>>Asking parents to turn off television is unrealistic<<

Fail. I am 29. For the first 17 years (more than half) of my life we had no television in my house. My parents didn't turn off the television: there wasn't one to turn off.

>>TV viewing does not really take the place of other activities such as playing outside.<<

No, it takes the place of other activities such as reading.

With no other alternative my siblings and I read for entertainment. Television would have been cheaper: my parents must have forked up a whole lot of money to pay for all the books we read as kids. It doesn't appear to have had any noticeable negative effect: we've all done fairly well out of life. It has had some noticeable effect: I breezed through all my English classes without lifting a finger. I can spell better than most spellcheckers, although my grammar could be much gooderer.

There is a certain beauty and wonder in a the written word that even the best television cannot hold a candle to. This is why classic works of literature are still remembered, still read and still loved hundreds or even thousands of years after they were written - and why nobody will remember 'Yo Gabba Gabba' within the space of a generation.

Finally: this article would never have been written if there wasn't some contention over the idea that kids can have too much television for their own good. Nobody has ever even suggested that there is such a thing is too much reading. Given the difficulties in precisely quantifying the (possible) adverse effects of exposure to television on developing minds, why would any responsible parent even take the risk? Defenestrate your television and pack your kids off to the local library.

Cheers,

Tony

Someone once said that they prefer listening to the radio because the pictures are more colourful, louder and dynamic.
That is children create their own pictures in mind in response to the words.
So too when children are read to by their parents or whomever.
I can remember listening to the radio in such a manner when I was a child. Especially to a serialization of Kim by Rudyard Kipling on the Jason and the Argonauts show on ABC radio. And also to the Magic Pudding.

In the Steiner system of education children are not allowed to read until age 9 or so. The reasoning being that children are not yet psycho-physically equipped or developed enough to do so. And that doing so does subtle damage to the unfolding of their intrinsic awakening intelligence.

Instead they are read to on a consistent basis using classic stories, especially fairy tales which have many potential layers of meaning. Again they create the pictures in their own minds.

By contrast TV delivers pre-packaged pictures straight into the brains of the trance-induced babies/toddlers/children.
No imagination or responsive intelligence required!

And of course in all times and places in the past, and maybe still so in some parts of the world, story-telling was the principal way in which the values and world-view of the culture was passed on from generation to generation.

What kind of "culture" do children learn via the idiot box?

If teachers saw how my youngest son used TV as a learning tool, they would quickly find out that if others were the same, THEY would be out of a job.

At age 2, he could tell the time on a digital clock. At age 3, he could tell the time on an analogue clock.

He learned to add up and take away by watching "Sale of the Century" at age 4. He also learned the 5 times table.

By age 5, he could read a novel. By age 6, he knew a lot of the more prominent politicians and their roles in the parliament.

He learned a good deal of the above from watching children's programs and the 6.00 o'clock news.

Lorikeet
I suspect your little fellow had his parents(you) helping him to interpret what he was seeing and hearing on TV, and when he began going to school, his teachers assisted his development.
Even without the TV he probably would have been able to do, with your input, what you describe, and would have avoided probably several thousand adverts!

Our 5 children (3 boys, 2 girls) did not have TV at all (except for the occasional trip to friends and grandparents places)until the youngest one was 15 - she is now 24. We read to them, they played inside and outside, they loved making things, going for walks, dress-ups, cooking, etc. They have not been disadvantaged at all in later schooling, tertiary education and later life. The fact that my wife did not have a paid job through much of this time was no doubt a factor in their learning.

TV as an occasional baby-sitter is fine, provided the programs or DVDs are well chosen, but a better choice would be no TV at all. Not only do many children watch too much TV - adults often over-indulge in TV - but that is another topic!