To wonder why people get so defensive about babies watching tv?

[Quilty]

Just that really. Was at someone's house with 10 month old baby watching cbeebies, I jokingly comment that I will delay putting the tv on as long as possible (in reference to the irritating song that was currently on) - cue babies mum getting hugely defensive about how much tv the baby watches, how it's only on before bed etc etc and lecturing me about how it's a godsend when you need to distract them for 5 mins so you can go for a wee.

I in no way suggested that I thought she was doing anything wrong, so why such a defensive reaction?

[Kiwiinkits]

Don't be sarcy ceeveebee. You know what I meant.
Christ, why is this so controversial? I mean, we as parents try to give our kids healthy food, healthy physical activity, healthy relationships, good stable home lives etc etc etc. What's wrong with trying to give them the right start in terms of intellectual development? You'd think I'd pointed out that parents should be sitting down reading 20 books a day with their babies and taking them to baby signing every day or something like that. All I'm suggesting is that there are more appropriate activities for babies than TV. You don't have to be that creative to think up some alternatives.

[Kiwiinkits]

Meh. Maybe I do have a stick up my arse. It's not the only thing I'm catsbum about! I could lecture you all from the other side of the world about bedtimes if you like?

[FredFredGeorge]

Kiwinnkits Could you provide real evidence based research to back up your prejudices - wired articles and non-evidence based guidelines such that you've already linked too are not persuavive at all. The lack of evidence that it is the right start for intellectual development is the controversy, the correlation between lack of involvement and development and associated TV watching is documented, but there's no evidence I can find that link is causational and not simply a correlation. And uninvolved parents with no TV rules have just as poor outcomes.

Parents paying less attention to a child when a TV is on, is not the fault of TV watching, it's the fault of the parent - you can watch a TV program with your child, discuss etc. etc. all the same as "reading a story" together.

[TheFallenNinja]

It really wasn't a non judgy comment now was it? More like a passive snipe.

[quesadilla]

I think TV is one of those touchstone issues which people see as defining them class-wise (along with breastfeeding and organic food etc) which is why people get so sensitive and defensive about it and I think its quite out of proportion to the real risks and dangers TV poses. Established opinion also used to get very het up about novel-reading 100 or so years ago, thinking it was going to curdle women's brains etc. Every generation has a technological bogeyman.

Having said that I don't think its great to let kids watch TV for hours, unsupervised, and I think its as well to be aware of what they are watching. But the idea that watching an hour or so of CBeebies a day will give them ADHD or worse is just daft.

[FlouncingMintyy]

I thought we were talking about babies watching tv on this thread, not toddlers or young children.

[cory]

Have to say, if my baby had been doing something and a visiting friend said she would delay that activity as long as possible, then I would have felt she was judging it.

Wouldn't necessarily mean I was terribly hung up or defensive, just "if you're not judging, why are you taking the trouble to point out that you wouldn't be doing things this way?"

[MrTumblesBavarianFanbase]

quesadilla that is what always springs to my mind - the Victorians held opinions on reading novels which seem almost identical to those of our era on TV viewing.

Common sense does suggest prolonged exposure to fast flickery images is not a great thing for babies, but I contest the claim I recently read on another thread that under 3s learn nothing from TV - as my name suggests we are Something Special fans, and my 22 month old has, apart from anything, learnt an awful lot of MaKaton sign language (the usefulness of that could be questioned, but it is something that those who disapprove of TV often seek to teach their children by going to expensive classes). His language is ahead of average, which is pretty good considering he is bilingual (English/German, not English/Makaton :o ) . My middle one also finally learnt (or rather consolidated knowledge of) his colours from Something Special - he had the colour vocab but somehow hadn't clicked til they did an episode on colours, then it seemed to fall into place.

TV isn't evil unless it replaces parenting :)

A lot of people who say their babies/ children don't watch TV have TV on for themselves at various times but choose not to count it, but as far as I can see the fast flickery images charge stands as does the reducing parental interaction... mind you if you're MNing reading a parenting book while your child plays without your attention it's reducing your interaction with the child just as effectively :o

[Catchingmockingbirds]

Did you explain to her afterwards that you were meaning you found the music irritating?

[MortifiedAdams]

op because what you said to her may have come across as judgy. I dont put cartoons on for dd (14mo) as she has enough around the house to keep her entertained. Our tv is on all the time we are home though, with stuff to keep me entertained. As such she doesnt even give it a second glance

[Spero]

I think kiwi is right - as far as I recall there is clear evidence based research that ideally children under two should not watch tv or be exposed to other kinds of fast paced flickering images. Can't be arsed to google but wasn't it the big news about a year ago?

But the clue is the word 'ideal'. 90% of my parenting is not ideal, its good enough and that's good enough or me. But I always find when people get defensive about their choices, its because deep down they don't feel right about them.

Telly here and there, who cares? My daughter wasn't interested until she was 7 months, now she watches loads. Because I don't always have time or energy to be constantly interacting. That's life.

[Kiwiinkits]

Funny you ask, here's a study they discussed on the radio the other day. A full blown, cross referenced, peer reviewed, scientifically compiled longitudinal study on why too much tv is bad for children. Granted, it's not about babies per se. press release for longitudinal tv study

[Softlysoftly]

Oh bollocks dd1 is 3 now, dh watched Saw with her at 2 months I had a PFB meltdown because of all this pressurised bollocks and DH was at me.

She's now advanced for her age and isn't yet murdering small animals so I think he was probably right.

[Softlysoftly]

That research doesn't say what they were watching, when they were watching, what they did in between watching, what interaction they had with parents or others outside of tv, if they watched tv alone in their rooms, what age thy were.

Way too flimsy and the day itng is proved to cause antisocial behaviour in 11 month olds I'll eat my hat.

[Kiwiinkits]

Quite right Spero, we can't be perfect all the time. No one is. And tv is very convenient.
Mortified, having the tv on all the time is having effects on your baby's brain that you'd be surprised about. It may seem like shes not noticing it but I assure you she is.

[Dahlen]

I didn't let either of my DC watch any TV under the age of 2 because of research released by the American Pediatrics Association on the effects of TV on babies and toddlers. EVen now, my children's screen time is limited, too. That's my own, informed choice.

However, unless you are parking your child in front of it for hours on end, I think it's probably a massive over-reaction to claim children the country over are being damaged by watching TV. Yes, it's not ideal, but half an hour here or there, or a couple of hours when another child or parent is ill, etc, really isn't going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things, surely. It's about patterns of viewing, over time IMO. A well-cared-for baby, who gets lots of love, attention and other stimulation but who also watches an hour of TV a day is still going to do better IMO than a baby who is never exposed to TV but who doesn't get enough attention or love.

[Kiwiinkits]

Softly, you're right, those are downsides of the study (which is the most comprehensive if its kind). The authors of the methodology in the 70s didn't think of all possible permutations. But the study is consistent with numerous others that show a general view that tv has effects on a child's brain that are generally not that great (scientific, me)

[Locketjuice]

I have my tv on all day its just a background noise, I don't neglect my child, he isn't behind, I'm not a scummy mummy... Judge all you like

[slatternlymother]

It is very convenient. Especially with an only child. Half an hour of Peppa Pig on a weekend whilst I unpack the shopping is fabulous.

When he is poorly, it distracts him and keeps him occupied whilst he lays quietly on the sofa.

I use it as a tool, tbh. Nothing anyone could say otherwise would stop me from doing it. If half an hour here and there is bad parenting, then meh. I guess I'm a bad parent.



I think sitting them in front of the TV all day every day would simply make them bored, and it would lose its appeal, so when you actually need them to sit still for 5 minutes, they wouldn't sit in front of the TV quietly. Not sure if it would cause 'anitsocial' behaviour.

[slatternlymother]

antisocial sorry.

[LittleTurtle]

My 10 month old does not seem able to 'watch' TV. He's still just not interested. Does not seem to know/see what it is really.

His older brothers on the the other hand are another story. We have to disconnect the antennae, and switch off the internet connection for them. They do get twitchy though.

[ArtVandelay]

I agree with you MrTumble'sBFB - cbeebies is a huge support with teaching English. My son has learnt loads of new vocabulary and concepts. We do discuss the programmes while they are on and also afterwards.

I am not some genius super mother who can always be thinking of stuff to discuss. If we are having some quiet time in the house, we have always watched TV together and enjoyed it.

We spend a lot of time outdoors but sometimes I have to be indoors and do housework, study etc. I find DS will generally do stuff while he is watching not just gawp at the screen. I have the sound low as I'm terrified of loud noises damaging his hearing!

I don't allow Nickelodeon or Disney channel though because those shows are very, very fast paced and dramatic with little valuable information or morals. I am happy with the gentle pace of cbeebies and also its stance on inclusion.

Comparing TV to smoking around your child is hilarious :)

[Spero]

Bloody fucking hell at watching Saw with a child of any age. I do judge that. That's really nasty.

[Catchingmockingbirds]

I didn't have a tv when DS was aged between 2 and 4 yrs old but did when he was a baby, although it was mainly for digital radio. I hadn't realised tv wasn't recommended at all for babies (aside from babies/toddlers sat infront of the tv for long leriods of time obv), but yeh you're right; "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has recommended that children younger than 24 months of age not be exposed to television" m.abs.sagepub.com/content/48/5/505.short. I feel guilty now as DS loved in the night garden and would watch it before bed, I thought it was adorable and I'd planned on letting DD do the same when she's old enough to be interested in it.