There have always been plenty of nuts, now we just have the ability to hear about all of them. The media is everywhere, reporting on every horrible thing now because apparently Americans love hearing about horrible things. An online article about a bunch of puppies that got adopted into loving families will get about 1/100th the number of views as an article about an arson that killed 20 people. A news report about someone who did incredible charity work out of the goodness of their heart will get only a minute or two of screen time compared to a week-long coverage of some parent who killed their child.

This article is also completely useless. It's a bunch of generic statements that hold no weight. WHAT psychological problems are they referring to? And WHY would it produce these psychological problems? They're effectively baseless claims backed by shoddy research.

Randilly,

I wouldn't worry too much about this "study". Studies are a dime a dozen. A single scientific study doesn't mean much, because the methodology might be flawed, as the researchers admitted themselves in this case. Numerous studies on the same subject are required before anything becomes accepted as established fact in the scientific community. I remember back in the 1980's and early 1990's when it seemed there was a war of studies going on concerning the effects of caffeine. One week a study would come out indicating caffeine was harmful, and the next week another study would come out indicating it was beneficial, and back and forth it went. I don't know what the latest "findings" are, and I couldn't care less. I prefer not to live my life according a bunch of silly "studies".

what do you MEAN?! I watched endless tv and I DONT' HAVE MENTAL PROBELMS, AAAAARRRRGGH!!!

kidding. yet another study of the obvious. how can I get some of this money? I want to study if the sun will come up every morning.

I'm married to my TV and having an affair with my computer hahahaha....

While I agree that no one has the right to tell anyone how to raise their kids, I also think, as a parent of small children, that it's valuable to have a wealth of data on which to base one's own decisions. I don't understand everyone's cynical and negative comments on this article. Sure, it's mostly a matter of common sense, but there are plenty of parents out there who have no sense at all. What does it hurt to provide them with information, whether or not it's obvious to those of us who are a bit better informed?

I think the point here is that kids don't end up being healthy and happy (thus mental disorders, mood/behavior problems, any of this ring a bell from the article?).....better start listening about how to raise your kids.

I wouldn't say doomed, just nuts....... We're doing Newsvine, aren't we?

Lithium, you sound like an awsome parent and I agree with you 100%. I think getting involved with your children like that playing the wii is a great activity.

I was just talking about the parents that put the kids in a diffrent part of the house left to watch TV shows for hours and using it like a babysitter instead of doing things with there kids...

I use to love board games.....lol

They are foul mouthed little brats that make the trash talk

Sounds pretty precocious to me. A trick I would certainly love to see.

Rob, You make no sense. I mean I've been quoted out of context before, but this is beyond out of context it's not even a full sentence that you quoted. Please try again so I can aptly respond.

And thank you JLS

Wii isn't exactly what I would call mentally stimulating. The activity it encourages is minimal, and people are actually getting hurt using it, not to mention the damage that controller does when it accidentally leaves one's hand. It's fun, I guess, but a poor excuse for a mental or physical challenge.

1) That's what the wrist Strap is for 2) most of the people complaining of Wii related injuries are seniors 3) that would depend on the software title.

My point there was that unlike My Xbox or Play Station the children when Sat with Wii Sports Resort or a similar title, are forced to be active. Be it running or fencing. To an adult the motions are simple and the tasks presented are even more so. But to a young child that want's to play a game they are exciting. They get to play a game there is an instant reaction based on their movements and they also maintain a activity on (as I mentioned) a rainy or snowy or cold day when outdoor activities aren't something they can do. So for a 12-24 year old person you are right, however for children my child's age the 2-6 demographic it's a great time, Couple that with items like Wii Fit to engage them in physical exercise at a young age and you've got the makings of an active pre-schooler. Even Adults and Middle age children can benifit from Titles like Wii Fit that encourage you to participate in the title and then also take time to do the same work-outs in the real world ourdoors.

They continue to introduce fittness minded attachments for the Wii as well such as a set of barbells for the Wiimote. So while you may have played some of the feel good titles. I think you've missed the point I was trying to make.

I see your point for a certain age range (not 2 or 3 yrs old though), but the fact remains that the older kids will continue to use it detrimentally if they have it. As for the wrist band, it may come with one but obviously not everyone is using it. "Cool" teenage kids refuse to use the wrist band.

That may be true, but injury is still possible. I suffered muscle failure from Wii bowling. I also gave my left arm a wicked huge bruise from play golf, and not swinging right. Anyways, Wii would also have an additional benefit of family time. Too bad the "study" as it were, is not too specific about the setting itself. Did it include parents, siblings, other kids? Many of the posts on here are correct, these statements are very generalized. Too many factors, and too many variables. What kind of time frame was this "study" conducted in too? Load of bull pucky if you ask me, either trying to tell parents what to do with their kids, or to be used as an excuse to eliminate the mediums used in the "study"

Exactly, this is a case of determining what is the cause and what is the effect. The cause of wanting to watch more than 2 hours of TV could be psychological problems.

Another irratating thing with medical studies is the way they report the results. Group x is XX% more likely to be XXX than group y. But they often hide the fact that the original rate is very small. So if 1 out of a 1000 in the control group is affected and 2 out of 1000 are in the study group, it is a 100% increase. But in reality it is very unlikely either way.

I personally suspect, as a conclusion drawn from my own observations and experience, that "social ills" correspond more closely to conservative religion than to major motion pictures (I presume you are referring to the motion picture industry in Hollywood, not to any other entertainment medium, with your artless and gratuitous epithet).

Uncle Sammy: Relax! Listen to Dave in NM! Ignore TV and movies if they upset you so! I wonder if the things you vaguely refer to as "social ills" are actually things I think of as social progress - e.g., acceptance of diverse races, religions and sexual orientation! "Freakishness" is in the eye of the beholder!

PS: A simple period is also a perfectly acceptable end punctuation for a sentence!

I was wondering the same thing!

Same with internet; did they take into account reading educational material found on the internet?

My question is: Is the screen itself causing harm or is it the content presented on the screen that is causing harm?

Agreed. A while back, I found Dracula online. I'm under the assumption that one could likely find other such classics on the internet as well. Also, we're all on a news site, bickering over studies and whatnot... Wouldn't that count for something? (Then again, I'm likely in the minority here... I literally can't go and watch videos because I have too many tabs open of reading material and the browser would crash. Or the entire computer.)

I had many of the same thoughts. When I read articles like this one I always wonder if the study was as lame as reported, or if its the writer oversimplifying or misunderstanding the study.

winker,

What if you are a computer programmer and are forced to sit in front of a computer screen all day long typing programming code? Computer programmers must be a bunch of certified lunatics according to this study!

The article was specifically about children. I stare at a screen all day too, but my job involves reading comprehension.

Most paperwork these days is on a computer. I work in an office setting so I sit at a computer and pull up information in databases like most people that work in offices.

You hit the nail on the head! Completely! I have found channels like Nick Jr., PBS and the Food Network (our child loves watching the cooking shows!) to be the only ones we watch on regular TV (we do not pay for cable, it comes with our rent. Whenever we move, we will not have cable). And outside of that, our child only watches things on DVD or Netflix Instant Queue - and we, the parents, choose what he watches. Too much junk on other channels are on, and we are the parents - not our child. We make decisions for him until he shows when he is mature enough to make decisions on his own - that is being a parent. Screen time is not the evil so many are making it out to be when it comes to this - it is quality of programming put in front of the eyeballs of our kids that is the main culprit of issues cropping up today. Make wise choices for your kids now, and see what a difference it makes. Our child is growing by leaps and bounds educationally by mingling our interaction with him, with proper programming (and our child watches more than 2 hours a day) - and he is psychologically well. And I know many parents who have children who are now adults, and they have done the same thing we are - and their kids are just fine (psychosocially, socially, and life in general).

At least if schools aren't buying textbooks, they are avoiding the even more damaging influence of the Texas Board of Public Education.

So let me get this straight Sean,

You refuse to use a tool which studies have shown is helpful to the developing mind of a small child even on a supplemental basis because it's television based? Television is neither good nor bad, it's an inanimate object, what you choose to view on said box is where the potential for good or bad comes in. And your words say it best.

human interaction is the best tool.

Human interaction is a great tool, however it is limited to the human with which the interaction takes place that is why it is not the only tool. Lets say for instance your school district didn't have the funding to provide Junior with information provided on said DVD? And that because of this no one that he interacts with at this time has that knowledge either how then could human interaction be the best tool if it lacks that information?

The reason the baby Einstein collection is so helpful is because at that age a child's mind is like a sponge, most parents don't have the time to Work, do housework, regular baby maintenance and go over say primary colors, numbers, and the melting pot of other things that the collection does. Most other adults with which a small child interacts doesn't do this either amidst cheek pinches and exclamations of "He's so CUTE". So how then can you denounce a extremely helpful and supplemental tool? Or perhaps the Discovery Channle which may show you things that a standard education system book doesn't have the space to cover which in turn means your child is less likely to discover this topic via standard human interaction?

And I'm not just talking about TV, we've provided the means for people of all ages to discover information that normally may not be discovered through human interaction by introducing the information from experts in that field via electronic means. Radio, TV, The Internet, DVD's etc.

However it's not a a study that shows how the TV effects children, seeing as we don't have the published Study or even a link to it, this story only states in it's own archaic and caveman like way that "TV BAD" it does not inform us how the TV is bad, it doesn't tell us much about the study. So it's hard to find the suggestion constructive. Now if it said for instance

"that too much TV (more that two hours per day) of a program type X (X being equal to non educational Bubble gum/ cotton candy filler programs of no distinct purpose or possibly violent or suggestive in nature) for child within the age demographic of 2-14 can possibly lead to psychological problems in later life. The study done over X number of weeks with the children watching three or more hours of non-educational programs as well as programs aimed at an older demographic showed signs of this."

I'd buy that especially if they had a counter study done at the same time to adress the issue of educational programming to show if that indeed help the children as well as encourage them to be more active.

And again as you said

Father & Mother don't always know best!

So how is refraining from allowing your child to watch the Einstein programs going to effect the child? If it's possible that your concept is not in the best interest of your child then would letting your child watch say 30 minutes of one of the programs hurt anything?

While I admire your conviction I don't quite take the concept to heart. It's not a new one either, in fact it's been around in one form or another with each passing generation. Be it Radio, War, and Elvis. Or Television, Rock and Roll and the Atomic Bomb. While I'm the first to admit much of the things you see on television are a medium for propaganda there are still things that can be taught and in fact may be the only way to peak the interest in some people via all media forums.

Just something to think about.