What age did your kids start watching television?

[Robinrs]

The guidelines say no screen time under the age of 2.

One if the things that really annoyed me about the AAP guidelines, once I'd read a good bit of the literature available from the AAP, was that these guidelines are propagated without any research based scientific proof of the outcome of TV/media exposure.

Here's the research the AAP suggest get done:Umm....a the AAP continues to make this recommendation without well established scientific research on the eventual outcome? What?

I was wondering what GUIDELINES? AAP? Only guidelines I used was MOM, DAD and GOD.

 

[marcyinPA]

I was wondering what GUIDELINES? AAP? Only guidelines I used was MOM, DAD and GOD.

I don't know how to multiquote on my phone.... But in response to the guidelines- yes, the AAP.

I am an early childhood educator and have been to many conference sessions on children and media and the effects of such. As an educator, and a parent, early exposure to media and the messages it sends are frightening. Our kids are a target audience for marketing and parents are being guilted, or scared, into products that our kids just do not need for social, physical and emotional growth. Buy this app, DVD, learning system, etc and your child will be brighter, smarter, more ready for a competitive world. It's bull. Not that those things won't teach kids, but you don't NEED them. What kids need are parents who spend time with them, talking to them, reading to them, and providing real world experiences.

That said, I believe in moderation. We live in a technological society so avoiding all forms of media is impossible. Popping your toddler in front of Barney for a half hour a day unlikely to do much damage if you are spending the rest of their awake time playing, reading, interacting, and exploring their world with them.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

Buy this app, DVD, learning system, etc and your child will be brighter, smarter, more ready for a competitive world. It's bull.

Below is an interesting article that relates to this idea. I suspect Disney was burned by the Baby Einstein educational claims (that it later had to rescind), and made a strategic decision to change the nature of its early childhood programming to story based, rather than educational based.

Kids' TV: Disney Channel's preschool programming switches message to social values
As the network replaces 'Playhouse Disney' with 'Disney Jr.,' preschool shows will shift emphasis from teaching ABCs and 1-2-3s to imparting social values in their storytelling.
February 13, 2011|By Yvonne Villarreal, Los Angeles Times

Once upon a time, according to Disney's upcoming show "Jake and the Never Land Pirates," there was a lonely little boy who wanted to be invited to play with the other children. But he never was. And years later, when the boy became a man, he was better known as Captain Hook.

This simple tale of social ethics is what the preschool set will begin seeing more of from the Disney Channel in the coming months and years. As the company officially retires its longtime, preschool-oriented "Playhouse Disney" and replaces it with "Disney Junior" on Monday, the fresh name will usher in a new emphasis within its preschool programming, one that cares less about teaching rudimentary academics and more about imparting social values.

For the past decade, preschool TV has been laced with basic educational lessons that included helping youngsters identify letters and numbers as on PBS' "Sesame Street" or even teaching simple words from a foreign language, as on Nickelodeon's "Dora the Explorer." The instruction may have comforted parents that the brains of their little Einsteins were not rotting in front of the big bad TV, but according to a six-month Disney study of 2,200 parents, they still wanted something more in their kids' shows.

"Parents are so consumed with 'How do I make sure my kid is going to be prepared for what lies ahead?'" said Nancy Kanter, senior vice president of Playhouse Disney Worldwide. But now "Moms are saying they want their kids to be emotionally strong to really understand how to live in the world. There's a huge place for storytelling to help do that."

In a world where iPads, video games and other gadgets are becoming learning tools — and distractions — for children, and other networks are producing heavily interactive shows for preschoolers, Disney Junior wants to counterprogram, in effect, with old-fashioned storytelling that contains social value messages. Disney executives hope the move will boost the TV channel's audience with the younger demographic, which, despite the company's marketing might and immense popularity, still largely prefers tuning in to Disney's competitors.

The strategy comes at a contentious time in mainstream parenting as the uproar over author Amy Chua's bestselling book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" demonstrates. In the polarizing memoir, the Yale law professor idolizes achievement and shares her tough-love parenting techniques that included rejecting a poorly made birthday card from her daughter, calling a daughter "garbage," refusing to allow sleepovers and denying a bathroom break to a daughter until a piano composition is mastered.

Though these stern measures are unlikely to inspire much Disney fare, they point up the challenge for Disney as it weaves ethics in a more pronounced way into programming aimed at youngsters. "We don't want to come across as preachy," said Kanter.

The goal of the show is not to moralize, but to prompt discussion between children and caretakers, explained Kanter. For example, one pilot episode shown to a group of parents and children showed a character who found a pair of sparkly blue cowboy boots that didn't belong to him. After initially convincing himself that it was OK to keep them, the character later realizes he should return them.

Kanter said the viewing led one daughter to ask her mother about a recent incident in their life. "The mom said the daughter came back to her and was like, 'Mom, remember that time we found that wallet in the street with money? We should have given it back,'" Kanter said. "The mother was so taken aback, she went back to watch the show with her. It opened this door for communication. Seeing it reflected in character and story — it's a whole different way to instill something in kids."

This is hardly the first time preschool programmers have grappled with infusing shows with values. Indeed, from the outset of PBS' venerable "Sesame Street," the 41-year-old children's program highlighted its own set of values, most notably, a celebration of diversity with a multicultural cast during a time when casting on television was almost entirely white.

"The truth is, Disney is not the first to do pro-social programming, and they won't be the last," said Michael Rich, founder and director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. "They are just trying to elbow their way into an arena that has really been defined by 'Sesame Street.' And it's not as easy as playing up the brand."

But capitalizing on their powerful brand is something with which Disney has had great success. The Disney Channel has created its share of kid sensations in recent years — "Hannah Montana," "Phineas and Ferb," and "Wizards of Waverly Place."

However, capturing the attention of the pint-sized demographic has proved a challenge. Disney has only one program in the top 10 for preschool programming, its seventh-ranked "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse." Meanwhile, Nickelodeon holds the top five slots, and PBS owns the rest.

So far, competitors don't seemed worried about Disney's new direction.

"It's fairly exhilarating in a lot of ways," said Linda Simensky, vice president of children's programming at PBS. "Competition forces us to try harder. And, frankly, I think there's no channel out there right now that could live without focusing on story and character, so it will be interesting."

Others doubt whether Disney's content will be able to truly distinguish itself.

"I think that all of the characters we have on Nick Jr. have really strong values and are great role models for kids," said Teri Weiss, a vice president of production and development for Nickelodeon Preschool Television. "Teaching them to be good to their friends and considerate of others — it's not unique to a particular brand."

While acknowledging the skill of their competitors, Disney executives believe basic storytelling principles have been sacrificed for the sake of cramming in educational basics. In some cases, they say, preschool programming has become so choppy and disjointed that episodes seem like game shows, with children calling out responses at home instead of being engrossed by a well-spun yarn.

Monday marks the official launch of Disney Junior, which will feature a daily 10-hour block of preschool programming on the Disney Channel. The segment, which will air from 4 a.m. to 2 p.m., will include new shows such as "Jake and the Never Land Pirates" but also retain previous programs such as "Handy Manny" and "Special Agent Oso."

By early 2012, Disney executives expect to expand the new brand to a 24-hour cable channel of its own in recognition of children's viewing habits that now extend far beyond the traditional morning blocks. The plan is for Disney Junior, which is expected to reach 75 million homes, to replace Disney's low-rated SOAPnet channel.

Disney Junior's new series will include "Jake and the Never Land Pirates," which premieres Monday and follows a swashbuckling band of boy outlaws as they try to outsmart Captain Hook. (And even though Hook is a bad guy, Jake invites him to play at the end of the episodes, an important social lesson, Kanter said.) There's also the tentatively titled "Little Princesses," still in development and expected to air when the 24-hour channel launches, which uses Disney princesses to teach gracious behavior; "Tinga Tinga Tales," an animated adventure series inspired by traditional African animal folktales; and, currently in production, "Doc McStuffins," about a young girl who tends to a zoo of stuffed animals and who illustrates the importance of lending a helping hand.

"I think what sometimes is overlooked — at least over the course of the last 10 to 15 years — is the role that storytelling actually has for kids and family in a developmental way, in a growth way, in a learning way," Kanter said. "It's in the Disney DNA to be great storytellers," Kanter said. "That's what the audience expects from us; with some of the other competitors, it's not in their DNA, it's not what's expected. What we're trying to do is play to our strength and I would hope that our competitors would play to theirs."

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I don't know how to multiquote on my phone.... But in response to the guidelines- yes, the AAP. I am an early childhood educator and have been to many conference sessions on children and media and the effects of such. As an educator, and a parent, early exposure to media and the messages it sends are frightening. Our kids are a target audience for marketing and parents are being guilted, or scared, into products that our kids just do not need for social, physical and emotional growth. Buy this app, DVD, learning system, etc and your child will be brighter, smarter, more ready for a competitive world. It's bull. Not that those things won't teach kids, but you don't NEED them. What kids need are parents who spend time with them, talking to them, reading to them, and providing real world experiences. That said, I believe in moderation. We live in a technological society so avoiding all forms of media is impossible. Popping your toddler in front of Barney for a half hour a day unlikely to do much damage if you are spending the rest of their awake time playing, reading, interacting, and exploring their world with them.

I agree with you, but I think this has much more to do with parenting than it does the role TV plays. Have my kids asked me for things they've seen on tv? Yes. And as the parent, I say no. Just like I've told them there are certain shows, even if "age appropriate" they are not allowed to watch.

My kids are all active and busy between school and after school activities, like most children, I'd suspect. If they want a little down time to unwind with the tv, I'm ok with it. Mine all watch more than they probably should and started earlier than recommended, but I honestly don't think it's harmed them. If it ever started affecting their sleep, grades, attitudes or if they ever chose it over playing with their friends, doing something with the family or outside time, it will have become a problem and we'd reevaluate the tv situation.

 

[njmom47]

Originally Posted by eliza61
I totally agree with other moms though, I would have let Satan watch the kids some days just to get 10 minutes on the toilet by myself

This made me too!!
With 3 kids (less than 4 yrs between oldest and youngest) tv or movies or something had to be on for me to get anything done!
I know dds (barely 2 1/2 and 1 yr at the time) were watching tv/movies in the morning when I was getting ready for work, the baby in the high chair and the older one at her little table and chair, eating dry cereal and drinking from a sippy cup. And I remember buying "Land Before Time" when McDonald's had the "buy a Value meal and get a movie for $5" for Christmas when they were 7 mos and almost 2.
I would say pretty much from the beginning of their lives.

 

[marcyinPA]

Below is an interesting article that relates to this idea. I suspect Disney was burned by the Baby Einstein educational claims (that it later had to rescind), and made a strategic decision to change the nature of its early childhood programming to story based, rather than educational based.

From a developmental standpoint, I'm glad to see these changes. However, you don't need any of these channels or their programs to educate and prepare children. Parents can do it themselves by providing open ended toys and playthings, real life experiences, and reading to their children. I honestly don't know if studies have been done comparing kids raised with TV/media with kids not exposed to TV but having solid parent interaction like I stated above, but I would be willing to bet money that the results would be the same, if not better, for parent based interaction.

A little bit of TV/media is probably not harmful in the long run, but it is not needed for solid growth. A lot of TV/media- a steady diet of several hours a day- probably not the best idea.

 

[Robinrs]

I don't know how to multiquote on my phone.... But in response to the guidelines- yes, the AAP.

I am an early childhood educator and have been to many conference sessions on children and media and the effects of such. As an educator, and a parent, early exposure to media and the messages it sends are frightening. Our kids are a target audience for marketing and parents are being guilted, or scared, into products that our kids just do not need for social, physical and emotional growth. Buy this app, DVD, learning system, etc and your child will be brighter, smarter, more ready for a competitive world. It's bull. Not that those things won't teach kids, but you don't NEED them. What kids need are parents who spend time with them, talking to them, reading to them, and providing real world experiences.

That said, I believe in moderation. We live in a technological society so avoiding all forms of media is impossible. Popping your toddler in front of Barney for a half hour a day unlikely to do much damage if you are spending the rest of their awake time playing, reading, interacting, and exploring their world with them.

Thanks for the clarification.

I've never gone to books or statistics to help me raise my child. I was lucky enough to be surrounded by successful parents who had already raised their children and followed their lead. I was also old enough to see the ones that DID NOT work.

I also believe in moderation and using TV like you use books. You can read pornography or you can read the Bible.. the same with television. Your children will mimic a lot of what you do and how you do it, always depending on the personality of the child.

Commercials has mostly been a source of income for my household so I raised him to understand the economic side of TV. I've heard him chastise his friends about the amount of commls in a show and he explained to them why they have to be there.

I raised him to know that the news is mostly entertainment, that programming is based on marketing and the bottom line is money. He has always seen TV as an industry, not just brain dead entertainment.

We've all been guilty of using it as a babysitter but never as the only source.

I've seen more children being ignored due to the parent being on a device than the child being propped up in front of it to entertain themselves.

I wonder if there's a study at the AAP about that?

 

[marcyinPA]

Thanks for the clarification.

I've seen more children being ignored due to the parent being on a device than the child being propped up in front of it to entertain themselves.

I wonder if there's a study at the AAP about that?

Yeah, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. We will probably see the outcome of technology attached parents down the road.

The big issue for me is the lack of interaction between people. Whether mom is on device constantly or toddler is watching hours of Nick Jr. everyday. Both, in my opinion, are not good.

I think, or at least I hope, that we can agree that the TV, or an iPad should never replace a human being reading to a child. Unfortunately, I have seen this way too many times in recent years (parent can't be bothered to read to a child so gives them the Nook that reads to them. SMH.)

 

[pigletgirl]

We swore up and down no screen time until 2 years old. That lasted 2 months until we discovered that BabyFirst TV could keep her attention for a few minutes while we got stuff done around the house. At 8 months she now gets a max of 2 hours a day, usually less, and it is broken up into little chunks. She also plays some of the BabyFirst apps on our phones our iPads if we are in a desperate situation (think middle of the sermon at church when we've gone through all quiet toys, books, and snacks volume urned off of course). She actually likes the TV less now that she plays independently with toys.

But when she is bored with our toys and need to get the dishes done BabyFirst TV comes to our rescue. God bless you, Harry the Bunny.

For me, I do it because she's always been a baby who is clingy that would like to be held 24/7 if I could. A friend of mine gave us her Baby Einstein DVD's and I was amazed how those shows kept DD's attention. I just hope she doesn't get too bored, too soon!

Sometimes she watches Disney Jr, but not as often.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

One if the things that really annoyed me about the AAP guidelines, once I'd read a good bit of the literature available from the AAP, was that these guidelines are propagated without any research based scientific proof of the outcome of TV/media exposure.

Here's the research the AAP suggest get done:Umm....a the AAP continues to make this recommendation without well established scientific research on the eventual outcome? What?

I think it's a sensible position for the AAP to take to suggest that parents avoid things where there is some evidence they may be harmful to children. Even if that evidence does not meet high standards. Surely, it's better for them to error on the side of labeling something benign as harmful, than on the opposite side.

I'm not saying that I don't understand individual parents make choices for their individual kids that differ from the AAP guidelines, but the AAP's voice is taken into account by things like regulations for daycares, and pediatrician's offices (my office just did away with TV in the waiting room).

 

[GrnMtnMan]

I think it's a sensible position for the AAP to take to suggest that parents avoid things where there is some evidence they may be harmful to children. Even if that evidence does not meet high standards. Surely, it's better for them to error on the side of labeling something benign as harmful, than on the opposite side.

its not a high standard thing...there is no evidence of any harm in the long term because there hasn't been adequate research! Yes, some research has shown near term correlation (slower language development, etc), but they haven't shown causation nor permanent impact.

To assume tv is bad is the same as assuming tv is good....without scientific research, they are just *assuming*. Doctors are scientists, and I think they are allowing some class and intellectual prejudice to cloud an issue where they really should not offer an opinion.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

its not a high standard thing...there is no evidence of any harm in the long term because there hasn't been adequate research! Yes, some research has shown near term correlation (slower language development, etc), but they haven't shown causation nor permanent impact.

To assume tv is bad is the same as assuming tv is good....without scientific research, they are just *assuming*. Doctors are scientists, and I think they are allowing some class and intellectual prejudice to cloud an issue where they really should not offer an opinion.

So, if you were making a decision that impacted your children's well being, let's say you were deciding whether or not to feed them something that might or might not be food, or to play on some equipment that might or might not be broken in a way that could cause it to collapse, or to ride their bikes on a street that might or might not be closed to traffic. In that case, would you say that assuming something isn't safe, is the same as assuming something is?

There is some evidence that TV is harmful to young kids. It's not conclusive, I agree, but until it is, I'm going to choose to avoid it.

 

[carissa1970]

LOL. my kids were late bloomers not because of any great parenting on my part but because our first house was a row home and the home at the end of the row caught fire, long story short, fire and water damaged all the units so we moved into an apartment with no tv. Have no idea why we just didn't buy a small one. not sure but I'm going to say maybe 3. I totally agree with other moms though, I would have let Satan watch the kids some days just to get 10 minutes on the toilet by myself

That Satan comment, so sad, yet so TRUE. I hear you!!!

 

[#1hoosierfan]

So, if you were making a decision that impacted your children's well being, let's say you were deciding whether or not to feed them something that might or might not be food, or to play on some equipment that might or might not be broken in a way that could cause it to collapse, or to ride their bikes on a street that might or might not be closed to traffic. In that case, would you say that assuming something isn't safe, is the same as assuming something is? There is some evidence that TV is harmful to young kids. It's not conclusive, I agree, but until it is, I'm going to choose to avoid it.

I do understand where you are going with this, but I hardly think it is fair to compare a person letting their child watch 15 minutes of TV while grabbing a shower with playing in traffic or eating inedible objects.

 

[luvsJack]

DD started really watching TV the moment I realized that Will Smith's voice singing the theme song to Fresh Prince somehow soothed that 5 pm crying jag that kept me from cooking supper for the rest of the family.

It worked, she stayed entertained long enough for me to get things going and her brothers to get settled in from school/after school activities and her father to get in from work and a shower so that she had plenty of folks to keep her entertained.

She didn't watch Barney, the Wiggles and such until she was older. Maybe 3?

For my sons, I don't honestly remember. But there weren't many kids shows other than PBS when they were little and none of my kids got into Sesame St. too much. Once they were old enough, they played outside all the time anyway.

We have always watched as a family though. Even now, dd has a TV in her room but rarely watches it.

 

[nugov2]

I do understand where you are going with this, but I hardly think it is fair to compare a person letting their child watch 15 minutes of TV while grabbing a shower with playing in traffic or eating inedible objects.

That and the fact that we can evaluate ourselves and the impact tv had on us. I watched quite a bit of tv growing up and I have had honors in school, college educated, avid reader, and very active with lots of friends. Dh also watched a lot of tv. Played sports, also honor student, full ride to college, not a reader though, but very active. If I use ourselves as a good base on the effect tv has had on us, it has had no negative impact at all and since our children share both of our DNA I think it is safe to assume that watching tv....even sometimes a lot more that what is recommended in combination with encouraging being active, reading, playing and other activities children grow up to be perfectly fine.

I choose to respectively disagree with the ADA and wonder what came first the negative side effects or the tv. Do people who are already inactive and overweight just gravitate to tv. Are people who are withdrawn watch tv b/c they don't feel comfortable around people. Do people with ADHD have trouble forming relationships so they seek out tv instead. How do we know that tv caused these so call side effects or that people who have these traits just don't seek out tv b/c that is what make people with those traits comfortable.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I do understand where you are going with this, but I hardly think it is fair to compare a person letting their child watch 15 minutes of TV while grabbing a shower with playing in traffic or eating inedible objects.

I don't have an issue with an individual parent deciding to let their child watch TV before their second birthday. I think that's a decision for each parent to make for their own child. God knows, I've made choices for my child that are less than ideal because they worked for my family and benefited everyone in the process.

But in addition to influencing individual families' choices, the AAP's decision influence policy on a grander scale. If the AAP means that daycare centers turn off the TV or limit it to the older kids, or that Early Head Start home visitors encourage families to find other ways to engage with their kids, then I'm in favor of that.

To argue that pediatricians, and the organization that speaks on their behalf, shouldn't speak up about something until there's conclusive research that it's harmful, is silly.

 

[#1hoosierfan]

I don't have an issue with an individual parent deciding to let their child watch TV before their second birthday. I think that's a decision for each parent to make for their own child. God knows, I've made choices for my child that are less than ideal because they worked for my family and benefited everyone in the process. But in addition to influencing individual families' choices, the AAP's decision influence policy on a grander scale. If the AAP means that daycare centers turn off the TV or limit it to the older kids, or that Early Head Start home visitors encourage families to find other ways to engage with their kids, then I'm in favor of that. To argue that pediatricians, and the organization that speaks on their behalf, shouldn't speak up about something until there's conclusive research that it's harmful, is silly.

I understand now and agree with you. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[nugov2]

I don't have an issue with an individual parent deciding to let their child watch TV before their second birthday. I think that's a decision for each parent to make for their own child. God knows, I've made choices for my child that are less than ideal because they worked for my family and benefited everyone in the process.

But in addition to influencing individual families' choices, the AAP's decision influence policy on a grander scale. If the AAP means that daycare centers turn off the TV or limit it to the older kids, or that Early Head Start home visitors encourage families to find other ways to engage with their kids, then I'm in favor of that.

To argue that pediatricians, and the organization that speaks on their behalf, shouldn't speak up about something until there's conclusive research that it's harmful, is silly.

I think this is key though. Family dinners, outtings, game nights etc should all be part of the routine. Just like anything moderation is key. Nothing that consumes your life is good.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I think this is key though. Family dinners, outtings, game nights etc should all be part of the routine. Just like anything moderation is key. Nothing that consumes your life is good.

I think that many families find that a policy of moderation in all things makes sense, and I'm fine with that. I also think that AAP guidelines should indicate the ideal and parents should take that into account, along with the realities of their family life and make the right choice for them. I also think that knowing that TV is less than ideal for young children, may lead parents who choose to have TV with little ones to limit it more than they would have otherwise. For example, a family might choose not to use TV in the background, even if they watch specific shows. Or they might choose to only use the "TV so I can shower" strategies on weekdays because the other parent can entertain the baby on weekends, or they might choose to have their preschooler watch a movie in a different room from their toddler or while the toddler naps. All of these things help "moderation" stay truly "moderation".

Another example is candy. I don't know the AAP's guidelines, but I imagine if they had one it would be something like "Don't feed your kids candy. It makes holes in their teeth." I agree 100% that is a good guideline. But the reality might be that I let my toddler have some chocolate Easter eggs because it's a family tradition, and I hate to buck tradition, and I gave him a lollipop on the airplane so he wouldn't cry, and once I took him to see a Broadway show and handed him a gummy bear every 5 minutes so he'd stay quiet (so worth it!), and we like to go trick or treating . . . I don't regret any of those, because the trade off were worth it, but I also don't expect the AAP to come out in favor of candy for toddlers and preschoolers just so I don't have to feel guilty.