Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study: Kids Under 3 Should Be Banned From Watching TV

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the can-we-ban-them-from-being-on-tv-too dept.

Television 334

An anonymous reader sends this quote from The Guardian: "Doctors and government health officials should set limits, as they do for alcohol, on the amount of time children spend watching screens – and under-threes should be kept away from the television altogether, according to a paper in an influential medical journal published on Tuesday. A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children's obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm. Doctors at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which co-owns the journal with the British Medical Journal group, say they are concerned."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

gay niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41601985)

from outter space

Sun releases corornal mass ejaculation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41601991)

It could cause problems [belljarnews.com] with communications, satellites, and power grids. Could also produce some spectacular auroras.

First sentence is a doozy. (4, Funny)

Guano_Jim (157555) | about 2 years ago | (#41602003)

Doctors and government health officials should set limits, as they do for alcohol on the amount of time children spend watching screens

I agree totally. Three-year-olds get really belligerent after a beer or two.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602155)

Children under 13 should be banned from pubic schools. They don't need no false control.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (5, Funny)

cybernanga (921667) | about 2 years ago | (#41602269)

Children under 13 should be banned from pubic schools.

Indeed!

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (4, Funny)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 2 years ago | (#41602539)

Give him a break, he's a shitfaced 2 year old.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602201)

try a light beer, I find my three year old actually prefers it.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602203)

I'm Freddie, 30 and my mom sets limits on how much beer I can drink. No reason why the gub'mint should do that.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602209)

Really? Mine usually just fall asleep.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (0)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41602235)

A comma, a comma, my kingdom for a comma!

(Sentence makes perfect sense after properly escaping the dependent clause.)

Doctors and government health officials should set limits, as they do for alcohol, on the amount of time children spend watching screens.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (0)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 2 years ago | (#41602479)

Actually, it still implies doctors are setting limits on alcohol for children. =)

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41602643)

Yes, but it does so much more clearly!

How does the author of this article expect us to know that the pediatric doctors are properly setting the limits on television like they do for alcohol, if they don't properly punctuate their sentences!?

We might get the mistaken idea that they are regulating the placement of alcohol on top of televisions, or some similarly silly miscarriage of authority!

Clear and proper English is a necessity to proper communication!

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (5, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#41602421)

Seriously though.
Government should stay the fuck out of it.
Parents should raise their children. Maybe if we did not make it free to have kids by picking up the tab for them the less responsible people would have less of them.
If they want to have the TV babysit their kids they get the kids they raise.
Give it another 30 years and Government will just take the children after birth and raise them. Can not leave it to parents to raise their own children.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (5, Insightful)

Radtastic (671622) | about 2 years ago | (#41602607)

Seriously though. If they want to have the TV babysit their kids they get the kids they raise.

Unfortunately, rights surrounding the raising of children can't be as simple as you think they are.

Everyone else 'gets the kids that you raised' when you do an in adequate job in preparing them for life. Certainly, not in every case, but you can probably link higher incidents of poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, and maybe a dozen more undesired outcomes of which a person's course in life was directed fairly early on in life because of poor parenting.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (4, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#41602765)

Sure, but the parenting that is recommended by the 'experts' is the bad parenting. Even the recommendation that children should have screen time is caused by the 'experts' making conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. The reason that you see a correlation between poorly developed kids and large screen times isn't due to the screens. It is due to the child being exposed to an extremely limited set of information. You see this behavior across almost all demographics. The parents see that their kid likes a particular video and the parent puts the same program in over and over and over. It truly is a case of correlation instead of causation. It just so happens that TV is the witch that child development 'experts' obsess on hunting.

Having the government tell people the 'right' way to raise children is just throwing fuel on the fire.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (5, Informative)

notsoanonymouscoward (102492) | about 2 years ago | (#41602473)

In other news, guy with no qualifications makes unqualified statements...

But the issue is controversial and his opinions and standing are questioned by Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University who says that although this is an important topic, Sigman's paper is not "an impartial expert review of evidence for effects on health and child development". "Aric Sigman does not appear to have any academic or clinical position, or to have done any original research on this topic," she said. "His comments about impact of screen time on brain development and empathy seem speculative in my opinion, and the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books."

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602705)

the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books.

Correct, Allah came to that conclusion years ago.

Re:First sentence is a doozy. (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 years ago | (#41602813)

And your qualifications are where?
And your raised how many children?
And your results were independently certified by whom?

About time, really. (4, Insightful)

phrackwulf (589741) | about 2 years ago | (#41602007)

The real consequence of those "Baby Einstein" tapes now becomes clear. I also don't see television as something inherently bad for kids. But too much of anything is often poisonous. Television takes up time that could better be spent running around playing tag or staring at lego blocks thinking about making neat things, or playing with my little pony, in some of, um our cases. Hopefully this starts to re-inject some sanity into the mix.

Re:About time, really. (5, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | about 2 years ago | (#41602125)

I have had the chance to watch two different sets of parents raise two different sets of kids.(friends vs family)

One set watched TV had mcdonalds occasionally, played video games.

The other set all of the above was either banned or discouraged( TV watching was discouraged).

Neither group was really religious(you can count the number of times both groups went to church on one hand)

The kids with minimal TV, while not necessarily smarter are generally calmer, and listen better to their parents.

the interaction of parent and adult at the young age at this point seems to be the trick(the oldest child is 7)
As far as learning, the kids without TV are able to deal with complex puzzles(for their age at least) quite easily.

of course 4 kids 2 from each family is hardly noteworthy for standard deviation.

Re:About time, really. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602283)

A couple more data points:

My wife grew up without TV or video games until she was a teen. Now she's now a tenured English professor.

I grew up steeped in both television and video games. I'm now a Chief Information Officer.

Re:About time, really. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602591)

I just grew up to be an adult steeped in both television and video games.

Re:About time, really. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602641)

another data point.
I remember as a child, all the old people in the room watching football games during thanksgiving.
They are all dead now.
The football games are still televised.

Re:About time, really. (3, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 2 years ago | (#41602295)

The American Academy of Pediatrics' issued a recommendation in 2001 that children under two should be discouraged from watching television at all: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/2/423.full [aappublications.org]

Research has shown primary negative health effects on violence and aggressive behavior7–12; sexuality7,13–15; academic performance16; body concept and self-image17–19; nutrition, dieting, and obesity17,20,21; and substance use and abuse patterns.7

Pediatricians should recommend the following guidelines for parents:

        Limit children's total media time (with entertainment media) to no more than 1 to 2 hours of quality programming per day.

        Remove television sets from children's bedrooms.

        Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together.
        [...]
        View television programs along with children, and discuss the content. [...]

        Encourage alternative entertainment for children, including reading, athletics, hobbies, and creative play.

Re:About time, really. (4, Interesting)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 2 years ago | (#41602305)

when I was a young child, we had only one tv set. It was in the living room and only received about two stations I think. It was mainly tuned to boring shows, the kind that parents like to watch. So I had to spend my time building things i.e. Erector Sets, which later I began tinkering around with electrical stuff including making the mistake of cutting a lamp cord while it was still plugged in ("bang!"). Grew up to become an engineer.

Re:About time, really. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602669)

Grew up to become an engineer.

It is conceivable that some parents do not want their children to grow up to be engineers, so I fail to see your point

Did you mean "grew up without any advertisement-caused brain damage, and could thus become a successful engineer"?

Re:About time, really. (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41602309)

The real consequence of those "Baby Einstein" tapes now becomes clear.

Huh? Is that sarcasm? Or what? You seem to be assuming that there's some ironical fact that obvious to everybody, but it ain't obvious to me

I also don't see television as something inherently bad for kids.

Well, TFA gives several reasons why developmental psychologists think it is. Care to share why you think they're wrong, or is this just more obvious stuff everybody's supposed to know?

But too much of anything is often poisonous. Television takes up time that could better be spent running around playing tag or...

OK, I'm sure we can all agree that too much of a good thing is a bad thing. That doesn't change the act that very little of a bad thing is a bad thing.

Re:About time, really. (2)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#41602439)

What's even more ridiculous than you finding away to bring your pony fetish into this is the fact that a study even had to be done to confirm this. Welcome to the wonderful world of getting paid to study the obvious.

Mitt Romney was right (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602013)

We need to fire Big Bird.

Re:Mitt Romney was right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602059)

Mod Parent Troll.

Re:Mitt Romney was right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602079)

and his last words to kids can be by sick kids see you in the ER that will be your new and only doctor

Re:Mitt Romney was right (1)

phrackwulf (589741) | about 2 years ago | (#41602137)

Yo, Yo... y'all don't step to my bloods Biggie B and Tinky Winky.. dawg! Me and Tinky be down, straight old school. You don't want my homies back out lookin for the GTA in the Sesame Hood. Where's the love?

Re:Mitt Romney was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602163)

Sounds like somebody's been usin' the "tubby 'tustard" a little too much recently.

Afraid The Man is gonna shut down your supply of Pink?

Re:Mitt Romney was right (1)

phrackwulf (589741) | about 2 years ago | (#41602225)

My boy Tinky got three shorties and ain't seen none of the weak, frontin baby girls down on Sesame got it on and burnt a brother, playa! Biggie B be steppin up with the mad love, got Tinky his second job workin body guard for Ice Cube on the weekends. You know we down.

Re:Mitt Romney was right (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41602297)

Shit nigga! Everyone know that fake rappa T-winky ain't no blood! Nigga cant decide if he wearin' red or blue! Sheet!

I hear he mean deala though. Nigga's got more crack in that bag than oprah got on her ass!

Re:Mitt Romney was right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602603)

Republicans like laws - there is allways an infinite supply

PASS MORE LAWS (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602047)

We don't have enough laws pertaining to how we parent children. PASS MORE NOW PLEASE!

I want a government official to come to my home and verify how much TV my little girl watches every day. It's important that this happens because I'm a moron and can't control myself. I also assume you are even dumber and perhaps the best thing to do would be to just take all the children away and have the government deal with them. They could return them once they're all grown up.

Re:PASS MORE LAWS (1, Insightful)

Ziggitz (2637281) | about 2 years ago | (#41602141)

Yeah cause god forbid we perform research and discover practices that can cause harm to our children that isn't obvious and then take measures to protect against it. But Government so fuck it, go have fun with you lead painted chew toys little Tommy.

Re:PASS MORE LAWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602693)

If you could do a level headed analysis it would show the real dilemma.
The government banned lead in paint and then gasoline because the damn corporations didn't care if you died to save a few cents.
That action seems justified in retrospect.
The extension to banning lead everywhere else, - including solder! shows what happens when regulators get a little revved up.

Because of course by your stupid shithead example, eating lead paint isn't obvious to some retards.

From the desk of the gov't official (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 years ago | (#41602629)

Dear AC: We want not to come by your house to verify, but good luck is yours, you have been chosen as a Nielsen household.

Are You Kidding? (4, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | about 2 years ago | (#41602067)

C'mon, I took my first television set apart by 3. Sissies!
Keep them away from strong magnets, Tesla coils, acids and bases.
Some realistic adults should take control here, please.

Re:Are You Kidding? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41602217)

C'mon, I took my first television set apart by 3. Sissies!
Keep them away from strong magnets, Tesla coils, acids and bases.
Some realistic adults should take control here, please.

OK: you took your first set apart by 3: I took my first set apart before I was 1.

How long was it before you were able to reassemble a functional TV set after taking it apart?

In more serious news: I don't think the TV itself is so much of an issue as the amount of time under-3's spend exposed to it, and the lack of doing whatever they would have otherwise been doing. My own sample size of 2 indicates that kids under 3 aren't really all that interested in TV by tiself, and prefer to socialize while it is on in the background. They also appear to readily absorb things from TV that the 3-and-above crowd often misses. So having a TV on shouldn't be an issue, whereas using the TV as a babysitter should be avoided at all costs.

Obligatory onion article (2)

gmhowell (26755) | about 2 years ago | (#41602071)

I'm just gonna leave the obligatory Onion article [theonion.com] here. (Note, at the time I began composing this, nobody else had posted a link, nor had the inevitable "I don't own/watch a tv" posts started"

Re:Obligatory onion article (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602219)

What happens when an obligatory Onion article and an obligatory XKCD comic collide?

I'm fine... (4, Insightful)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | about 2 years ago | (#41602129)

I watched TV for years... mom would set me in front of the boob tube in my swing and I turned out jim dandy. The upside is I can remember tons and tons of commercial jingles, usually while sitting down ironically enough.

Seriously though, limits are important. Limits set by parents. The Nanny State is quite adamant about making sure they are involved in your private lives. Too many people simply surrender control to the almighty state. It's baffling.

Re:I'm fine... (2, Insightful)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | about 2 years ago | (#41602351)

Too many people simply surrender control to the almighty state. It's baffling.

Why is it baffling? These are the same people who can't drag themselves or their children away from the almighty TV.

Why should children and the society that they will inhabit suffer because their parents are too incompetent to set limits? Anti-government paranoia uber-alles?

Re:I'm fine... (4, Funny)

Longjmp (632577) | about 2 years ago | (#41602483)

I watched TV for years...

And now you ended up on slashdot, makes you think, doesn't it? ;-)

Re:I'm fine... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602517)

Too many people simply surrender control to the almighty state. It's baffling.

You do realize that under a functional democratic government, the will of the state is approximately the same as the will of a majority of its people, right? So it's hardly baffling that people want to do what they think ought to be done anyway, and for the majority who support the state position, it happens to coincide with what the state wants. I suppose it might look like "surrender" to someone who doesn't understand how the state works. The minority is free to complain, protest, sway public opinion, and so on, but if they don't even understand how democratic states function, they're not going to get very far. Yes, the majority is often wrong, contradictory, self-destructive, and short-sighted, and that is often reflected in the state as well. The great victory of democracy is that the state is us, not them.

To be more specific, most people think that doctor's advice should be followed. Since the doctors are offering advice regarding minors who are too young to make that decision for themselves (under 3 years old), they think the state (the collective will of the people) should impose the value of following doctor's advice even on childcare workers who disagree with that advice. This is equivalent to other regulation around custodial behaviors, such as child beating, genital mutilation, and other areas where the majority/state decide that medical advice trumps parental/custodial rights. Parenting/custodianship, after all, is a much more paternal relationship than the state, because the child cannot change the makeup of their family or daycare in the way citizens can change the makeup of their governments.

If you are posting from a state which is a dictatorship or a sham republic, I apologize if I came off as a little condescending. You see, even in democracies, there are people who think the government is distinct from the people.

From TFA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602133)

The study says that a lack of interaction is the root cause of the issue, and there is a pretty obvious rebuttal in TFA:

But the issue is controversial and his opinions and standing are questioned by Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University who says that although this is an important topic, Sigman's paper is not "an impartial expert review of evidence for effects on health and child development". "Aric Sigman does not appear to have any academic or clinical position, or to have done any original research on this topic," she said. "His comments about impact of screen time on brain development and empathy seem speculative in my opinion, and the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books."

Re:From TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602271)

Bingo. His objections are based on kids being sedentary. Which I completely agree with. I think exercise and movement is a key ingredient to intellectual development. (John Ratey's book Spark is an excellent resource on this topic.) Thus I get my kids out multiple times a day exercising, and they have screen time, or reading time, or draw during the other times.

Probably adults too. (3, Informative)

bored (40072) | about 2 years ago | (#41602135)

Everyone has been saying that adults need to limit their exposure to tv as well, based on the idea that sitting around for extended periods of time can cause health problems.

Based on personal experience, I suspect that those studies showing extremely low levels of brain activity in people watching TV is also going to result in eventual proof that watching TV actually makes people dumber. Your brain needs "exercise" the same way as the rest of your body. So instead of having hobbies, or playing sports people just sit around and let the TV fill their eyes/ears. Of course this is going to be reflected in a "dumbing down" of society in general as those hours are taking up time that might have been spent on more stimulating activities.

Re:Probably adults too. (2)

The Good Reverend (84440) | about 2 years ago | (#41602243)

Your brain needs relaxation too - TV's no different than reading a book or any other mostly passive activity. The secret, of course, is moderation.

Re:Probably adults too. (1, Insightful)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | about 2 years ago | (#41602417)

Your brain needs relaxation too - TV's no different than reading a book or any other mostly passive activity.

Citation?

TV is the product of decades of study to find ways to keep you watching, indefinitely if possible. It is the junk food of entertainments -- highly engineered to push every available button that will keep you consuming, with zero regard for the impact of that consumption on the consumers health or well being.

How is it "relaxing" to be assailed by an endless stream of manipulative messages designed to stimulate all manner of consumption, often by promoting various anxieties?

Re:Probably adults too. (3, Insightful)

The Good Reverend (84440) | about 2 years ago | (#41602501)

No, "TV" is a device that allows me to watch visual and audio stimuli - it's unrelated to the content, which is what you're describing. I choose what I put on my television, and I'm sorry if you've only been exposed to the kind of programming you've described.

Also, everything you've just discussed can be said for books (and many websites, for that matter). Are you giving up reading and internet surfing, too?

Re:Probably adults too. (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | about 2 years ago | (#41602677)

No, "TV" is a device that allows me to watch visual and audio stimuli - it's unrelated to the content, which is what you're describing.

The content I am describing is the "audio and visual stimuli" that you are referring to. The point is that while people could stare at a blank screen or specialized patters of relaxing audio and visual stimuli, that is not what most people watch on TV.

Also, everything you've just discussed can be said for books (and many websites, for that matter). Are you giving up reading and internet surfing, too?

Give up books? Of course not, because a book is just a collection of pieces of paper bound together. A book is unrelated to the content printed within.

Re:Probably adults too. (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#41602253)

I submit the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo as evidence to support your claim.

the awnser is... (2)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about 2 years ago | (#41602145)

As always the same rule applies, less laws, more education.

Re:the awnser is... (2)

Ryan101 (1698614) | about 2 years ago | (#41602791)

I think you mean "fewer".

I hope this article is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602149)

A bureaucrat in every living room controlling how much television children should watch? That's a terrifying proposition. As if we don't have government trampling all over our economy and personal liberties already.

Re:I hope this article is a joke (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41602289)

Another study concluded that 3-year-olds make excellent bureaucrats -- If you have one in your household, expect recruiters to come knocking at your door to hire them -- they'll be retired by the time they're 33 with fat pensions. Of course, they'll probably have you in jail within a few weeks.

TV Makes You Stupid (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602181)

TV makes you stupid. I've been saying that for years. I'm one of those people that grew up without a TV. I don't typically share this information with people (I don't like being "that guy"), but it seems relevant...

As a child, it irked me that I didn't have any context for understanding the TV shows that all my friends were watching. As a teenager, I found it difficult to fit in, since I didn't have TV to insert fashion trends and pop cultural phenomena into my consciousness.

As an adult, however, I consider my parents' choice to not have a TV in the household to be one of the best child-rearing decisions they made. Why? Hard to say, but to sum it up, I'm smarter and more motivated than my peers. Instead of anesthetizing myself on the couch with the mindless tripe you find on TV, I read books and study topics that are of interest to me. I actively seek out information about what is going on in the world, rather than having news/opinions (it's hard to separate the two, if you get such information from TV) spoon-fed to me. It amazes me that people piss away their lives watching garbage that is, as far as I can tell, designed solely to make you consume while simultaneously making you unhappy with your life.

If you have a TV near you, turn it on for a second and count the number of seconds in between scene changes (where what you are watching switches to a different camera, angle, perspective, etc.). In a lot of the media consumed by kids/teens today, that interval is often 0-5 seconds. Reflect, for a moment, on what that might do to one's capacity for attention and focus.

There is a huge disconnect between what is portrayed on television and actual reality. Since kids today are socialized primarily by the media, this ought to be cause for at least some level of concern. Whenever I see people on TV (especially the talking heads), my first thought is always "People don't look like that".

And don't get me started on advertising.

my opinions on this matter, summed up: people ought to be more discriminating when it comes to what they are willing to expose their consciousness to.

Re:TV Makes You Stupid (2)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 2 years ago | (#41602327)

>As a teenager, I found it difficult to fit in, since I didn't have TV to insert fashion trends and pop cultural phenomena into my consciousness.

You sound like this guy I met from Ukraine. He said growing up he didn't fit in because he had no interest in drinking and partying, so he worked his way through school with goal of moving away which he now lives in Silicon Valley.

Re:TV Makes You Stupid (1)

robot5x (1035276) | about 2 years ago | (#41602647)

maybe. But isn't the point that one needs balance?
I have no problem whatsoever with my kids sitting around watching garbage reality TV, BUT I will do my best to raise them to think critically and to analyse and think over what they're seeing. As well as watching a fair bit of TV, they also read a lot, and play outside a lot. None of these things are mutually exclusive, you know.

Re:TV Makes You Stupid (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 years ago | (#41602755)

No sir. Not exercising your brain, and/or being born into an unfit womb, makes you stupid. Intelligence and the large brain responsible for it are a huge sacrifice in nature, as the two usually come with delayed maturation and a healthy serving of not fitting in. Television, comic books, and Isaac Asimov novels are not detrimental to cerebral development. Au contraire sir, any exercise is still exercise. Can I get a hell yeah. If one were to argue TV makes us pear-shaped, well, that's a horse of another color....

Re:TV Makes You Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602769)

What a load of crap.

What you have there is anecdotal evidence and a huge ego.

There are plenty of smart people (and I would bet smarter then you), that grew up watching TV and have no problems.

To enforce this ban (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41602183)

All TVs, computers and screen games must be placed by a large picture window on the first floor and with no curtains, so officials can perform random checks for compliance, and call in SWAT on the violators

Enforcement (3, Interesting)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about 2 years ago | (#41602185)

What's the point of attempting to regulate behavior like this if it's utterly impossible to enforce? Or, what might even be worse, what's the point in trying to enforce a regulation when doing so--if it were possible--would cause more harm than not doing so? Let us imagine a likely scenario: lower income parents, tired by working three jobs, gives in and decides to use a television for a while to quiet an unruly toddler (for why the toddler is so unruly, see how much the parents work and ask where the child must be). This is against the law. If we regulate this in the same way as alcohol, parents who are a repeat offenders might well lose their children. Is the life of a broken family really an improvement over the previous condition?

Re:Enforcement (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#41602663)

It would be sort of "enforced" by banning the broadcasting of television programs which are specifically engineered to appeal to that demographic. Programs which currently target such audiences would have to be redesigned to be oriented more towards children who are perhaps just about to start school. While children under 3 might still be exposed to such programs, the lack of any content explicitly geared for infants and toddlers could nonetheless make some difference.

Some TV is fine (4, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | about 2 years ago | (#41602193)

Don't park your kid in front of a TV all day, but a little TV has to be fine. We would go insane if we didn't have some down time while the TV provided entertainment. The main thing we do is stick to DVDs rather than live TV to limit exposure to all those adverts.

Re:Some TV is fine (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#41602739)

The main thing we do is stick to DVDs rather than live TV to limit exposure to all those adverts.

And how is that working out for you? Between the "Don't steal that DVD" and about 10-20 minutes of un-skippable previews and sometimes even commercials, I feel that I get at least a decent dose of ads from most DVDs.

And don't get me started on the increasingly common ads (not previews - ads!) in movie theaters.

I don't know where I can get commercial-free (and legal) content nowdays (netflix?).

And Facebook causes cancer? (5, Informative)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#41602199)

Apparently, this guy (psychologist Dr. Aric Sigman) apparently has lots of agendas...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-Facebook-raise-risk-cancer.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Not saying that TV is good for you, but sometimes you have to look at the source of this stuff and wonder how seriously to take it...

Re:And Facebook causes cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602375)

Why is this not modded higher?

YAUO FAIL IT? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602223)

Much organisation, FreeBSD used to Antibacterial soap. Numbers 3ontinue At times. From has been my only core team. They already dead. It is

Yeah Limits! (4, Insightful)

U8MyData (1281010) | about 2 years ago | (#41602227)

I think there should be limits on Doctors and government officials constantly drumming up studies on what is good for us. We know already and the vascillations of these studies is way more harmful to my mental health and well being than say TV ever would be. Get the hell out of my and others business.

Re:Yeah Limits! (1)

JMonty42 (1961510) | about 2 years ago | (#41602577)

There should be a study conducted on how all of these studies affect our mental health.

YIu might want to (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41602231)

look up the guy who ran the study before giving any merit to this study based on an article, or even the conclusions of the study.

Take this with a boulder of salt (2)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#41602237)

Any study taken by the Police State formally known as Great Britain that strives to set a course for conduct within the household should be viewed as suspect. Immediately, I would think this is little more than a ploy to goad Parliament into passing a whole new set of overreaching laws to invade the privacy of citizens households to insure that "children are being brought up in a safe environment that encourages good social behavior". Hefty fines and jail times for letting your children watch TV before the gov't sanctioned age limit is not at all far fetched based on what I've seen from that fascist Nanny-State as of late.

Re:Take this with a boulder of salt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602377)

Who gives a fuck? TV's for faggots. Don't agree? Go fuck yourself, tv faggot fanfagboi fag. Go read a fucking book, dick smoker.

Oh look... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602245)

...more moronic laws from the UK.

My 3 year old..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602251)

Has his own iPad. Really, it was mine but he owns it. He learned to type and read on it. Mostly by learning to login to Netflix and other websites to play games, etc. You have to have a username to post a high score. This reminds me of the Catholic church talking about contraception. How many of the people who participated in the article, either supplying data or writing it, have kids under the age of 5. I would say that, aside from being sissies, each generation gets better, definitely nicer.
The information in the article comes from people who were taught to hide under a blanket in case of nuclear war. Watch out the Japs are coming, and they're bringing their fancy new Atari's and Manga. Otaku me right in the ass.

Dumbasses. People make me sad. Who even has the time to write this bullshit?

I would actually say, watch tv with your kids. Teach them to be inquisitive and discerning. Take them outside once in a while. Try being a parent. Superhero's are cool. Santa is cool. Lochness monster and bigfoot and power rangers.

Don't let your kid watch holocaust movies. They might grow up to hate Germans (I know I do.)

He Man woman haters rule!

We are all dumber for having read this.

Boy am I glad I called that guy.

Having said all that, am going to go teach my kid to smoke cigarettes and drink coffee. Better to be f*ed up and interesting than a dull-ass-wannabe-smart/interesting loser- who would write a lame ass article like this.

BTW Baby Einstein is bottom of the barrel for kid tv. Check out SuperWhy or some of the other learn the alphabet/numbers kids shows. I would say everything has some merit for a lesson, good or bad, the thing is you have to be there with your kid to teach him/her.the difference. I changed the way I raised my kid because of this article, and now he's an angel. No more killing baby pandas, for him, nope, thank you God/and pseudo-science.

Re:My 3 year old..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602335)

Bravo, sir. That was quite engrossing
A troll, of course, but it's ever so nice to see one done well.

Not science based (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41602267)

This is one of the most artful academic smackdowns I've read:

But the issue is controversial and his opinions and standing are questioned by Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University who says that although this is an important topic, Sigman's paper is not "an impartial expert review of evidence for effects on health and child development". "Aric Sigman does not appear to have any academic or clinical position, or to have done any original research on this topic," she said. "His comments about impact of screen time on brain development and empathy seem speculative in my opinion, and the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books."

Read this as "Clinicians have no idea how to do meta-analysis. He's making this shit up".

I'll give you my Fisher Price EZ clean remote... (3, Funny)

julian67 (1022593) | about 2 years ago | (#41602281)

...when you take it from my soft, warm, vomit stinking, slippery, snotty, infectious podgy hands.

waaaaah.

I am 45 and three quarters.

But TV is the best baby sitter! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41602343)

I have good friends, that are completely insane, that had their first child 2 years ago at the age of 45. And the TV is on 24/7 to entertain the child. It's insane enough to have a kid at that old age, but they dont have the energy to actually raise the child, so the TV will do.

Re:But TV is the best baby sitter! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602379)

Well when they pass away while the kid is still in secondary school, he can fall back on television instead of seeking out new human relationships.

Uh-oh for Big Bird! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602371)

Big Bird considered harmful??

This just in. (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 2 years ago | (#41602401)

An unqualified moron publishes paper full of hearsay and speculation.

It pays to read the article cited.

hell, I learned to read off the TV at 2-1/2 (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#41602411)

but this was back when it was "radio with pictures" and they had text cards up with the bulletin points when they were reading ad scripts.

nowdays, it's babes making out with hamburgers and there is no direct correlation.

I totally agree... British TV is bloody awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602435)

I, however, grew up on AMERICAN TV and the best that New York and Hollywood had to offer in the late 50's. Sgt. Bilko, Toody & Muldoon, Groucho, Ernie Kovacs, Beany & Cecil, and countless others filled my time day after day, week after week, year after year. It made me what my generation is proud to be today: fat and vertically-challenged. What, me worry?

Nonsense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602485)

Nonsense! My kids watch tons of TV, nearly all educational. They are far more advanced in speaking, alphabetting, counting, and imagining than their peers.

Big Bird and the morons (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 2 years ago | (#41602489)

It's been a tough week for Big Bird.

From the article ...
Sigman goes further, suggesting no screen time for the under-threes, rising gradually to a maximum of two hours for the over-16s.
I'm sorry Mrs Jones. I couldn't finish my history report because I spent my two hours of screen time on math and biology.

Re:Big Bird and the morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602707)

Yep, massive umemployment, gas at $4 a gallon (double from 4 years ago), hundreds killed in Mexico from an ATF program gone bad and top White House officials covering it up, killing of an ambassador in Lybia and WH officials covering that up as well, $1.5 Trillion deficit each year, Wall Street being paid billions of taxpayer money instead of being put in jail, warrentless wiretapping increasing, and TSA getting all new equipment.

Yep, the worst possible administration ever and Big Bird is the best topic they can bring up. Can we just cancel the election and impech Obama today? He has made a laughing stock of the country and the Oval Office.

Every Kid is Different (3, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | about 2 years ago | (#41602495)

I appreciate the guidelines, but to some degree, the best guideline is: Don't be an idiot; pay attention to your kid, and if you see signs of a problem, be a parent and change what your kid is allowed to do.

I've got a 3.5 year-old, and in his first few months of infancy, we could totally watch TV while holding him, let him loll around on the floor and play while the TV was on, and he didn't even pay attention to it. He was much more interested in Mom and me, and even more so, his little musical toys.

But at about six months, my wife was watching the news while feeding him, and suddenly he turned away from the boob and looked at the TV like, "WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE?!?!" And immediately, we knew that he couldn't watch TV.

We kept him away from all TV for about another year and a half, when the nanny who was helping out two mornings a week went down to one morning a week (and eventually none), and if the house was going to stay tidy, my wife needed a distraction. Since he was two, we introduced him to Netflix and Dora the Explorer.

On a normal day, he gets one episode of whatever his current favorite show is (currently Blues Clues). It's always educational, and the little guy is totally OK with it. Sometimes he gets bored, shuts down the laptop and announces he's done and goes right to his Legos. The only times he watches more than one a day are when he's sick with a cold and we're trying to keep him in bed.

The first time he ever watched a full-length movie (Cars 2) was, coincidentally, when he was 3. We all had a family cold, and I needed to get some additional sleep. He loves his toy cars, so I figured he'd love the movie, and I told him that since he's such a big boy, he could watch that. He loved it, and it's been a great tool to have, for example, on a recent road trip we did. He wouldn't have made it all the way to Tahoe without Cars 2. The funny thing is that in the last couple of weeks, he's been asking just to see specific scenes in the evenings. Five or 10 minutes, and he's done. He's got more self-control than I did any time before the age of 30.

But not all kids are like that. Some will always have a problem, some will never have a problem. Maybe we got lucky, maybe we actually did the right thing by removing exposure between 6- and 24 months. I don't know, since I can't do the experiment. But I feel pretty strongly that a good, engaged parent can take big steps towards mitigating any problems with screen time just by remaining engaged.

Believe me, "remaining engaged" is easier said than done at some points in a child's development--parenthood can be pretty demanding--but even a C-grade level of engagement is better than an A+ enforcement of a blanket rule. If you take that sort of stimulation away from a kid who can handle it, you might be missing great opportunities for learning: my kid's got an incredible vocabulary because of Dora, Diego, Dinosaur Train, Blues Clues and Cars 2; my wife and I can certainly take some credit, but there are things he says that we know we didn't teach him directly; there's got to be some value there.

Wait, DOCTORS and GOVERNMENT?!? (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#41602527)

Here we go again...while I agree that you should be a PARENT and not let you child sit in front of the damn tv all day, this is not the place for doctors to be giving government guidelines to pass into law, because that's what these studies are typically used as proof for...needing yet more laws to govern your very existence. The problem is parents being lazy son's of bitches that don't care to spend their extra time actually being parents and raising healthy and responsible children.

There already is a guideline that says you shouldn't put your infant in front of the tv as a full time babysitter, it's called common sense. Thing is, no amount of doctor recommended or government regulated amount of tv time is going to change the lazy bastards who shouldn't have had kids to begin with and only end up being one extra, unnecessary hassle for parent's it doesn't apply to. Just watch, I guarantee it.

But but but.... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#41602557)

...how will we babysit our kids?

Geeze, sorry Big Bird, looks like you're out of a job.

Banned? The Language of Big Government Extremism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41602573)

Whatever happened to sane headlines and reasonable, evolutionary, non-violent, educational social change? Methinks those things never existed consciously, but now that the Government has convinced people of the supposed failure of supposed "Free Markets", a large swath of the population has become content to turn to the Dear Leader for marching orders written in unyielding, black and white decrees.

Who'da thunk it? (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 2 years ago | (#41602639)

TV rots kids' brains? Why are we still arguing this? It is, as AGW disciples say, "settled science." Whether it's the flashing or the short scenes or the pernicious advertising or the political propaganda, it doesn't matter. Television is not healthy for children, and I defy anyone to prove any net good to it.

A word on the "I grew up on TV and I'z okay" posts: you're not. You just don't know any better. You don't have the outside perspective to see the difference. Maybe you're "okay," but could you be a little smarter if you grew up reading instead? Probably. Because while you were learning your ABCs and counting to 10 with Big Bird, the other 7-year-old down the street in a TV-less household is learning long division and reading National Geographic.

Now, that may not be a direct correlation, because I suspect the parents who keep the idiot box away from their kids not only care more, but are probably better educated to begin with. Regardless, I have found no case in which TV-babysat children are ahead of their non-TV-babysat peers in any way.

But, libertarian that I am, you do whatever you want with your kids. We still need fry cooks and garbagemen.

TFA Doesn't Account for WHAT they watch? (4, Interesting)

retroworks (652802) | about 2 years ago | (#41602645)

Just "TV is bad, m'kay?"

My wife and I let our twins watch only tapes, no broadcast TV, until they were about 5. Musicals and foreign films and animated movies (Fantasia, Jungle Book, etc). Oh, and only in French... we went to Montreal and bought all the videos in French only. Both kids are now fluent in French/English and speak Spanish as a third language, now studying Latin. The point being, the article says it's the amount of TV and the age of the kid and seems to assume all TV is the same... Fiddler On the Roof, Clockwork Orange, Japanese Anime, Sesame Street, Fox News, content makes no difference? That's like saying all food is the same, and it doesn't matter what you eat only how old you are when you eat it. Maybe the study covers it and the Guardian reporter just forgot to ask, as it is, it's a stupid article. But put a government regulation in without any control group study and you are asking for problems.

If TV, then Religion. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41602653)

If TV has such a negative impact on children under four years old, perhaps we need to draw up legislation to address children being indoctrinated with religion. And, for that matter, the racism and hate in many households. Hell, forget all that shit. Just come take all children as soon as they're weened off the tit and let the government raise them. Grant immediate family bi-weekly visits.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?