Babies and TV

[taliac]

How much is okay? Any? Some as long as its age appropriate / educational? I've researched but can only find scare stories or PR for baby dvds online - does anyone know what the facts are (assuming there are some?)

Any opinions / info appreciated.

No tv at all is undoubtedly best - and the best is what we should all aspire to. There's some evidence now to suggest that the very fact of watching tv (regardless of how educational the content) is bad for the development of children's brains and concentration. My 15 month old daughter hasn't watched any tv (or been in the room while it's on) since we read an article on the subject when she was a few months old... (if I can find the link to the article I had on this I shall post it here later). That said, there's no point in beating yourself up about it: if allowing your little one to watch 1/2 an hour of teletubbies a day while you have a cup of tea is what it takes to keep you sane and make you able to be a more effective parent the rest of the day, then go ahead.

The way I see it is that NOT watching tv does no harm. Some tv MIGHT do harm (inconclusive), so surely it's better to go with the no tv.

I am referring to very young babies and children btw which is what the OP was about.

paysdeqex - i would like to see what evidence you have that proves beyond any doubt that "no tv is undoubtedly best". I can be an effective parent without teletubbies and that cup of tea, but as my little boy enjoys it so much i see no reason why he should be denied that half an hour. I certainly still "aspire for the best" for my child. It is ultimately a matter of opinion - you can't just announce that none is best when there is no objective proof.

paysdegex, your dd 'hasn't been in the room while the tv is on'. So you can watch it but she can't {hmm]
I prefer to lead by example. We watch documentaries, the news, the kids watch the night garden, some thomas, a disney vid, its not on all day.
If I decided that my child was to have no tv then there would be no tv in the house.

I think that's fair enough actually; if you feel no tv is best for a child of 15 months, that's fine; it doesn't mean the adults can't watch it; they're adults, it's not the same, they are grown and developed and it won't have the same effect on their brains!

If Pays thinks no tv for her 15 month old that is a parenting decision, not a lifestyle for the whole family decision.

hmm. Sorry this is a long one, but, if we are talking about 'evidence'...

There is a very recent (aug 07) article in the Journal of Pediatrics, which says ?there is no clear evidence of a benefit coming from baby DVDs and videos and there is some suggestion of harm... (and) the amount of viewing does matter.? Hardly conclusive. This really reminds me of the alcohol in pregnancy thing - because it is so difficult to prove that a little does NOT cause harm, the line taken by the health agencies is to advise complete abstention.. but that doesn't mean a little DOES cause harm. I guess most of us know that sitting our baby in front of a TV for hours, and not interacting with him or her is not a good thing. But these studies are talking about TV being bad when it consistently takes the place of social interaction This does not mean that TV in itself is bad. You could argue that ANYTHING you do to entertain your baby while you are busy, like plonking him under a mobile, is 'bad', given these criteria.
Other researchers reckon (Rachel Barr, Prof at Georgetown Uni - who is also publishing a study this year and says) it is the TYPE of TV and CONTEXT in which babies are exposed to it. Apparently if the tv is on in the room while your baby is playing, it can interfere with his/her play and not be so good.
and... the TV can be beneficial (gasp!) if you use it as a source for interaction (even if that only means commenting on what is happening on the telly while you chop carrots. Well, maybe not chop carrots. Could be bloody if you aren't watching the knife.)

There is an important distinction to be made between quality educational content, and crappy commercial vehicles/ advertising.
Also, there is some research to suggest that television content is growing increasingly complex as viewers demand more sophisticated plot-lines and three-dimensional characters (read Everything Bad is Good for You).
Lastly, the important thing is to make watching (or not) part of a spectrum of experiences for the child, and something that is done together as well as occasionally alone.

No TV at all is 'undoubtably best and the best is what we should all aspire to'?? Jesus, woman, I'm raising a child here, not trying to win a gold medal at the sodding Olympics. How about 'whatever works for you and your baby is best, and our best should be good enough'?

I shall now repair to my front room and spend a happy two hours watching The Wire. Nothing like someone telling me I shouldn't be doing something to make me want to do it.

DaisyMOO you may not have wanted to cause offense, but I am a little offended at your post!!

I said I sometimes go in and the CM has the television on. She caters for children from one year to 14. It is the older ones sitting watching the television while the younger ones are playing. I stress the television is on sometimes

My daughter has very good speech as well, she knows all her colours and can almost count to ten (she misses "three" for some reason - maybe its too much television) and she will have proper conversations with me rather than babbling. We sit and read books together, in between the cooking I'm sitting with her watching FiFi and we're talking about how Stingo is naughty, and talk about what they are doing.

Yes it is down to the individual in how they choose to raise their children, but it is a bit harsh to suggest that parents who allow a small amount of television are harming their children.

paysdegex - were you aiming to be patronising? Not sure if I'm reading right between the lines on your post!

As I said, I find it really bad when parents I know sit and say "I'm not telling my child eat chocolate" and proceed to spend their evening scoffing a huge family chocolate bar, and the same goes for television. If you are that against children eating chocolate / wathcing television etc then lead by example, not a do as I say, not as I do which infuriates me!!

(D'oh, thats what I get for watching CSI while posting, it should be I'm not LETTING my child eat chocolate)

Quite a measured article here from the University of Maine that recommends moderation and active moderating of TV content by parents. It also says, "the Research Center for Families and Children indicates that moderate television watching with discretion in program viewing can be somewhat beneficial for school age children... those children who watched a moderate amount of TV performed better academically than those children who excessively watched television or those children who did not watch television at all."

I spoke to my MIL about how much TV she thought was alright and she told me that when DH was a toddler there was only Watch With Mother on TV and it lasted 15 minutes. So I try and keep DS's TV consumption to no more than 20 mins a day of Pingu, Oswald or In The Night Garden and none on weekends

I agree with your husband. In the BBC4 documentary about children's programmes now, Andrew Collins said, 'If you'd told us as kids there was going to be telly just for kids from 7am to 7pm and we could have watched as much of it as we liked, we'd have thought Christmas had come and we'd have watched it all that day and the next day as well.' There were natural breaks when I was a kid - from Take Hart to Why Don't You on holiday mornings, and you always left half way through Why Don't You because it was boring.

But isn't this about the youngness - wasn't the original post more about actual babies and the efficacy of baby oriented material?

MIL, sorry, not husband.

Well little einstines is brilliant for litlle kids they learn about music like beethoven etc, its really good, also children listening to classical music improved there concentration

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I slightly think Die, Baby Einstein peddlers, Die!

(commercially, not literally)

Message withdrawn

I just think Baby Einstein is an awful con. They don't even pay for the toys! The music is supposed to be carefully adapted to 'suit' a young baby's ears, but in fact they just play it on a Bontempi organ so they don't have to pay an artist royalties (and one suspects they use classical music for the same reason). When I bought one I just stared at it, gobsmacked, I couldn't believe they were taking the piss so badly. And 20 minutes! with the same time again in ads for other BE products!

The woman who came up with idea now makes DVDs for children about sexual abuse.

I personally feel it is dangerous to sit children on work surfaces when cooking.
When I have a bath, DD is either in with me (cant remember the last time I had a weekend bath in peace!), asleep or playing in the bathroom. But in the kitchen - its a no go area at the moment.

Before I had DD I was full of good intentions - bf for at least 6 months, no TV, only organic food cooked freshly everyday, no biscuits, etc, etc, etc. I now realise that it is actually hard work to be that controlled about everything and life is a question of balance. I felt extremely guilty this morning (thinking of this thread) when I plonked dd in front of cbeebies at 6am. She'd had me up half the night and was awake for the day at 5.30. I kept thinking I should be playing with her or should be taking her out for a walk but you know, I was just too exhausted and needed half an hour to have a cup of tea. I think we really do put so much pressure on ourselves to be "great parents" - it can make us a bit uptight. DD looks at books, interacts well with people, plays on her own, plays with other children, plays outside, loves animals, has lots of words, etc etc. So sod feeling guilty. There really are far worse parents in the world than those who let their children watch a bit of TV fgs.

Sorry, rant over.

twofalls, I totally agree

I agree, too, twofalls, but I don't honestly believe that half an hour of Beebies a day is part of that falling short. In the day, you will play with her and you will take her for a walk, and you'll spend a lot longer doing both those things than she'll spend watching Beebies, with a non-frazzled mother. But my point, I guess, is that I don't think the Beebies part is any more harmful, so I don't even think it's a compromise, or a second-best strategy, not any more than the fact that any time we don't spend playing with our baby, for our mutual pleasure, is a compromise.

I could be wrong, obviously, there could be a study that shows there's something about the speed and lights of television that alters brain chemistry. There hasn't been yet.

This is why I love mumsnet..

Yes, I was asking about babies in my original post. And to clarify I was requesting opinions, which have been really interesting to read, but I was also asking about whether anyone had any background on the recent stories linking exposure to TV at a young age to problems like ADHD later on. You read a lot of scare stories when you are a parent, and you do tend to wonder what the facts are behind the headlines. Assuming there are any!