My wife and I have gone without for many years. Broadcast network television, that is. We regard it as an easily-abusable drug. We’re already busy enough as it is without being tempted to glue our eyeballs to the tube for hours on end.
We do have a television set and plenty of DVDs and tapes, though. Now we have an infant son and we’re thinking that maybe some of these educational channels would be good for him.
I’m thinking along the lines of Discovery, PBS, History Channel, etc. AND making sure to block all the mind-numbing crap channels like E! and the Home Shopping Network.
Am I leading my family down the path of all the rest of you television junkies or can I really enhance our minds with a selected set of channels?
I am not sure what TV is like in the US, but here in the UK I find that there is a lot of stuff there that educates children (even if it is only the speech-learning advantage of hearing constant speaking)
Mind you, if E (which we get) is a good sampler of American TV, then by all means keep your TV off!
A lot of things in excess are bad for kids…even too many books distracts from outdoors and interpersonnal relationships.
It is up to you and your wife to ensure the television doesn’t become a defacto babysitter (which from the sound of your post, seems unlikely).
There are a lot of good shows for children. But don’t forget, as your child ages, he/she might develop interests you and your wife do not have (watching sports programs, music programs, etc.) Television will give them a window to these other activities.
A woman at work had the same problem, so she only has one tv set in the entire house, and it is in the living room. When TV time is over for the kids, the set is turned off. Period. She claims it works, and that her kids (age 9 and 11) don’t even badger her to watch longer. (However, they do rent DVD films on weekends.)
It is up to you and your wife to ensure the television
become a defacto babysitter!
Unless you can afford live-in help.
Be completely modern and use Blue’s Clues to zombify the tyke, or be old fashioned and swaddle that nipper up in swaddling clothes. Otherwise, you’ll go nuts.
I took a three year hiatus from TV in grad school, and it was great. Now I occasionally watch some TV to decompress after work, but it’s still off most of the time.
That said, however, once your kid starts going to school, his ability to share common experiences with the other kids is going to determine his ability to make friends and fit in socially. TV, sadly, is usually a major area of common interest between kids, both the shows and the commercials. The ability to make and get pop culture references is often a direct function of whether or not you watch TV. So, once your kid starts school, I’d get TV, and allow him to watch some set amount each day. Encourage him to do other things (like actually go outside), but don’t forbid TV altogether.
If this were a different forum I’d tell j.c. to “go jump in a lake”. But since we’re here and not there I’ll say, “Thanks for the helpful commentary. I’ll really take it to heart!”
I wouldn’t worry about TV poisoning your child’s mind or anything. I only watch an hour of television a week currently, but as a child I logged a lot of time watching Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood, Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact, Mr. Wizard, the Muppet Show, and Reading Rainbow, and quite frankly, I think I’m better for it (can you tell we were quite the PBS household? :)).
It’s like Fred Rogers says–television is a tool, neither good nor bad in itself. As long as you monitor and limit what your child watches, I’d say go for it!
Get TV. TV is an important part of culture, and I’d hate someone to have to miss out on all the great reminiscing he can do twenty years from now with similarly aged people.
Don’t believe me? Check out all the Sesame Street threads in Cafe Society. Everyone remembers Sesame Streets bits from their childhood. TV is important culturally, and it’s unfair to isolate a child from the society that child is growing up in.
Just a note of warning, if you have an infant, you will quickly discover that HIS definition of “mind-numbing crap” is completely different from yours.
Main Entry: 1fox
Pronunciation: 'fäks
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fox·es also fox
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German fuhs fox and perhaps to Sanskrit puccha tail
Date: before 12th century
1 a : any of various carnivorous mammals (especially genus Vulpes) of the dog family related to but smaller than wolves with shorter legs, more pointed muzzle, large erect ears, and long bushy tail b : the fur of a fox
2 : a clever crafty person
3 archaic : SWORD
4 capitalized : a member of an American Indian people formerly living in what is now Wisconsin
5 : a good-looking young woman or man
6 : television network that is mind-numbing crap.
Yep, I guess the dictionary definition agrees, Q.E.D..