Skip to content

Feb 27

Babies and TV

Einstein Baby from mymommatoldme.com

In an article on the TLC website titled, “Is it OK for Babies to Watch TV?” contributing writer Jacob Silverman discusses the negative effects that TV watching has on babies. In the article Silverman addresses several studies which found positive correlations between time spent watching TV and difficulty reading. From these studies, many psychologists and educators have recommended that parents limit their children’s TV consumption. But what about TV programs that claim to be educational for children? Silverman says that studies have been released that show programs like “Baby Einstein” may actually hinder child development. While these programs are very popular, they mostly contain rapidly moving images to attract babies’ attention, rather than active dialogue. Parents think that because shows like “Baby Einstein” are supposed to be educational, it makes it more okay for them to use the TV as a kind of babysitter while they are doing chores around the house and can’t devote their full attention to their baby. This poses a problem because of the sensitivity of babies’ brain development before the age of 2. During this time babies are forming important neural connections and the best way to do this is by providing interactive stimulation, which most programs claiming to be educational fail to do. In one study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, vocabulary development of babies 8-16 months old was studied as a function of watching programs like “Baby Einstein.” It was found that for every hour a day that a child watched these programs, they knew six to eight fewer words compared to children of the same age who did not watch them. Studies suggest that the best way to encourage proper brain development among children is to have parents interact with them and if parents do allow babies to watch TV than it is best to watch with them and provide explanations for the content.

Silverman’s critique of “educational” programing is relatable to the veldt in Ray Bradbury’s story “The Veldt” because the parents in “The Veldt” thought that by providing their children with this new technology they were helping to entertain them and enhance their lives, when in reality the veldt was detrimental to their well being and inhibited interaction between them and their parents. While programs like “Baby Einstein” are not as crazy as the veldt, they do make parents think they have the benefit of educating children while keeping them busy. Overall it seems the most important way to influence children’s well being is by providing them with personal interactions. Also “The Veldt” and Silverman’s article show that it is important to know the real costs and benefits of programs that may be sold as beneficial to children but in reality are not.

Feb 27

Nintendo Lazii

In an article originally appearing on HealthDay, Mary Marcus describes a surprising study on the Nintendo Wii and the effects it has on children being active. Despite the Nintendo Wii commonly being thought of as a healthy alternative to child video gaming, the study conducted by Dr. Tom Baranowski suggests this may not be the case.

Conducted by Dr. Baranowski of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, the study tracked the daily movements of 78 children who were given Nintendo Wiis by having them wear motion detector belts. Half of the children chose an “active” game, one that simulated dancing, boxing, etc., and the other half picked from “inactive” games, like Mario Kart Wii. After six weeks, the children were allowed to select a new game.

Dr. Baranowski expected that there would be an increase in physical activity from the children who were playing the “active” games at the beginning of the study, and then again at the midway point when the children were given a new game to play. But in contrast to his hyptothesis, Dr. Baranowski found, “there was no difference in the level of the activity between the treatment and control groups. What we detected at baseline, before playing active video games, was exactly the same in weeks one, six, seven and 12.” The results led the authors of the study to the conclusion that either the children were not playing the “active” games at the anticipated intensity level, or the children were compensating their expended energy by being less active throughout the day.

I believe that the findings of this study contradict the image of the Wii which Nintendo has created, one of fostering healthy and physically fit video game play for children. This puts the Wii in violation of the self-regulatory guidelines created in 2001 by the Children’s Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureaus which states that toy advertising must be truthful, as described by Howard Chudacoff in “The Commercialization and Co-optation of Children’s Play” (packet page 179).

“Lazy Wii Guy” from Comedy.com

Feb 27

Silence that Idiot Box!

In Jeff Jacoby’s article on the harmful effects of watching television on children, called Silence that idiot box!,  he argues that letting children watch extended periods of television on a daily basis is no different than giving them a drug that produces zombie like effects. He cites several other articles, including scientific publications from both the 1960’s and today, in his rant against what he also refers to as the “boob tube.” He points out that children who watch one or more hours a day of television are more likely to have poor assignment completion rates and negative attitudes towards school. Jacoby sums up a 2005 study published by the American Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine with these words: “Increased time spent watching television during childhood and adolescence was associated with a lower level of educational attainment by early adulthood.” He also points out studies which show correlation between children watching television and being more likely to smoke, be overweight, or suffer from sleep difficulties and high cholesterol.

Daily views of television in different countries from Boston.com

It is clear that that Jacoby is rabidly against the high volume of television watching that goes on in the world of children, but it might help to understand his point of view if we better understand his background. Jeff Jacoby works for the Boston Herald, is a nationally recognized conservative voice, he briefly practiced law, and has been a commentator for WBUR.

Jacoby points out children watching an extended period of television, and this relates to Bradbury’s story of The Veldt because of the fact that the children in the story Peter and Wendy have been corrupted by the nursery. The facts that the children would much rather have the nursery than have their parents are an extreme of the theory that children can be corrupted by television. In the story, The Veldt, the children are so dependent with the technology that natural activities seem like a chore to them. The fact that the children questioned and complained when their father wanted to move to a different house because the technology has been corrupting them shows that the authority of the household was not the parents but the technology. At the end, the children killed their parents with the help of technology controlling their overall thoughts. This story shows a fictional consequence of how technology can affect and corrupt children.

Feb 27

Who Needs Board Games?

In an attempt to make up for the lost profits in the fourth quarter of 2011, and stay with the evolving times, popular toy companies like Mattel and Hasbro are adding technology into recent editions of classic toys.  In an article from the New York Times entitled “Go Directly, Digitally to Jail? Classic Toys Learn New Clicks,” Stephanie Clifford, documents the integration of technology into the most historically loved toys.

Hot Wheels no longer need to travel along tracks of small pieces that that children slaved away putting together, instead the newest cars have sensors and move across an iPad screen.  Remember the game of Life, and the spinner that went up to ten instead of the traditional six on dice? Remember the excitement that would come across a child’s face as the ticking sound slowed before the coveted ten space spin? Well that can now be done on the iPad too! Who needs to physically spin the wheel?  Better yet, remember the kid who cheats and lies about how much money he had accumulated during a game of Monopoly? That won’t happen anymore because now the virtual monopoly counts your money for you! When I was growing up Barbie and her plethora of outfits was enough to occupy my time for hours, but perhaps watching their parents’ excessive use of technology has taught kids that imagination and dolls are not enough.  Mattel has now inserted a digital camera onto Barbie’s stomach with software to upload the photos and videos onto a computer.

While it is hard to say what Stephanie Clifford thinks of this parallel evolution of toys with technology, as it is more of an informative piece and less of an editorial, it is easy to see that the benefits technology brings, also brings significant problems. Just as we discussed in class after reading the Rad Bradbury short story “The Veldt,” children who become dependent on technology for entertainment lose out on the imagination and play that is essential to what we think of when we think of a child.  Monopoly wasn’t just a game to see who could collect the most money, but it also taught basic mathematic skills that are eliminated when the child no longer has to count their own money.  Additionally Monopoly was a social game, a family game, and now who needs family or friends when you can play against a computer! Remember how boring it would be when you had to wait for someone else to take his or her turn?  That too can be eliminated while playing with a computer! You can fast forward through their turn!

You definitely lose out not having board games be the way they used to, it is amazing how young kids can use the technology so efficiently.  The father in the YouTube video below seems to think the benefits and educational games that iPads and technology offer, could outweigh the loss of mathematics and socialization.

Video from YouTube of a 2 year old efficiently using an iPad and playing an educational game

Feb 27

Are Celebrities Parenting Our Children?

Chris Brown and Rihanna at the 2012 Grammy's - Much controversy over Brown performing at Grammy's

Most often, when we hear people criticizing the entertainment world, they are usually accusing celebrities or certain TV shows for not “setting a good example” or being a negative influence in children’s lives. However, in an article I found on Huffington Post, Chidubem Nwabufo claims that the fault really lies with the parents. The writer wrote the article in response to all of the media attention centered on the controversial Chris Brown and Rihanna relationship. Apparently, there have been many Facebook and Twitter posts commenting on their new song together that have all been along the lines of, “What kind of message is this supposed to send to our children?” Nwabufo argues that the problem is not the example that the celebrities are setting, but rather, the problem is that the parents are now relying so heavily on letting celebrities set the example for their children in the first place.

I found it extremely interesting to find an article written from this point of view. Most of the articles we have read and discussed in class have been a critique of the entertainment world and the effects it has on American children. Nwabufo claims that the celebrities are just doing their job, and it is the parents’ jobs (not the celebrities’) to teach their children right from wrong. In response to the writer’s claims, I would argue that he is correct when he says that it is a parent’s job to teach their children what is or is not appropriate, but, nevertheless, the children are always going to idolize Hollywood stars no matter what their parents try to tell them. I don’t believe parents are relying on celebrities at all to set a good example, but there is no way to ignore the fact these stars ARE influencing the youth of America. In a perfect world, parents would do such a great job of teaching their children right from wrong that the children would know who is an appropriate role model.

Feb 27

What Kids, or People, Should NOT Be Watching

With all the parents organizations and committees telling other parents what is appropriate for their kids to watch, the kids are stuck watching some really dumb shows.  According to the Parents Television Council the number one show that kids should be allowed to watch is Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.  Parents are always concerned with the content of shows, but this show, I believe has absolutely no educational value and barely any entertaining content, unless you think a grown man [Ty Pennington] crying and acting like a fool every five seconds is entertainment.  The show focuses on the carpenter Ty Pennington, who builds houses for the less fortunate.  The premise of the show seems as if it would be teaching kids good moral values such as giving to those who are less fortunate which is good and all but many of those people end up losing the house within the year because they cannot afford the house payments and the cost to maintain the houses are extremely high.  The dialogue of the show is also poorly written, if at all, and it comes out sounding very cheesy.  I believe shows like this cause people to become less intelligent and I would rather have my kids watch The Simpsons or Family Guy especially if I had to watch the shows with them.

The show deemed worst for kids to watch was Family Guy.  I do believe that some of the content of the show is somewhat inappropriate, but a lot of it goes over the kid’s heads anyway, and the dialogue is actually entertaining.  The show might make fun of pop culture in a sometimes vulgar way but they usually do it cleverly.  Family Guy can be pretty witty at times compared to Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.  The writers for Family Guy at least seem intelligent and I would rather have my kids watch a show written well.  I watched this show when I was younger with my brother and I know that I was never affected negatively by what I was seeing and hearing.

Spigel states in Welcome to the Dreamhouse that “mass media have been seen as a threatening force that circulates forbidden secrets to children,” but parents cannot shield their kids from everything they consider to be inappropriate all the time, they will learn these “secrets” eventually and when they do it does not mean that the kids will becomes delinquents, chances are most kids will turn out completely fine.  I do not advocate passive parenting, but with all the shows that are seen as inappropriate by overprotective parents, kids will eventually have nothing to watch.

Family Guy from google images

Feb 27

Modern Family goes too Far?

Cast of Modern Family

Huffington Post writer Ann Brenoff states that she is a big fan of “Modern Family” and that she loves the shows, “smart humor and characters”.  But in this article she rips the show and the Writers Guild of America, for letting a particular episode of “Modern Family” air.  The episode as she describes it is titled, “Virgin Territory” and deals with the sex life of the high school senior Haley who apparently has been sexually active for a while now with her boyfriend.  Then the father, Phil, says that he is the cool dad and should be more ok with his daughter being sexually active.  Brenoff takes offense to this statement and the rest of her article writes about how kids aren’t having sex as much as they used to be and that this show shouldn’t be showing lies to the youth of the country.  Brenoff then states that she knows that teens aren’t ready to be having sex by stating, “Seventeen-year-olds may be physically ready to have intercourse, but emotionally they are far from being able to handle it.”  Then she ends her article by stating that the writers of “Modern Family” should have had Haley hold out from sex with her boyfriend and that she has to wait until college.  Brenoff has a clear stance on what children/teens should see on T.V, and that is that T.V. is way to inappropriate for minds of our youth.

 

This article defienetly relates to fear in parenting that Chudacoff talks about in “The Commercialization and Co-optation of Children’s Play”.  Chudacoff commonly talked about the idea that T.V and videogames shaped the minds of young and inspired them in some way.  He states, “Oppurtunities for fantasy play mushroomed, but at the same time character and story lines shaped children’s amusements in a way that, at least in some fashion, overrode independent imagination” (pg. 185).  To me, this quote means that the imagination of a children’s mind is corrupted by some of what they see on T.V and that their imagination is based on some of the plots and characters they see.  So, a child instead of dreaming about powder-puff girls and cupcakes are now dreaming about the sex life of Haley on “Modern Family”.

 

Another relation to a reading from class, is the idea of who is the filter between the kid and what they see on T.V.  Spigel and her piece titled “Welcome to the Dreamhouse” argue that the parents, more specifically the mother, are the filter to their child’s T.V schedule.  Brenoff from the Huffington Post says something different in that, “The most-powerful lobbying group in America is the Writers guild of America.”  She then goes on and rips the writers of “Modern Family” and the guild for letting this air, but according to Spigel she has no business doing so and that is because this should be the mothers job not to let her child see it.  So overall, the ideas Brenoff talks about n her article and what we have been dealing with in class are very similar.  Why are parents scared of T.V?  Well according to Brenoff it is because of shows like this.  But with what we have discussed, there is still no way to tell how a teen or child would take in this information about sex, but somebody must relegate it, but we have to figure out How and who must relegate the television?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →