Do you think the reason why more poorer children have tvs in their rooms is because their parents dont give a toss about them? That they want to lock their feral offspring away and forget about them so they can skin up in the shag piled front room and neck a few special brews?
The middle class parents obviously adore their gifted, slim children and want to spend every minute of every day with them or taking them to improving activities?
Or maybe quite a few poor families live in dog rough areas and they dont want to let their kids out after dark? There are no decent organised activities or if they are they are too expensive for the families to participate?
There are lazy, bad parents who are middle class and lazy, bad parents who are working class. Some parents dont want to spend time with their kids so they shove them in a room with a tv. Most do not. I think those families are probably pretty evenly spread. But the more affluent parents I know would rather die than admit their kids have a barbie princess dvd combo in their bedroom.
Personally I think tvs are fine in moderation. IF any of my kids have turned them on when without asking their tvs have been removed. This does the trick.
a PP mentioned that you wouldnt know if even a well behaved, trusted child watched a bit of sneaky late night telly. Well I dont know about the rest of you but my house doesnt have seperate wings AND I go to bed after my children. So I do know if they have switched their tvs on .
What I do find a bit odd is that I have friends who will allow their toddlers to watch charity shop videos of 90's kids shows but will not let them watch live tv. Presumably if their children were toddlers during the early 90's (as were my kids) this would have been unnacceptable? Kids tv is much better now IMO. More diverse, more educational and seems better researched to appeal to kids. I am talking about preschool stuff not pseudo surreal, kidadult crap cartoons of course