend on getting my pizza out of the oven and adding to it. (On topic of tv)

 

[nosocks]

i really hope mommacats LO isnt an only child and they have somebody interesting to talk to.

 

[MommaCat]

If you had actually read the study I posted, you would realize it was done by comparing test scores on children born in the 40s and 50s...
Seriously... you are on your high horse about us not bothering to read the data you post and you are even more guilty since the slightest skimming of either link I posted would have shown you that the data had nothing to do with current test score standards. SHEESH!

The key point for Gentzkow and Shapiro's study is that depending on where you lived and when you were born, the total amount of TV you watched in your childhood could differ vastly. A kid born in 1947 who grew up in Denver, where the first TV station didn't get under way until 1952, would probably not have watched much TV at all until the age of 5. But a kid born the same year in Seattle, where TV began broadcasting in 1948, could watch from the age of 1. If TV-watching during the early years damages kids' brains, then the test scores of Denver high-school seniors in 1965 (the kids born in 1947) should be better than those of 1965 high-school seniors in Seattle.

^all assumption here. All the evidence i see here are clearly just assumption and "probably's"

A kid born in 1947 who grew up in Denver, where the first TV station didn't get under way until 1952, would probably not have watched much TV at all until the age of 5.

But a kid born the same year in Seattle, where TV began broadcasting in 1948, could watch from the age of 1.

From the 1966 Coleman Report, the landmark study of educational opportunity commissioned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Gentzkow and Shapiro got 1965 test-score data for almost 300,000 kids. They looked for evidence that greater exposure to television lowered test scores. They found none. After controlling for socioeconomic status, there were no significant test-score differences between kids who lived in cities that got TV earlier as opposed to later, or between kids of pre- and post-TV-age cohorts. Nor did the kids differ significantly in the amount of homework they did, dropout rates, or the wages they eventually made. But a kid born the same year in Seattle, where TV began broadcasting in 1948, could watch from the age of 1. If TV-watching during the early years damages kids' brains, then the test scores of Denver high-school seniors in 1965 (the kids born in 1947) should be better than those of 1965 high-school seniors in Seattle.

Comparing test scores all based on location of which the subjects live, and how much tv they "probably watched".

I don't really see any numbers or great detail here. the article can't even provide the most basic information such as how many hours a day the subjects watched, exactly.

 

[lisaf]

If you had actually read the study I posted, you would realize it was done by comparing test scores on children born in the 40s and 50s...
Seriously... you are on your high horse about us not bothering to read the data you post and you are even more guilty since the slightest skimming of either link I posted would have shown you that the data had nothing to do with current test score standards. SHEESH!

The key point for Gentzkow and Shapiro's study is that depending on where you lived and when you were born, the total amount of TV you watched in your childhood could differ vastly. A kid born in 1947 who grew up in Denver, where the first TV station didn't get under way until 1952, would probably not have watched much TV at all until the age of 5. But a kid born the same year in Seattle, where TV began broadcasting in 1948, could watch from the age of 1. If TV-watching during the early years damages kids' brains, then the test scores of Denver high-school seniors in 1965 (the kids born in 1947) should be better than those of 1965 high-school seniors in Seattle.

^all assumption here. All the evidence i see here are clearly just assumption and "probably's"

A kid born in 1947 who grew up in Denver, where the first TV station didn't get under way until 1952, would probably not have watched much TV at all until the age of 5.

But a kid born the same year in Seattle, where TV began broadcasting in 1948, could watch from the age of 1.

From the 1966 Coleman Report, the landmark study of educational opportunity commissioned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Gentzkow and Shapiro got 1965 test-score data for almost 300,000 kids. They looked for evidence that greater exposure to television lowered test scores. They found none. After controlling for socioeconomic status, there were no significant test-score differences between kids who lived in cities that got TV earlier as opposed to later, or between kids of pre- and post-TV-age cohorts. Nor did the kids differ significantly in the amount of homework they did, dropout rates, or the wages they eventually made. But a kid born the same year in Seattle, where TV began broadcasting in 1948, could watch from the age of 1. If TV-watching during the early years damages kids' brains, then the test scores of Denver high-school seniors in 1965 (the kids born in 1947) should be better than those of 1965 high-school seniors in Seattle.

Comparing test scores all based on location of which the subjects live, and how much tv they "probably watched".

I don't really see any numbers or great detail here. the article can't even provide the most basic information such as how many hours a day the subjects watched, exactly.

You're right, the data isn't rock-hard (neither is your data I might add). However the delay in the release of television in the United states provided for a unique opportunity to watch the effect of television as it became available.
All other studies usually rely on self-reporting as to the amount of television watched... that is not accurate either.
Many households did not immediately get a television either so once tv was available in that area it may not have been widely used. I'm not an expert on that time in history though so I can't say for sure.
The point is they could compare a pristine, absolutely no television area to one that has the sudden introduction of television.

If TV is as bad as you say, then it should have had an immediate and noticable effect.

 

[nosocks]

Seriously!? When will you get into your head that you need to leave it now. You simply cannot now launch into attacking everyone else's research. Just stop!
You are simply the best bit of evidence I have that I should let my LO watch tv- I would be saddened if she turned out like you.

I think you need to stick to what you say when you say it's your last post. People tried to explain we believed some of what you say but by the insults and attacks you are just making yourself look really silly and very small.
You aren't interested really in what we say- this is clearly about you maintaining some moral high ground and just not giving in.

Did you read this?
https://www.savekidstv.org.uk/wp-content/d/cantelevisionbegoodforchildren.doc
If so.. Please I would interested to hear you pull it apart?

 

[MommaCat]

But how do you even know every household owned a television in denver 1947? Just because television was introduced to that area sooner doesn't mean that every household owned one. in fact, The number of people that owned television could have been very low (to the point of insignificance) in that area and that time considering it was such a new technology and perhaps only wealthy families were able to afford them.

There are so many other factors to take in.

 

[MommaCat]

Seriously!? When will you get into your head that you need to leave it now. You simply cannot now launch into attacking everyone else's research. Just stop!
You are simply the best bit of evidence I have that I should let my LO watch tv- I would be saddened if she turned out like you.

I think you need to stick to what you say when you say it's your last post. People tried to explain we believed some of what you say but by the insults and attacks you are just making yourself look really silly and very small.
You aren't interested really in what we say- this is clearly about you maintaining some moral high ground and just not giving in.

I am "attacking" everyone's research? I am simply questioning it. I am not insulting or attacking anyone, but, okay. if you say so.

" I would be saddened if she turned out like you."
Is that not an insult right there?

 

[nosocks]

Seriously!? When will you get into your head that you need to leave it now. You simply cannot now launch into attacking everyone else's research. Just stop!
You are simply the best bit of evidence I have that I should let my LO watch tv- I would be saddened if she turned out like you.

I think you need to stick to what you say when you say it's your last post. People tried to explain we believed some of what you say but by the insults and attacks you are just making yourself look really silly and very small.
You aren't interested really in what we say- this is clearly about you maintaining some moral high ground and just not giving in.

I am "attacking" everyone's research? I am simply questioning it. I am not insulting or attacking anyone, but, okay. if you say so.

" I would be saddened if she turned out like you."
Is that not an insult right there?

Yep- just stooping to your levels.

 

[nosocks]

To bring this back to a nice place.... Just going to ignore negative comments.

Is anyone else LO obsessed with the remote? Geez.. And right when. I'm watching something good she manages to mute it! Clever tho!

Somebody told me a story recently about how their mobile had broken- they took it to be repaired only to find it was full of saliva from their baby sucking it! Don't want to be remote-less!

 

[Vickie]

I've moved this thread to the News and Debates area as for the most part it seems that people are finding the discussion interesting.

The same rules apply here though as the rest of the forum:

When using BabyandBump, be polite, do not break the law, and do not use The Web Site for self-publicity or advertising.

There are several posts on the last few pages that come across as attacking/bullying of others. This needs to stop--it is possible to have a debate/discussion without stooping to such things.

Let's keep this on track so that everyone who is enjoying the discussion can continue on.

 

[lisaf]

Yes my son instinctively knows where the remote is in the room and tries to get to it, lol!! All those interesting colorful buttons!

Mommacat - Whether or not every household had a television, somebody out there had them or else the broadcasters wouldn't have bothered. The use of television would have gone from 0 to even 15% in the first year (I'm guessing at that number, it may have been higher but I don't think thats an unreasonable estimate) and steadily climbed every year after that. Looking at that point in time, there should have been a sudden change in test scores for those areas correllated to the introduction of television. It doesn't matter if every child was watching it or how much. If they were watching it at all, there should have been a trend starting that would get progressively worse as more children watched TV.

I can only imagine how much those mothers were thrilled at being able to keep their kids entertained and out of trouble for hours on end, lol! I'm sure there was much more 'babysitter' abuse back then than now.

 

[fides]

Wow! Just got to the end of this thread - that's 2 hours of my life I won't get back again!

I am undecided on the TV debate. Whilst mommacat's views are quite extreme there is certainly some truth in what she's said. I'd quite like to be a TV free household as I think it does waste a lot of time. I'd rather be doing than watching others do. I spend far too much time watching tv really and its a habit I'd like to break. I also don't want LO to get into the habit of watching tv.

Some of you have wondered if its fair to prevent children from watching tv in case they are ridiculed by their peers. I don't think though that we should change our parenting choices to make sure our children fit in. I was made fun of at school because I wasn't allowed to watch certain tv programmes but it never did me any harm. I certainly won't be allowing LO to watch tv just so she can fit in at school. I'd rather be teaching her that it's ok to be different.

Overall I think this thread has raised some interesting points and I'll have to do a bit more research before making up my mind wether to allow tv or not.

what an excellent post!!! goes to show we can post views on either side w/o being sarcastic, rude, belittling, etc.

I've moved this thread to the News and Debates area as for the most part it seems that people are finding the discussion interesting.

The same rules apply here though as the rest of the forum:

When using BabyandBump, be polite, do not break the law, and do not use The Web Site for self-publicity or advertising.

There are several posts on the last few pages that come across as attacking/bullying of others. This needs to stop--it is possible to have a debate/discussion without stooping to such things.

Let's keep this on track so that everyone who is enjoying the discussion can continue on.

thanks!!

 

[MommaCat]

Mommacat - Whether or not every household had a television, somebody out there had them or else the broadcasters wouldn't have bothered. The use of television would have gone from 0 to even 15% in the first year (I'm guessing at that number, it may have been higher but I don't think thats an unreasonable estimate) and steadily climbed every year after that. Looking at that point in time, there should have been a sudden change in test scores for those areas correllated to the introduction of television. It doesn't matter if every child was watching it or how much. If they were watching it at all, there should have been a trend starting that would get progressively worse as more children watched TV.

I see what you're saying Lisa. However, i still can't help but be skeptical. You are still estimating and guessing as to how much the use of television went up and how steadily it climbed. Also, how do you know that all the kids born in 1947 in denver were the same kids who's highschool test scores were later looked at (and vice versa). Their families could have moved to other regions, new familes could have came in. A lot of the children who's test scores were looked at could have been from Florida for all you know, and not the same kids at all.

Also, did the Denver school as well as Seattle school follow the same exact curriculum? Are they really 100% comparable. School standards in Seattle could have been lower than that of Denver.

How many channels were available to children back then? Surely there were no where near as many, and certaintly no MTV.

 

[lisaf]

Honestly, I'm not trying to convert you into loving TV. You asked for evidence for the other side of the argument, I provided it. Whether you think it is valid or not is a different issue.

I don't find much of what you have posted to be valid at all, I see lots of assumptions and very little information about the actual studies posted with your data.

I really just caved in and posted some information so you couldn't keep claiming we had nothing to back up our stance that TV wasn't totally bad.
I actually don't think its good for very young children, but don't see it as an evil for society as a whole (ok, maybe the show Jersey Shore is bad for society as a whole )

I don't know what country you are in, but when really big events happen, how do you experience them? Things like 9/11, riots, the Egyptian revolution etc.

 

[vaniilla]

LO watches it for anything up to an hour for the whole day atm because he's teething and its one of the things that keeps him calms/helps him nap. I also let him watch it while I'm cooking dinner and in the morning when I'm half asleep and are making his breakfast/lunch. For us its all about moderation, for us its good for him to exposed to all sorts of different entertainment, he does a lot of different types of things during the day.

 

[smokey]

As long as your still interacting with your children I dont realy see the harm in them watching tv within reason obviously and age appropriate things.

I have never personaly found any delay in LO speech or comunication, we often sit together watching tv (he loves wild life programmes) and we sit talking about what we are seeing ie "look at the lion, what noise does a lion make", "wheres the car? what colour is the car" that sort of thing.
A fair few of his new words have been as a result of watching tv like the other night strictly dancing was on and he run up to the tv and shouted "dancing, dancing look dancing" and started twirling around the living room I had no idea he knew the word dancing till that point.

We use it the same way you would use flash cards and sometimes so I can nip to the loo

His first tv experiance was eurovision when he was only a week or so old and he loved it, we actualy had a colic crying free evening that night

Annoyingly though he has now learnt how to turn the tv over if im watching something and run off and hide the remote

 

[Lightworker]

Haven't read entire thread. I attended a research seminar at a university and one of the topics was the impact of TV on children. They observed school-going children in the playground and children were playing in small groups. Some were acting out movies (like Avatar), but adding their own twists and endings. Others were acting out quiz shows, like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire..others were acting out scenes from their various favourite programmes, taking their roles very seriously.

Part of the conclusion was that, TV is not bad for children as long as it is in moderation. These children were inspired by their favourite programmes, and it wasn't just blind copying of what was on TV, but rather, imitating coupled with their own creative input..as per the Avatar example above.

I think some practitioners go to the other extreme completely condemning the use of TV, but I gotta say, for me, without TV, I wouldn't know whats going on in other countries, I wouldn't know as much as I do about nature and wildlife, and history, and culture. It is widely accepted amongst professionals that we all take in information differently. Some prefer audio, others visual, others practical etc. TV plays a big role in those that learn best visually and we shouldn't just discount it because someone said so.

Yes. My LO watches TV..mostly when I need to cook, clean etc..but also sometimes when I just want to have a rest and its pouring outside. Her current favourite is Baby Jake.
Yeah. Good Debate.