I'd like to know what the evidence behind the suggestions that the author is - and whether or not the author themselves has kids that do/don't watch tv, and why this is (ie was the author biased before going into the study because either they have never had kids and never encountered this problem before, or because they have and have managed to make it work for them).
It seems a huge thing to say no screen time at all for the first three years and I can't see how s/he can possibly have done a statistically valid study to draw such suggestions.
With all these things I reckon it's a case of moderation - choosing age appropriate programmes and not spending too long in front of the screen. I definitely think that both dc have benefited from programmes they've watched - simple counting and sums, letters, dancing, following stories through, watching slapstick humour, empathising with characters, developing favourite programmes and understanding that your brother likes different things so you need to share the tv time, you can't always watch what you want...
Lots of the things that the dc like are actually old things - Tom and Jerry, Scooby Doo, TinTin, Asterix, Mickey Mouse, Paddington, the Clangers - these things have stood the test of time for good reason. There are new things they love too - Phineas and Ferb, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, Deadly 60, Horrible Histories, Art Attack and more.
When they watch something that is interesting to them they learn - ds1 is forever spouting animal or history or geography facts that he has picked up from the tv (he also likes adult documentaries on wildlife or how things are made or big interesting engineering projects etc) - he soaks it all up like a sponge and being able to see stuff on screen helps so much more with remembering things. It's a long way from being able to go 'through the round window' on Playschool which was about as much factual stuff as you got in my day (showing my age now!) until you were old enough for Blue Peter.
They are happy to sing and dance along to songs, copy art projects, be amazed by the fantastical projects that Phineas and Ferb undertake or count along with Mickey and friends. COuld I do that with them - some of it, maybe - but all of it, all of the time? No.
Both boys are happy whizzing around on the iPad and iPhone (as well as on computers and games such as the Wii) - and this will stand them in good stead in later life as they will have grown up using technology without any fear, with a healthy ability to explore and use it - and in years to come I hope that they will be able to see amazing ways in which to develop it that just won't have occurred to our generations.
The only time that I do get worried is by the fact that when the dc play with the iPad or iPhone, they tend to hold it on their lap. I always switch off wi-fi and the phone signal, and I do try to encourage them to put it on a cushion or table, or to lie on the sofa so it is in front of them rather than on them, but you just never know what long periods of exposure to whatever radiates from the devices will do to them or their fertility in years to come. And I don't think that people are going to know until it is too late, maybe not until their children are born from what I understand of epigenetics. (Yes it would be nice to be able to get a nice lead shielded case for kids to use with such devices just in case - I know I'll probably get labelled OTT but I suspect that in years to come people will be shocked by how lax we are about this). However I suspect that this is not an aspect that is covered in the study per se if it is concerned about screen time rather than proximity to screens.
I also know that too much time looking at screens that are too close when their eyesight is developing can mean that they don't develop their full range of visual acuity (my psychology degree was a long time ago now so I'm a bit rusty on this!) but from what I understood at the time, as long as there is still a reasonable amount of exposure to looking at things at all different distances then you should be fine.