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?

[Iggly]

Tv is shit for babies, let's not pretend otherwise.

However if people want to let them watch it, then who cares I will judge silently

I will add that I held off on letting ds watch any until nearly 2. And once dd arrived and I was getting 20-45 mins blocks of sleep at night, he watched far too much.

I knew it was too much and felt guilty. We've cut down again and dd who's 15 months doesn't watch any.

[Spero]

If half an hour of cbeebies at bedtime is going to 'harm' your child then as a species we are doomed.

I would imagine just as much 'harm' is done by the stressed out parents of my acquaintance who get so upset and worked up that little hyacinth has gone over her 20 minutes of screen time that day. Meanwhile I am cackling to myself behind the newspaper as another Simpsons hits the screen.

It's about moderation and variation. If you stick the telly on for hours and hours each day and do nothing else, then without doubt you are a bad parent, for all sorts of reasons. But a few hours here and there, even for young children, I cannot see will cause them serious damage.

[Iggly]

A few hours a day is a lot IMO especially for a baby that spends more of 24 hours asleep than awake.

I didnt stress out - I just felt a bit guilty. Then turned it off. It didn't help DS's behaviour at all - he's like a zombie when watching which can't be right.

[LadyBeagleEyes]

I dunno, ds watched loads of tv, when he was little and he's 18 this year and off to university in September.
He still got a bedtime story every night and chose to play outside with his mates when he was older.
There are some people that look on the past as some sort of idyll, and tv, computers and mobiles are seen as something evil.
But it's the 21st century, this is the norm now.

[PanpiperAtTheGatesOfYawn]

Do babies actually 'watch' TV though? When DD1 is watching it, DD2 just ignores it and bumbles around doing her own baby thing with me, same in my friend's house.

[ArmchairDetective]

My personal opinion is that Tv is a blessing and a course.

I tried to keep my PFB away for TV for almost a year, then when she was nearing a year she did watch a bit of night garden.

The good thing about not having TV on a lot ( I never had it on for myself in the day either) was that she never asked for it.

However, when DC2 was born, I had to use the TV sometimes to give her something to do while I was upstairs trying to get the baby to nap.

I tried to keep DC2 away from it as much as I could but DD1 started to ask for more TV the more TV she was introduced to.

Now DC2 is older they both like to watch together. I do try to limit it though as I don't like being asked to put it on all the time. The less they watch the more of a treat it is when I put it on at a time convenient to me (when preparing tea for example).

I do find that if they watch a lot, they get very lethargic and grumpy afterwards so it's definately not a good idea putting it on before DD1 goes to school but it's better when she's tired and grumpy anyway.

The difficulty with limiting TV is that as soon as my DC go to my relatives the TV often gets put on and I find it more difficult to limit it. It seems rude to ask GPs to switch it off but I do try to set up an activity or game if they've watched a bit too much.

Over Christmas they watched loads in other people's houses and were then asking me for it constantly for a while which I hated. They stopped playing with their toys and I honestly wondered why I'd bothered buying them.

The other thing that annoys me is that if DP is looking after them, he tends to just switch the TV on for an easy life.

Sorry for waffling but I think my point is I don't think TV in moderation is bad but be careful as you might end up with TV addicts who whinge and moan for cbeebies the moment they get out of bed.

[LadyBeagleEyes]

I was brought up with the Flowerpot Men and Weeed Miaow.
I wonder if that's the reason I smoked cannabis?

[cory]

We didn't have a telly when dc were little. They are absolutely outstanding and wonderful in every respect pretty well the same as other people's brats really

[ArtVandelay]

Then maybe DS will grow up to live in a shed on an island and make lots of porridge because he idolises Abney :)

[Summerblaze]

Don't think that TV causes people to be axe murderers. What a load of rubbish. With my DD (PFB), I had TV on most of the day when we were at home. Obviously I went out to the shops, walk or visit people but when we were at home, it was on. It wasn't children's programmes but mine.

She was very early to talk and a very well rounded child who likes to do most things and she is coming up to 9. I watched a lot of TV as a child too. I still like the TV but my interaction skills are excellent (gossiping) and I too was an early talker and could read by the age of 3.

Surely if the studies are right, this wouldn't be the case. So the studies must be wrong. The studies never state how much other interaction is going on. If I stuck my child in a room and never spoke to him/her, then surely their development would be delayed whether there was a tv on or not.

Obviously I interact with my DC but nobody can do that all of the time. While you are on MN, you are not interacting either.

[Wishihadabs]

I think the idea that TV seriously damages children is laughable TBH. By that I mean age appropriate TV, distressing images are distressing for small children. I remember when Ds was 2 or 3 he got terribly upset by the news I had on at lunchtime.

I think having it on "in the background " is much more damaging than a couple of ageaappropriate programs. The dcs are now 6& 9 and I am constantly surprised how well educated they are about current affairs (news round), history (horrible histories) and medicine (ouch I think). I think it helps us discuss a much wider range of subjects than I would if left to my own devices. It has also inspired us to find out more about certain subjects and organised days out.

[Spero]

It is not as simple as saying - tv makes you an axe murderer. There is a lot more going on in your life to make you an axe murderer.

But I can say very clearly that a majority of the damaged and disadvantaged children I have ever worked with have had frequent exposure to violent and pornographic stuff on tv, mobile phones etc. at the very least it desensitises you.

I still remember watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre aged 10 with my even younger brother. He was allowed to take it from video rental place. My parents didn't know. I just don't believe that watching that kind of sadistic and abusive shit has no negative effects.

[Iggly]

So Summer because your own daughter is fine then all of the studies must be wrong?

We all know that we're getting fatter as a nation. Kids play outside less. Tv has something to do with it, let's not pretend otherwise.

[ArmchairDetective]

"While you are on MN, you are not interacting either."

True but I can only do that while mine are napping or in bed as they would be climbing onto my lap and trying to take over the computer, ask for cbeebies or songs from You Tube.

I don't get much peace when mine are awake

[Spero]

Summer, a sample of one does not disprove other research.

[ArmchairDetective]

"at the very least it desensitises you"

Would agree with that. My DD was frightened when the school showed the gruffalo film at Christmas and the teacher had to tell me as she thought DD would come home saying "we were watching a scary film today" and I'd be wondering what the school had shown them. It was like water off a duck's back to most of the children.

[ArmchairDetective]

That's not meant to sound smug, just that she isn't used to films like that with lots of "scary characters". Cbeebies is rather more tame.

[Wishihadabs]

I think the idea that TV seriously damages children is laughable TBH. By that I mean age appropriate TV, distressing images are distressing for small children. I remember when Ds was 2 or 3 he got terribly upset by the news I had on at lunchtime.

I think having it on "in the background " is much more damaging than a couple of ageaappropriate programs. The dcs are now 6& 9 and I am constantly surprised how well educated they are about current affairs (news round), history (horrible histories) and medicine (ouch I think). I think it helps us discuss a much wider range of subjects than I would if left to my own devices. It has also inspired us to find out more about certain subjects and organised days out.

[Spero]

I watched the first Harry potter with my daughter when she was four (caravan holiday, rain) and she was terrified to go to the toilet for A YEAR because Lord Voldemort lived down there. So I think you do have to be careful and you should certainly be monitoring what your children access.

[grumpyinthemorning]

Oh, FGS, there's TV or music on all day in my house, hasn't done DS any harm. The first year would have been hell without my XBox. We talk along to a lot of programs, but it's also good for occupying him when I do housework (otherwise it would never get done - when I was a lone parent, there just weren't enough hours in the day. Now there still aren't, but I can get DP to do his share.)

Happy parent = happy child, and I go crazy without noise. Simple as that.

[Summerblaze]

Its just the same as saying that because some children who watch tv end up with behavioural problems, ADHD, Autism, become criminals, then it must be bad.

I am not saying that my daughter is brilliant because of tv, I am saying that she is who she is and I believe would have been exactly the same regardless of tv watching or not. Who is to know what the studied children would have been like if they hadn't watched a lot of tv. They could have been exactly the same. Unfortunately with studies, you cannot do the same thing with the same child and children are all different. Two children could be plonked in front of a tv all day for 6 months and one could be fine and another could be delayed.

And I don't believe I said that they should be watching violent and pornographic stuff. That is a completely separate issue. The issue on this thread is with age appropriate programmes.

[Feminine]

I have a nephew that was plonked in front of the TV for hours between the ages of 0-6.

When he started school he was already top of the class, and continues to be an A* student at 16yrs. I was very judgy at the time, very that his parents were alright with it. But...it has had no ill effects at all.

My son, who I monitored (with TV) is( by comparison) quite lazy at school!

[ICBINEG]

I am really startled by the idea that kids under two can't get anything from TV shows and generally don't understand what is on the screen.

My DD has, since about 14 mo, copied, acted out and told me about the things the octonauts get up to. (eg. she spent a week feeding her playmobile characters to a toy shark then yelling 'Oh noooo' and getting a kiss better for them).

Likewise when she sees letters she tends to mime whatever the phonics song item is for that letter (that she has only encountered on youtube).

So really not getting how it can be that she isn't getting anything from screen time.....

[Fakebook]

My dd watches lots of tv and so does my DS. I don't care. They also play on the laptop and iPhone.