No TV for Children Under 2, Doctors’ Group Urges

[n2doc]

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: October 18, 2011

Watching television or videos is discouraged for babies younger than 2 because studies suggest it could harm their development, a pediatricians’ group said Tuesday.

Instead of allowing infants to watch videos or screens, parents should talk to them and encourage independent play, said the first guidelines on the subject issued in more than a decade by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The advice is the same as that issued in 1999 by the group, the country’s largest association of pediatricians, but this time it also warns parents that their own screen-watching habits may delay their children’s ability to talk.

“This updated policy statement provides further evidence that media — both foreground and background — have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years,” it said. “Thus the A.A.P. reaffirms its recommendation to discourage media use in this age group.”

The latest guidelines do not refer to interactive play like video games on smartphones or other devices, but to programs watched passively on phones, computers, televisions or any other kind of screen.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/health/19babies.html?ref=science

[kestrel91316]

1. I rarely watched tv before age 8. There was nothing for little kids on any stations we could get

before I was in school, and my first 3 school years were in Japan, where tv was very limited and 99.9% in Japanese. I don't think I was deprived of anything important, and it is likely a factor in the kind of person I ended up as. Reading has always been far more important and interesting to me than watching things moving around and hearing people speak.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. "...no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years,”

There it is. K&R!

[Odin2005]

3. This has been known for ages, yet still lazy parents stick their kid in from of the Boob Tube.

[n2doc]

4. Daycare

People now are expected to have both parents working, so they stick the kid in daycare as soon as possible, and most daycares I've seen have a tv running constantly.

[TBF]

14. Which daycares have you seen? The ones I've had my children in do not have tv. nt

[lbrtbell]

5. This is such BS

I've been watching TV as long as I can remember--and I can recall things that happened when I was 2.

I learned to read at the age of 3, skipped kindergarten, and was in advanced classes throughout school. By the time I was 11, I was tested and found to have the vocabulary of a freshman in college. I said to the teacher then, and I'm saying here now, I credit television for that.

During my entire life, every highly-intelligent person I ever met was a heavy TV viewer during their childhood.

When I watched TV with my family, we discussed what we were seeing, so I was always learning from it. TV isn't the problem, parenting is. If you just sit your kid in front of the screen (or anywhere, for that matter) while you do other things, the child won't learn. If, however, you're a good parent who interacts with your child a lot, the child can learn from any experience you share--including TV viewing.

You would think that the whole, hysterical "ZOMG, TV is so eeeeevil!" mentality had died out, now that the internet and video games are the new scapegoat.

However, I guess shitty parents of every generation want something to blame, instead of looking in the mirror at what they've done wrong.

[InvisibleTouch]

24. I think it does make a big difference *how* you watch.

I didn't watch huge amounts of TV as a very young child, but what I did watch, I paid attention to. I'd get emotionally and intellectually invested in the stories and characters, and use them as a jumping-off point for my own play and creativity. I never just passively sat and stared. Even today, if I'm watching a TV show or movie, I'm *watching* it, I'm focused on it and am involved - I don't just have it playing in the background while I'm halfway paying attention to other things. Drives me nuts when I'm visiting someone and they have the TV on just for the sound effects while I'm trying to have a conversation with them. (Or conversely, if someone tries to yap at me while I'm watching TV.) Now, I never had the experience of having parents discuss what I was watching - quite the opposite, if I wanted to talk to them about it, they would blow me off like it was just dumb frivolous kids' stuff - but I was able to bring the experience into my own creative world. Watching TV does not have to be a passive, brain-deadening experience, even if you're watching light fare for its entertainment value.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. My kids watched from an early age. They are very bright and engaged, but we always

put an emphasis on "learning shows." They do get to watch junk TV, just not all of it should be cartoons and such. I've had a lot of _great_ conversations from sitting down and watching these programs with them. TV can be a very effective teaching tool.

I will also confess to "plugging them in" as toddlers to Sesame Street and the like while I was making dinner. I know there are plenty of people who would do things differently, but it was what worked for us.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I was reading by 3, mostly because of Sesame Street--I'm not sure if my

mom purposefully parked me in front of it, or I just happened to be there when my older siblings were watching it.

[MilesColtrane]

7. Teletubbies must die.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I've never understood why a parent would want their baby to watch TV

It's just nutty, IMO.

[SlimJimmy]

9. Sesame Street, The Wiggles, Dora, and Bob the Builder are staples

in my youngest grandkids homes. It doesn't replace the interaction with their parents or playtime, but is a great addition to learning for them. Each of them are on time or ahead of their educational milestones.

[jwirr]

12. My great grandchildren sat on my lap for those programs from

babyhood and we sang the songs and answered the questions and talked about the shows. I would agree that children of almost any age should not be allowed to be couch potatoes but selected shows with interactive components do not seem to have hurt my grands.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. And I think kids under 2 shouldn't be watching TV

Those programs are aimed at a preschool aged audience.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Some kids are more precocious than others, though, and are ready for those shows.

[randome]

10. Happens every time.

A scientific analysis is released to the public and everyone chimes in with his or her personal experience, which has nothing to do with the report.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

If the premise is supported in the above report, then it should be added to the weight of evidence either pro or con, not dismissed out of hand simply because "It didn't cause ME any harm."

Nothing in the report makes any claim to absolutes. It's a GENERAL finding.

[TBF]

16. We could do that if they actually gave us a cite for the report -

This is one I found, but I can't even tell if it's the right study because this one studied 4-yr olds: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/4/644.full.pdf+html

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. But they learned to read at three and are incredibly brilliant

Doesn't that give their personal anecdote the force of well-qualified scientific method? They're geniuses, don't you get it?

:rofl:

Besides, it would never even have occurred to these scientists to consider and correct for other social factors not under consideration. They needed somebody who hadn't been sutdying the matter for months or years to remind them that there could be other factors involved! Thanks Internet! You guys are awesome!

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[Ignis]

22. +1

[frazzled]

11. Total overreaction (and yes, BS)

Sure, putting your 8-month-old in front of the TV for hours on end, and having no other kinds of interaction with them, would be bad. But only parents who are "bad" to begin with would do that. The AAP needs to recognize that things are not an all-or-nothing situation.

Does an hour of Sesame Street for a 15-month-old, or Dora the Explorer for a 22-month-old do any harm? No. And I dare say it does a lot of good. I recall my daughter totally delighting to Sesame Street 30 years ago, when she was under a year old. But we also read her books ad infinitum (that's all she wanted) and went to the park and played games and talked, etc. My son, who was the baby from hell who shrieked for a solid year from birth, suddenly took a liking to Mr. Rogers when he was about 14 months old. I can't tell you the calming effect that man, whom he called "Big Daddy," had on him. Before he was two, I used to let him watch a game show or two in the afternoon: it was his absolute passion, because he would add up the money people won and shout it out before it came on screen. Yes, he turned out to be a math geek, who is currently earning his Ph.D. in Mathematics at a major university.

I don't get these scare pronouncements (which are often reversed ten years later). I'm skeptical of the whole "no crib bumpers" thing, which I read about yet again in the newspaper this morning. Sure, don't have puffy, loose bumpers. But I fear there are going to be a ton of concussions from babies suddenly rolling over without control and banging their heads against bare wood.

Sigh. I'm glad my parenting days are over (well, I am still a parent, I just have no control over my adult children).

[TBF]

15. I think so as well. I don't watch much tv myself but have never had a problem

with my kids watching a few shows as entertainment. They also have tons of books, toys, outdoor time, and parents who play with them. Everything in moderation.

[randome]

18. Agree with that.

'Everything in moderation'.

[blogslut]

13. meh

My little precious one barely noticed the television during the first three years of life - too busy playing.

[mainstreetonce]

19. Agree

I agree with Blogspot. My grandchildren at five and three watch a limited amount of TV. The baby at less than two is constantly playing and merely glances at the screen occasionally.

[hunter]

20. My brother and I broke the family television when we were toddlers.

My parents couldn't afford another until I was in the first grade. We were not allowed to touch the television.

Once a year we'd watch The Wizard of Oz and it was scary.

The first television show I remember my parents watching regularly was Star Trek. That was when it was new.

We also watched news coverage of the space program. My grandfather was an aerospace engineer who worked on the Apollo project.

My own kids never could sit still long enough to watch a lot of television. I would've had to tie them down or something. They were good for maybe a Reading Rainbow or Winnie the Pooh episode, but not before they were three years old or so. I always felt lucky if I got half an hour of them staying out of trouble while I did chores.

I think kids two and under ought to be pretty much attached to an adult most of the time. My kids were and they turned out great. It's a shame our economy and our society doesn't provide for this basic human need.

[hughee99]

23. If I understand correctly, the "no tv" policy

supposes that children under 2, if not watching TV will instead, interact with their parents. Yes, given the choice between TV and human interaction, the latter is far better. It's not that TV delays their progress, it's that the lack of personal interaction delays their progress.

[ehrnst]

25. Yep, "Baby Einstein" videos had absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. (nt)