TV exposure in under twos
November 9, 2013 6:52 PM Subscribe
So I just read that the American Academy of Pediatricians recommends zero TV exposure for kids under two. I read that after we had worked our way through Ripper Street and Sons of Anarchy with 2 month old baby Merocet feeding and occasionally watching the screen. I have also let her see a couple of episodes of Waybuloo. I am scum.
We don't have the TV on in the background and it's not on during the day. Just a couple of shows a night or when we're less with it, episodes of Fringe one after another on Netflix. Last night we took her to the cinema for the first time and she saw some of Ender's Game!
What did you do? Did you all secretly stop watching TV or going to the cinema for 2 years and just stay quietly smug about it?
Parents of the internet, help!
We don't have the TV on in the background and it's not on during the day. Just a couple of shows a night or when we're less with it, episodes of Fringe one after another on Netflix. Last night we took her to the cinema for the first time and she saw some of Ender's Game!
What did you do? Did you all secretly stop watching TV or going to the cinema for 2 years and just stay quietly smug about it?
Parents of the internet, help!
Isn't this study in response to all those supposedly educational "Baby Einstein"-type videos?
Anyway, relax. What did I do when I raised my kids? I never turned on the TV and plopped my kids in front of it as the glass babysitter.
But I also never found any need to be smug about it, quietly or not.
posted by kinetic at 7:02 PM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Anyway, relax. What did I do when I raised my kids? I never turned on the TV and plopped my kids in front of it as the glass babysitter.
But I also never found any need to be smug about it, quietly or not.
posted by kinetic at 7:02 PM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Your baby is fine and there is no way she will remember seeing Ender's Game. Parents who watched TV before baby continue to watch it after baby. I bet your parents watched TV when you were a baby, and you made it!
They just don't want you to use your TV as a parent. As long as you're not sitting baby in front of the television alone for hours on end, you are doing just fine. Don't worry.
posted by goodbyewaffles at 7:03 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
They just don't want you to use your TV as a parent. As long as you're not sitting baby in front of the television alone for hours on end, you are doing just fine. Don't worry.
posted by goodbyewaffles at 7:03 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
My son is 13 months old and has been exposed to plenty of TV-as-background-noise at home. And he couldn't care less about what's on, he is too busy playing. The only time he'll stop and pay attention to it is when there is music on, and then it's only to dance along. I really wouldn't worry about it unless your kid is staring zombified at the TV.
posted by amro at 7:18 PM on November 9, 2013
posted by amro at 7:18 PM on November 9, 2013
First of all, don't freak out. Your baby is going to be ok. You can think it over and decide if you want to change anything.
I read these guidelines and looked at some of the research. It did seem compelling to me that there's evidence that looking at screens is not as good for kids as interacting with people or playing games with physical objects or reading. It also fits with my experience that screens covered with pretty flashing lights are mesmerizing, and that draws the attention of most people who are near them.
With my son we do try to follow the guidelines. (I hope saying this isn't quietly smug. Maybe it's loudly smug?) We watch shows after kiddo is asleep, we close laptops when he is in the room, and we turn off the screen when he plays with a cell phone. We even turn off the screen when taking to friends on skype, so they can see our son but our screen is dark. I will say that I tend toward the crazy anti-TV end of the spectrum, and most of my friends are more relaxed about it.
I would be curious what your daughter does while you watch shows. It sounds like it's mostly nursing (not watching the screen) with occasional glimpses of the pretty lights. Even as a professed no-screens-before-two adherent, I would so not worry about this. The first few months are all about doing whatever you can to survive the sleep deprivation and the physical recovery and the hormones and the OMG how the hell am I responsible for a small helpless human? As she gets older you can (if you want) taper the screen time. She'll want to interact more anyway.
Finally, remember the 80/20 rule. Be the best parent possible 80% of the time, and the other 20% isn't a catastrophe.
posted by medusa at 7:29 PM on November 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
I read these guidelines and looked at some of the research. It did seem compelling to me that there's evidence that looking at screens is not as good for kids as interacting with people or playing games with physical objects or reading. It also fits with my experience that screens covered with pretty flashing lights are mesmerizing, and that draws the attention of most people who are near them.
With my son we do try to follow the guidelines. (I hope saying this isn't quietly smug. Maybe it's loudly smug?) We watch shows after kiddo is asleep, we close laptops when he is in the room, and we turn off the screen when he plays with a cell phone. We even turn off the screen when taking to friends on skype, so they can see our son but our screen is dark. I will say that I tend toward the crazy anti-TV end of the spectrum, and most of my friends are more relaxed about it.
I would be curious what your daughter does while you watch shows. It sounds like it's mostly nursing (not watching the screen) with occasional glimpses of the pretty lights. Even as a professed no-screens-before-two adherent, I would so not worry about this. The first few months are all about doing whatever you can to survive the sleep deprivation and the physical recovery and the hormones and the OMG how the hell am I responsible for a small helpless human? As she gets older you can (if you want) taper the screen time. She'll want to interact more anyway.
Finally, remember the 80/20 rule. Be the best parent possible 80% of the time, and the other 20% isn't a catastrophe.
posted by medusa at 7:29 PM on November 9, 2013 [5 favorites]
You're fine.
I would wait to be concerned about this sort of thing until your child is 5 or 6 and accidentally walks in on you watching something scary/violent (like, say, ummm Aliens, not that I would have any direct experience with this) and has nightmares about those horrifying chestbursters and facehuggers for literally years. Again, not that I would have any experience with this at all.
Humor aside, seriously, it's fine. You are a great parent. Don't worry.
posted by Sara C. at 7:29 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would wait to be concerned about this sort of thing until your child is 5 or 6 and accidentally walks in on you watching something scary/violent (like, say, ummm Aliens, not that I would have any direct experience with this) and has nightmares about those horrifying chestbursters and facehuggers for literally years. Again, not that I would have any experience with this at all.
Humor aside, seriously, it's fine. You are a great parent. Don't worry.
posted by Sara C. at 7:29 PM on November 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Zero exposure is a tall order. Just don't use the TV as a babysitter and you're sorted.
posted by trip and a half at 7:37 PM on November 9, 2013
posted by trip and a half at 7:37 PM on November 9, 2013
If your kid had zero TV exposure before age two, then at least there'd be one. Don't worry about it, it sounds like you're doing a lot better on this front than most parents.
posted by gerryblog at 7:52 PM on November 9, 2013
posted by gerryblog at 7:52 PM on November 9, 2013
I didn't take my babies to the movies, but not because I was worried about them seeing the big screen--I didn't want others to be annoyed. That's why there are babysitters. But infants catching a glimpse of late-night TV or Mad Men or whatever isn't the end of the world. Mine are in their 20s and haven't suffered for tube viewing.
posted by Ideefixe at 8:03 PM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 8:03 PM on November 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I watched Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers every day when is as a baby, not to mention whatever else was on TV that my parents happened to be watching. (I know, for instance, that I was a month old and in front of the TV when my mom was watching the Challenger explosion on the news, but knowing my mom aside from that it was probably a lot of cheesy sci fi.)
I was the high school valedictorian.
Your kid is fine.
posted by phunniemee at 8:12 PM on November 9, 2013 [11 favorites]
I was the high school valedictorian.
Your kid is fine.
posted by phunniemee at 8:12 PM on November 9, 2013 [11 favorites]
I think it's worth considering that rec in context:
"Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2. A child's brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens."
As someone with an 11 month old I can say that sometimes - particularly when he was as young as yours is - he is not always interacting. At the point yours is at he was not all that often AWAKE.
Now, we did notice in the months after that he sometimes would turn to focus on the bright/moving lights of the tv. So when he was in that sort of wakefulness and noticed it... we'd turn it off, pretty much for the reason the AAP says - we wanted him to be doing something with his hands or moving, not sitting transfixed by the tv.
That said, at a lot of periods around that age he'd stare transfixed at a ceiling fan. So I don't think you need to turn yourself into a monk here - you just need to be mindful of when the kiddo is distracted by the tube.
Personally I have -zero- concern about the sound/noise from it. As far as I'm concerned it's exposure to words. I'm sure it would be better if he was hearing me talk constantly. However I need to attend to my own life and not want to jump off the roof. So that's not always going to happen. Sometimes when I'm feeding him breakfast I put on the Welcome to Nightvale podcast. It's possible he's going to develop an unhealthy attachment to geologists with beautiful hair but I'm thinking he'll be otherwise unharmed.
My feelings about the visual stimulation are more uncertain. I avoid having anything on with a lot of rapid movement and jump cuts. Sometimes - again, because I need to not want to die - I will put classic Sesame Street from Netflix streaming on while he's playing on the floor and I'm trying to do something. I'm not sure I'd be cool with doing that with a lot of the more whiz-bang modern programming, but in small doses I view it as auditory exposure. If he tended to focus on it intently I might have some misgivings, but his attention comes and goes and he doesn't neglect interacting with the physical world.
If you have Netflix streaming, by the way, it's absolutely fascinating to compare the pre-80s Sesame Street episodes with the newer stuff they have (from about 2006); a lot more practical exposure/life stuff vs more modern pure academic stuff. You don't see new stuff like the episode that focused a long segment on a broken shop window, the purpose of that window, and having the glazer come out to replace it.
posted by phearlez at 8:25 PM on November 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
"Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2. A child's brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens."
As someone with an 11 month old I can say that sometimes - particularly when he was as young as yours is - he is not always interacting. At the point yours is at he was not all that often AWAKE.
Now, we did notice in the months after that he sometimes would turn to focus on the bright/moving lights of the tv. So when he was in that sort of wakefulness and noticed it... we'd turn it off, pretty much for the reason the AAP says - we wanted him to be doing something with his hands or moving, not sitting transfixed by the tv.
That said, at a lot of periods around that age he'd stare transfixed at a ceiling fan. So I don't think you need to turn yourself into a monk here - you just need to be mindful of when the kiddo is distracted by the tube.
Personally I have -zero- concern about the sound/noise from it. As far as I'm concerned it's exposure to words. I'm sure it would be better if he was hearing me talk constantly. However I need to attend to my own life and not want to jump off the roof. So that's not always going to happen. Sometimes when I'm feeding him breakfast I put on the Welcome to Nightvale podcast. It's possible he's going to develop an unhealthy attachment to geologists with beautiful hair but I'm thinking he'll be otherwise unharmed.
My feelings about the visual stimulation are more uncertain. I avoid having anything on with a lot of rapid movement and jump cuts. Sometimes - again, because I need to not want to die - I will put classic Sesame Street from Netflix streaming on while he's playing on the floor and I'm trying to do something. I'm not sure I'd be cool with doing that with a lot of the more whiz-bang modern programming, but in small doses I view it as auditory exposure. If he tended to focus on it intently I might have some misgivings, but his attention comes and goes and he doesn't neglect interacting with the physical world.
If you have Netflix streaming, by the way, it's absolutely fascinating to compare the pre-80s Sesame Street episodes with the newer stuff they have (from about 2006); a lot more practical exposure/life stuff vs more modern pure academic stuff. You don't see new stuff like the episode that focused a long segment on a broken shop window, the purpose of that window, and having the glazer come out to replace it.
posted by phearlez at 8:25 PM on November 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
You do your best. My first was not yet two when I became pregnant with our second, and that pregnancy was a rough one- the "morning sickness" could be more aptly described as a bad hangover that lasted for six weeks. Did Sesame Street come to the rescue? You bet it did. Did I worry about that? Not even a little bit.
Parenting is tough. You will screw your kids up somehow, inevitably. Better to just relax and enjoy the fleeting time of infancy while it lasts.
posted by ambrosia at 8:36 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
Parenting is tough. You will screw your kids up somehow, inevitably. Better to just relax and enjoy the fleeting time of infancy while it lasts.
posted by ambrosia at 8:36 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I have a similar story to Phunimee - I watched a good deal of Sesame Street between the ages of zero and two. And as a result, I knew how to read when I was two and a half.
You're fine.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:52 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
You're fine.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:52 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think they're basing their recommendation off the research that shows neurological development in babies benefits the most from physical contact and stimulation, followed by how many words are directed at the baby during the course of the day. TV isn't likely to help with either.
Confounding factors and all that, most pediatricians I know feel like if they say zero hours/sodas/secondhand smoke parents will be more likely to pay attention.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 9:00 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
Confounding factors and all that, most pediatricians I know feel like if they say zero hours/sodas/secondhand smoke parents will be more likely to pay attention.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 9:00 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I forgot to mention that from their perspective, setting lifelong habits is pretty important, and the childhood obesity epidemic articles that arrive in my inbox on a weekly basis aren't getting any less bleak or alarmist.
Artificial lights and noises interfering with sleep patterns, whatever random stuff in your average building (my money's on fire retardant couch cushions) that may eventually be linked to increasing rates of childhood asthma, the importance of natural sunlight in preventing myopia in the developing eye, poor nutrition and socialization...I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of stuff. High weekly hours TV are seen as a proxy for all that.
You have to realize the professional organizations of many specialties spend a lot of time and energy focusing on how to cover their ass from whatever the next big thing is we don't know about. It's a lot easier to choose to say TV IS BAD, CHOOSY MOMS CHOOSE YURTS than be caught in the modern day equivalent of endorsing cigarettes.
Medicine in most other countries is conservative due to the need for cost containment, medicine here is conservative from fear overriding good judgment.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 9:17 PM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
Artificial lights and noises interfering with sleep patterns, whatever random stuff in your average building (my money's on fire retardant couch cushions) that may eventually be linked to increasing rates of childhood asthma, the importance of natural sunlight in preventing myopia in the developing eye, poor nutrition and socialization...I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of stuff. High weekly hours TV are seen as a proxy for all that.
You have to realize the professional organizations of many specialties spend a lot of time and energy focusing on how to cover their ass from whatever the next big thing is we don't know about. It's a lot easier to choose to say TV IS BAD, CHOOSY MOMS CHOOSE YURTS than be caught in the modern day equivalent of endorsing cigarettes.
Medicine in most other countries is conservative due to the need for cost containment, medicine here is conservative from fear overriding good judgment.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 9:17 PM on November 9, 2013 [4 favorites]
My daughter is two. Her favorite show is Curious George. She loves her dada and her grandma and she likes to collect fall leaves. She likes to pet kittens and when she counts to ten she usually forgets the number six. She says please and thank you and she helps me build fires in the fireplace. She makes sure her stuffed owl sit where he can see the book when we read bedtime stories.
Don't worry too about it.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 9:17 PM on November 9, 2013 [7 favorites]
Don't worry too about it.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 9:17 PM on November 9, 2013 [7 favorites]
True confession: When my baby was your baby's age, I totally plunked him down in front of one of those stupid Baby Einstein videos for 15 minutes a day so I could take a shower in peace. I knew it was not teaching him anything. But he did not like sitting in the bathroom with me. And I so, so liked to be clean, and so, so disliked rushing through a shower while he wailed.
Then when he was more like a preschooler, I let him watch PBS for an hour or so a day.
Now he is nine and he watches a lot of NOVA and Nature and he walks up to people and randomly says things like, "Did you know that a quantum computer can only function properly if you bring it near absolute zero? It's because they have to reduce the motion of the particles to get them to act more like waves. I saw that on NOVA Science Now."
So, I guess if you do not want to raise a geek, you might not want to let your child watch too many science documentaries on PBS.
posted by BlueJae at 9:26 PM on November 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
Then when he was more like a preschooler, I let him watch PBS for an hour or so a day.
Now he is nine and he watches a lot of NOVA and Nature and he walks up to people and randomly says things like, "Did you know that a quantum computer can only function properly if you bring it near absolute zero? It's because they have to reduce the motion of the particles to get them to act more like waves. I saw that on NOVA Science Now."
So, I guess if you do not want to raise a geek, you might not want to let your child watch too many science documentaries on PBS.
posted by BlueJae at 9:26 PM on November 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
I believe the point of these guidelines is to not use screens as a babysitter. Children need the social interaction to develop cognition/language well. I actually believe that there might be a "right" way to use screens with under 24 months. It all boils down to interaction with the caregiver/family members at the time. The huge problem, in my opinion, is when these things are done passively. Language without interaction helps them learn nothing. At 2 months though, you might be lucky to get a coo or some vegetative sounds at that point. If you are doing normal caregiver stuff, you'll probably be ok.
If you'd like to "atone" for your behavior here are some things that you can do to help your child's language development:
1 - Parallel talk
2. Talk to you kids a lot. Like all the time. Even if you are saying that you are bored - talk to them.
3. Since the little one is under 12 months, expose them to another language (that you think is awesome) so they can learn to discriminate phonemes that are unique to that language.
posted by Brent Parker at 9:36 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you'd like to "atone" for your behavior here are some things that you can do to help your child's language development:
1 - Parallel talk
2. Talk to you kids a lot. Like all the time. Even if you are saying that you are bored - talk to them.
3. Since the little one is under 12 months, expose them to another language (that you think is awesome) so they can learn to discriminate phonemes that are unique to that language.
posted by Brent Parker at 9:36 PM on November 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
A note from the 2nd study I linked:
Researchers who are experts on the effect of television on child development, Frederick J. Zimmerman, Ph.D. and Dimitri A, Christakis, M.D., M.P.H. conducted independent analyses of the impact of television time on parent-child interactions using data from the LENA Natural Language Study. They confirmed the negative impact of TV, importantly discovering that adult-child conversations (i.e., Conversational Turns) are a crucial aspect of a child’s language learning environment, more powerful than the quantity of adult words. In addition, they showed that at least one measurable effect television viewing may have is to reduce the number of such parent-child interactions.
- Was this time spent watching the TV reducing the number of interactions that you might have? Or as in BlueJae's case above, the child wasn't going to get any other interactions anyways - so why not give them a pretty screen to look at?
posted by Brent Parker at 9:45 PM on November 9, 2013
Researchers who are experts on the effect of television on child development, Frederick J. Zimmerman, Ph.D. and Dimitri A, Christakis, M.D., M.P.H. conducted independent analyses of the impact of television time on parent-child interactions using data from the LENA Natural Language Study. They confirmed the negative impact of TV, importantly discovering that adult-child conversations (i.e., Conversational Turns) are a crucial aspect of a child’s language learning environment, more powerful than the quantity of adult words. In addition, they showed that at least one measurable effect television viewing may have is to reduce the number of such parent-child interactions.
- Was this time spent watching the TV reducing the number of interactions that you might have? Or as in BlueJae's case above, the child wasn't going to get any other interactions anyways - so why not give them a pretty screen to look at?
posted by Brent Parker at 9:45 PM on November 9, 2013
Please give yourself a break. It's best not to have babies watching TV, or as folks are saying, to use it as a constant babysitter. But sometimes "bests" contradict each other. it's also best for moms to get to be grownups and feed their own minds and enjoy a show with their spouse. So in my opinion, as someone who was an anxious mother of a baby and now has older kids -- don't err *too* far in the direction of making your whole household only about Baby Needs. I wouldn't write this if I sensed this were a household where parents were neglecting the needs of children and clearly a lot of sacrifice is necessary. BUT in the big picture your baby also needs you to be a happy adult (and in my opinion, for that to happen you have to stay in touch with the person you were before she was born.)
posted by third rail at 9:46 PM on November 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by third rail at 9:46 PM on November 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
I read that those studies were population studies and that the kids watching tv were watching 4+ hours a day. So there are a lot of confounding factors between Family A where the kid doesn't watch TV and Family B where she watches it all afternoon. (It's kind of like breastfeeding studies; breastfeeding parents tend to be wealthier and more educated, so when they say breastfed kids exhibit various advantages, it's not simple to tease out what happens because of the money and what happens because of the schooling and what is actually an effect of the milk.)
posted by feets at 12:10 AM on November 10, 2013
posted by feets at 12:10 AM on November 10, 2013
I've read a study (which I can't find right now, grrr) which explained that the problem with TV and babies is that it interrupts their play. The lights and the noise draw their attention and interrupt their concentration on the task/toy at hand. Even if it's just a glance now and then, it takes them a lot of time to re-focus and sometimes they even forget what they were doing completely. This is bad for all kinds of mental processes. So I'm going to go against the grain and recommend zero TV for the baby (that's what we're trying to do).
Buuuut, in the first 2 or 3 months, you're basically in survival mode and need to do whatever helps you keep your sanity. Our "zero TV" baby has gone through Game of Thrones and Inspector Gently marathons (with sound off, closed captioning/subtitles only) while nursing or sleeping in our arms. Around 3 months, the lights started bothering him while he was sleeping, so we stopped it. Now we watch TV only when he's asleep in his room, and keep the volume low enough that he can't hear it. And we don't freak out when he catches 5 minutes of TV time while visiting the relatives or whatever.
posted by gakiko at 12:29 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Buuuut, in the first 2 or 3 months, you're basically in survival mode and need to do whatever helps you keep your sanity. Our "zero TV" baby has gone through Game of Thrones and Inspector Gently marathons (with sound off, closed captioning/subtitles only) while nursing or sleeping in our arms. Around 3 months, the lights started bothering him while he was sleeping, so we stopped it. Now we watch TV only when he's asleep in his room, and keep the volume low enough that he can't hear it. And we don't freak out when he catches 5 minutes of TV time while visiting the relatives or whatever.
posted by gakiko at 12:29 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Fuck it, I'm outing myself. From when our daughter was very young, she watched probably an hour of baby einstein a day (note: We did not believe it was in any way educational, and certainly not making her smarter/a genius). I don't think more, but I was pretty zombified, so who the hell knows, hey?
Why? Um, so we could
1) Take a shit
2) Shower
3) Half-heartedly clean something
4) Cook
5) Eat
6) Because we were just really, unbelievably just so goddamn tired and wanted a frigging break.
Kid is now two and bit, averages around 1 hour of tv a day, sometimes 2 if she/we are sick and the Wiggles dvd goes on. Laptops are often on in the background.
Does this make me a terrible parent? I really couldn't care. I wholly believe that those tv breaks had/have an impact: on us as parents. And it makes us better, more patient parents. While I'm shaming myself, we also found it helpful at meal times as our kid is an indifferent eater.
Our daughter seems to be doing fine; and we're both fine and watch a crapload of tv. Those studies are pretty horseshitty if you read them, in that, they take a real zero tolerance approach when actually there's no strong evidence that SOME tv or screen time does any tangible damage.
I dunno, as a parent, sometimes you gotta do what's good for the kid, and sometimes, you gotta do what's good for you. Don't immolate yourself because of holier-than-thou parenting advice.
Anecdotal: We have an ipad, our daughter is not very interested in it, lasts about 5 minutes max. She is far from being a screen addict, and happily plays with tv on or off. She likes sing alongs and dancing to Wiggles.
posted by smoke at 1:07 AM on November 10, 2013 [10 favorites]
Why? Um, so we could
1) Take a shit
2) Shower
3) Half-heartedly clean something
4) Cook
5) Eat
6) Because we were just really, unbelievably just so goddamn tired and wanted a frigging break.
Kid is now two and bit, averages around 1 hour of tv a day, sometimes 2 if she/we are sick and the Wiggles dvd goes on. Laptops are often on in the background.
Does this make me a terrible parent? I really couldn't care. I wholly believe that those tv breaks had/have an impact: on us as parents. And it makes us better, more patient parents. While I'm shaming myself, we also found it helpful at meal times as our kid is an indifferent eater.
Our daughter seems to be doing fine; and we're both fine and watch a crapload of tv. Those studies are pretty horseshitty if you read them, in that, they take a real zero tolerance approach when actually there's no strong evidence that SOME tv or screen time does any tangible damage.
I dunno, as a parent, sometimes you gotta do what's good for the kid, and sometimes, you gotta do what's good for you. Don't immolate yourself because of holier-than-thou parenting advice.
Anecdotal: We have an ipad, our daughter is not very interested in it, lasts about 5 minutes max. She is far from being a screen addict, and happily plays with tv on or off. She likes sing alongs and dancing to Wiggles.
posted by smoke at 1:07 AM on November 10, 2013 [10 favorites]
Yet another vote for: you're fine. Your baby will be fine.
When Daughter-One was an infant she was exposed to the TV we watched: mostly the news and Futurama re-runs. Upon toddlerhood we made it a little mind-stretching by asking her to name the weather lady and the news anchor, etc. (She learned Fry and Bender on her own.) She also asked for - and got - a lot of screen time looking at family photos and home movies on the computer. She got very good at naming her extended family and heard lots of old stories that way.
Now she and Daughter Two get Lady and the Tramp, Curious George, etc. as treats. More of them if Mommy is sick, or we're desperately behind in housework.
Daughter One is now 4, and a school district language specialist told us her verbal skills are "over the top."
We do see a distinct deterioration in her ability to concentrate if she's had too much screen time. No question. But it's a short-lived problem, and we've learned the limits.
I recommend screening for content. Bad behaviors and scary parts nix a movie. Fast-moving, loud overstimulating stuff eliminates a TV show.
Zero screen time is unrealistic and would eventually make her different from her peers.
posted by wjm at 2:15 AM on November 10, 2013
When Daughter-One was an infant she was exposed to the TV we watched: mostly the news and Futurama re-runs. Upon toddlerhood we made it a little mind-stretching by asking her to name the weather lady and the news anchor, etc. (She learned Fry and Bender on her own.) She also asked for - and got - a lot of screen time looking at family photos and home movies on the computer. She got very good at naming her extended family and heard lots of old stories that way.
Now she and Daughter Two get Lady and the Tramp, Curious George, etc. as treats. More of them if Mommy is sick, or we're desperately behind in housework.
Daughter One is now 4, and a school district language specialist told us her verbal skills are "over the top."
We do see a distinct deterioration in her ability to concentrate if she's had too much screen time. No question. But it's a short-lived problem, and we've learned the limits.
I recommend screening for content. Bad behaviors and scary parts nix a movie. Fast-moving, loud overstimulating stuff eliminates a TV show.
Zero screen time is unrealistic and would eventually make her different from her peers.
posted by wjm at 2:15 AM on November 10, 2013
Do not succumb to the childrearing anxiety gravy train. Anyone making hay out of exacerbating parental anxiety is effectively a bag of crap, irrespective of their intentions.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 2:36 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 2:36 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Nthing that it's about the screen time reducing direct interaction. There's also stuff about depth perception and colour range and the flicker, but most damning is the very rapid scene changing which is distracting and incoherent. Your kid video-skyping Grandma singing to her is an entirely different experience to parking her in front of a Teletubbies episode that can't alter to respond to her reactions.
We used the Baby Signing Time videos to keep our baby/toddler quiet for up to 20-30 minutes at a time. Other toddler-directed shows did not interest her, but BST was like infant crack. It saved my sanity when we were stuck in traffic and she did not want to interact with me, only wail hysterically at being trapped in a carseat. She also learned to sign early.
Now it's Elmo, Elmo, Elmo. I would feel bad about it, especially with friends who refuse to let their kids watch any screens, except that it's my kid + Elmo so we can actually shower and do stuff, or my kid + no screens + crazy exhausted parents.
You can actively watch with her - discuss what's happening, point to different characters, and so on and that is supposed to help a lot in reducing any deficits from screen time. If you need a screen to babysit, try interactive iPad apps as the healthier option.
However - my kid turns two soon and because of a long stint of Murder She Wrote that I watched in the background one month when I was sick in bed, she has a slightly disturbing vocabulary now about how the lady fell down with an owie and the man has a knife, and so on. She caught on faster than we expected, and we now have to carefully screen anything playing around her (including her sibling's devices) because she gets upset by guns, blood and people crying.
I would, in hindsight, have screened a lot more carefully. Even the little kids' shows can have weird stuff in them. And thanks Youtube, for allowing horror film trailers right before a clip of Pocoyo so my kid gets to freak out.
BTW, we have no TV - everything is by the internet, and my kids grew up without TV for a long time and you will not socially isolate your kids that way. You will get to avoid toy and movie ads yay! and choose what you actually want to watch by DVD. Toddlers do not need any screen time - you choose what works for your family. The ads are the WORST. I would give up any screentime for my kids if I had to include exposing them to TV ads. We used to use DVDs and VCDs pre-internet broadcasting.
posted by viggorlijah at 3:10 AM on November 10, 2013
We used the Baby Signing Time videos to keep our baby/toddler quiet for up to 20-30 minutes at a time. Other toddler-directed shows did not interest her, but BST was like infant crack. It saved my sanity when we were stuck in traffic and she did not want to interact with me, only wail hysterically at being trapped in a carseat. She also learned to sign early.
Now it's Elmo, Elmo, Elmo. I would feel bad about it, especially with friends who refuse to let their kids watch any screens, except that it's my kid + Elmo so we can actually shower and do stuff, or my kid + no screens + crazy exhausted parents.
You can actively watch with her - discuss what's happening, point to different characters, and so on and that is supposed to help a lot in reducing any deficits from screen time. If you need a screen to babysit, try interactive iPad apps as the healthier option.
However - my kid turns two soon and because of a long stint of Murder She Wrote that I watched in the background one month when I was sick in bed, she has a slightly disturbing vocabulary now about how the lady fell down with an owie and the man has a knife, and so on. She caught on faster than we expected, and we now have to carefully screen anything playing around her (including her sibling's devices) because she gets upset by guns, blood and people crying.
I would, in hindsight, have screened a lot more carefully. Even the little kids' shows can have weird stuff in them. And thanks Youtube, for allowing horror film trailers right before a clip of Pocoyo so my kid gets to freak out.
BTW, we have no TV - everything is by the internet, and my kids grew up without TV for a long time and you will not socially isolate your kids that way. You will get to avoid toy and movie ads yay! and choose what you actually want to watch by DVD. Toddlers do not need any screen time - you choose what works for your family. The ads are the WORST. I would give up any screentime for my kids if I had to include exposing them to TV ads. We used to use DVDs and VCDs pre-internet broadcasting.
posted by viggorlijah at 3:10 AM on November 10, 2013
I watched tons of Barney as a baby, to the point of being completely transfixed. It helped my parents get me to eat, and like others have said, gave them a break (I was reportedly a bit of a handful as a baby). The TV was actually a huge staple of my childhood - it was always on, often as background noise while I played but I remember actively watching a lot too (and some of it wasn't exactly age appropriate, I watched a lot of somewhat raunchy sitcoms as a preschooler).
Like phunniemee, I graduated high school with a 4.12 GPA, scored a 33 on my ACT, and kept a 3.98 GPA in college. Your kid will without a doubt be fine even if you choose to expose her to television.
posted by sarahgrace at 3:15 AM on November 10, 2013
Like phunniemee, I graduated high school with a 4.12 GPA, scored a 33 on my ACT, and kept a 3.98 GPA in college. Your kid will without a doubt be fine even if you choose to expose her to television.
posted by sarahgrace at 3:15 AM on November 10, 2013
Scientific studies prove that if you can keep advertising out of your home, both you and your kids will be 32% better! New improved classic parenting! Get yours today!
The kids are yours to keep, even if you return the cards.
posted by flabdablet at 3:59 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
The kids are yours to keep, even if you return the cards.
posted by flabdablet at 3:59 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Guys, we need to stick more to the question of what's recommended/best for the child, and not stray into discussions of whether babies in cinemas are annoying, etc. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:06 AM on November 10, 2013
posted by taz (staff) at 5:06 AM on November 10, 2013
medusa: I read these guidelines and looked at some of the research.
Would you mind sharing some links to the specific research under discussion? None of the recent news coverage seems to be linking the specific studies. All I can find is articles like this, which mentions "dozens" of studies suggesting there's very little educational value to television for the under-2 set:
But until about age 2, studies show that young children can’t cognitively comprehend what’s being said [on television] and retain that information. Dozens of studies affirming that finding were what prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to update its policy statement on media use for kids under 2 on Tuesday. The upshot: there is no such thing as educational TV for this bunch.
Maybe there's just too much of it to link? But I'd love to see at least some of the studies they're using.
feets: I read that those studies were population studies and that the kids watching tv were watching 4+ hours a day.
I'm not sure what studies you're referring to, but there have apparently been many, of many different kinds, for decades now. Some of them use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which asked parents about kids' tv viewing habits and got a variety of responses.
posted by mediareport at 7:52 AM on November 10, 2013
Would you mind sharing some links to the specific research under discussion? None of the recent news coverage seems to be linking the specific studies. All I can find is articles like this, which mentions "dozens" of studies suggesting there's very little educational value to television for the under-2 set:
But until about age 2, studies show that young children can’t cognitively comprehend what’s being said [on television] and retain that information. Dozens of studies affirming that finding were what prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to update its policy statement on media use for kids under 2 on Tuesday. The upshot: there is no such thing as educational TV for this bunch.
Maybe there's just too much of it to link? But I'd love to see at least some of the studies they're using.
feets: I read that those studies were population studies and that the kids watching tv were watching 4+ hours a day.
I'm not sure what studies you're referring to, but there have apparently been many, of many different kinds, for decades now. Some of them use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which asked parents about kids' tv viewing habits and got a variety of responses.
posted by mediareport at 7:52 AM on November 10, 2013
I haven't yet taken my daughter to the cinema, and she's two and a half. Mainly because of the volume - I find it unbearably loud, let alone for her tiny sensitive ears. TV I'm not so fussed about, but I do have to echo other respondents in that please don't feel guilty, but also don't plop the baby down in front of the Disney Channel for eight hours at a time. Use your discretion, use TV as a means to further interact and enhance your time together, not let it be a barrier. And hey, in a year you can do yoga together along with Waybuloo!
posted by goo at 9:22 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by goo at 9:22 AM on November 10, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks all. Feel a lot more sane now although we have spent the day with Beethoven (the composer, not the dog) playing in the background. We're going to lay off the child specific TV, watch a few shows for us here and there, and make sure she's not facing the screen. I'm her stay-at-home parent dad so there's no way she'll lack for conversation and songs and games, painting, drawing, music making etc. as I did all that stuff before she arrived.
And to allay the fears of the cinema worriers, we would have been out of there at the first peep from the little lady. She did great though, slept right through. Don't know what she'd have been like if it had been a good movie though.
posted by merocet at 11:46 AM on November 10, 2013
And to allay the fears of the cinema worriers, we would have been out of there at the first peep from the little lady. She did great though, slept right through. Don't know what she'd have been like if it had been a good movie though.
posted by merocet at 11:46 AM on November 10, 2013
I'm super late to this tread, and IMNA parent, but I am a scientist who did my masters thesis on cognitive development. Some experimental studies that have been conducted about child media mostly show that young children don't really learn from television (where learning is operationalized as stuff like picking up new words). Young children do, however, learn from interaction with actual people. The worry is that time spent in front of the television means time spent away from caregivers. Sounds like you're spending some good quality time with the baby, so I wouldn't worry too much.
This is ancedata, but in the developmental lab where I used to work most of the 18-month-olds were super obsessed with Elmo. The parents claimed that they never, ever let their kids watch tv, but the kids seemed to know their tv characters. And they were totally fine.
posted by therumsgone at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
This is ancedata, but in the developmental lab where I used to work most of the 18-month-olds were super obsessed with Elmo. The parents claimed that they never, ever let their kids watch tv, but the kids seemed to know their tv characters. And they were totally fine.
posted by therumsgone at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
The rationale behind this rule is that children don't really learn anything while exposed to tv, and since the timelines for their development are so short, they can't really afford to waste hours upon hours not learning what they're meant to learn. Them watching the occassional show is not going to cause excessive harm.
You sound like a wonderful parent, and I'm glad to see that you're taking it so seriously, but please feel free to take a deep sigh of relief and continue to watch as you please.
posted by valoius at 7:02 PM on November 9, 2013 [57 favorites]