Comments on: Augh! American TV Viewing at All-Time High

By: Study Finds 97% of Dads Don't Read to Their Kids

Study Finds 97% of Dads Don't Read to Their Kids — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:07:07 +0000

[...] Meanwhile, TV use last year rose to 151 hours month, or 4.5 hours daily per person. [...]

By: Sex, TV, & Kids: The Adverse Effects of Adult Programming | The Global Warming Statistics

Tue, 12 May 2009 13:33:30 +0000

[...] who has read my blogs before knows that I’m a bit of a lunatic when it comes to TV watching I believe parents should monitor and limit television consumption. I use the word [...]

By: TV for Grown-Ups Makes Kids More Likely to Have Sex Early : Eco Child’s Play

Tue, 12 May 2009 12:48:36 +0000

[...] who has read my blogs before knows that I’m a bit of a lunatic when it comes to TV watching I believe parents should monitor and limit television consumption. I use the word [...]

By: Cate Nelson

Cate Nelson — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:09:58 +0000

I love all three of your comments. If you’ll check out this link, you can hear a discussion (on an NPR show) about the future of TV, where those discussing it actually sound gleeful(ugh!) over how much TV is consumed.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/02/whats-next-for-tv/

And I say “consumed”, yes, as though it’s food. Some people, like your in-laws, Crimson Wife, truly treat it as sustenance.
We ARE such a visual culture. I do let my kids watch some TV, movies we choose together through Netflix or, for my 3-year-old, the library. (But just because it’s at the library doesn’t mean it’s “good.” We just happen to be able to find 1/2 hour videos easier there.)
Finally, last night, we all watched a movie together. That hasn’t happened in a couple of weeks. When it does, it is clearly a special treat. (Treat! Not sustenance!)

Beside that, my dh and I probably watch 2 movies a week after the kids are in bed. Usually it happens when we are between books. We don’t have cable television (and don’t have the cable hooked to our TV for basic stations), so we choose our videos carefully.
Really, why spend the time if it isn’t worthwhile? Like I mentioned in the blog, and as Chanda seconded, cost?! It seems to me that this is another way that we overlook the long-term costs of things. Fast food is cheap but has long-term costs. TV watching is easier than spending quality time but I suspect also has horrible long term costs.
You can check out another blog I wrote about media and a report that came out last year that found *nothing* beneficial from it:
http://blog.thenatureschild.com/2008/12/newsflash-kids-tv-use-linked-to-poor.html

By: Crimson Wife

Crimson Wife — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:42:19 +0000

My in-laws keep their TV on all day and it absolutely drives me nuts whenever I visit their house. They’re not even really watching it either- it mostly just serves as background noise.

I remember reading a statistic that something like 1/3 of U.S. households have the television constantly on. Ugh!

By: Chanda

Chanda — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:37:16 +0000

Low cost my a**. Have you seen how much people drop for a HDTV? And, um, cable or satellite ain’t free folks! If they watched limited themselves to strictly free (after the investment for the box) I bet their tubetime would drop dramatically. PBS is good, but it ain’t that good.

By: Candice

Candice — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:59:35 +0000

Perhaps 10 years ago, the challenge was whether or not to allow children to watch TV and/or video games. Today–in our visual culture–it is not mostly a question of whether or not (although some children still are not allowed to watch TV); rather, it is a question of what kind of visual input they should have. Should they be allowed to watch PBS? Watch only after they have finished their homework? Perhaps no TV but they could be allowed to have an iPod or iPhone? The plethora of visual stimuli is a cultural challenge, especially for parents to decide and keep ground rules clear for children. But, ah, what about the parents watching 4-8 hours per day?