Perhaps you've heard of the latest salvo in the TV wars: A channel devoted entirely to programming for babies and toddlers, from age 6 months to three years. This despite the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that children under two not watch TV at all.
Well, it's a free country, right? And if there's a market for this product, who can blame them for answering the call? Why shouldn't there be baby TV?
Well, let's sort out the issues. There is plenty of research that links excessive television viewing by children with obesity and poor literacy skills. On average, US kids watch three hours of television per day. Which is a more direct path to excessive television viewing by the older child, starting a TV habit early on by enlisting an electronic babysitter, or restricting television viewing by infants and toddlers?
Furthermore, researchers have found an association between television viewing at ages one to three and later onset of attention problems. Conclusive? No. Association does not prove causation, as the study notes, and more research needs to be done. But the concern is that television viewing, because it is over stimulating, has a negative impact on how the baby brain develops:
It is widely known that the newborn brain continues to develop rapidly through the first few years of life and that considerable plasticity exists during this period.15,16 Considerable evidence also exists that environmental exposures, including types and degrees of stimulation, affect the number and the density of neuronal synapses.17-19 The types and intensity of visual and auditory experiences that children have early in life therefore may have profound influences on brain development.
For babies,TV is mesmerizing (we've all noticed this phenomenon). And in addition to whatever funky wiring television viewing may effect in a baby's brain, time spent with a TV is time NOT spent building relationships and having hands-on interactions with his environment, experiences that build healthy brains.
That said, is my baby doomed if I have Oprah on while I fix dinner and he bangs pots and pans together? How about if I let my toddler watch Sesame Street while the baby is (gasp) in the same room, so that I can do the breakfast dishes and laundry and mousse my bedhead?
Perhaps, but it's a risk I'm willing to take for my sanity. And maybe I'm rationalizing, but this seems to me a far cry from plopping my baby in front of a TV program specifically designed to keep him engaged with, well, the TV.
OK, so what about BabyFirstTV? It claims to be "an interactive and educational tool" for parents and babies. It delivers "high-quality programming" for babies and toddlers, from age six months to three years. It features the so-called "Brainy Baby" series, a program called Shapes that "combines bright colors, upbeat music and familiar objects to engage and delight baby", and Rainbow Horse, "a magical journey of color, music and motion". And the whole deal is supposed to foster interaction between babies and parents as it "encourages parents to have an active role" with "interactive subtitles making the experience as educational and engaging as reading a book."
(Of course, you could always just read a book instead. That really is "as educational and engaging as reading a book.")
The programming runs 24 hours a day. There's even "nighttime content to soothe your baby as she prepares for sleep". (No need for a rocker and a dim room, I suppose.)
So what do you get for your subscription? Lights, colors, and music. Hm. All TV has lights, colors and music that can "delight" babies. You don't need to pay for it. Opportunities for interaction between parent and baby? Here's how to make TV interactive: "Look, Gayle has a new hairdo. That's Gayle, Oprah's best friend. Can you wave to Gayle?" No monthly fee for that.
An educational experience? Prove it. There may be a bunch of MDs on the BabyFirstTV advisory board, but I can't find any research to support their claims. (What I do find are these helpful hedges on the site's FAQ regarding babies and television viewing.)
So should BabyFirstTV, Baby Einstein, Sesame Beginnings, and the like, be allowed to make and market their products as they see fit? And I mean that just as it sounds. Sure, parents need to be responsible and not abuse TV and DVD products. But babies can't choose their parents. They're vulnerable. So are parents. Not all moms and dads are familiar with the AAP recommendations. And a slick advertising campaign promising to make baby smarter is going to sucker some parents into subscribing, buying the DVD, tuning in.
The attitude with these companies seems to be, "Babies are being exposed to TV anyway. Let's at least give parents good options." (How altruistic of them.) Look, I feel a little guilty when my baby and toddler watch TV. That's a good thing. It keeps me from having it on often. What BabySafeTV, Baby Einstein, Sesame Beginnings, and the like, are doing is giving parents permission not only to NOT feel guilty, but to expose their babies to hours of TV that has an "educational" context and is supposedly geared for parent/baby interaction (have you ever tried to interact with a baby who is mesmerized by a TV?). They are making the situation worse.
The government regulates baby food, bedding, pajamas, toys, and car seats. Why not baby DVDs and television programming?
My recommendation: Warning labels. Every Boohbah should start out with a statement from the AAP about babies and television viewing. Something along the lines of, "The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend any television for children ages two and under. When you're done loading the dishwasher and moussing your bedhead, be sure to turn this off."
