Jesus Christ, NO. No TV is good for you, even educational TV. I'm not saying it's all bad for you, but no no no and NO. There's no "better TV" that will be "good for a child." Imaginative, creative, unstructured play and time spent with parents are what constitute "good for a child." Though my media ed gurus will slap me for saying this: Like anything, TV in moderation is fine, but it's not "good."

If I weren't so annoyed by this headline, I'd read the article. I'll come back.

"Path your right, never see kids play outside like we use too. "

Many parents, simply put, suck.

That said, it's hard to get my kids to go outside and play. If I get off my ass, it works better. : ) When I was a lad, we loved it. All winter long, we were out every day on the sleds. All summer long, we were out rambling. Well, to be fair, we were allowed more freedom. Why are we so paranoid now? I let my kids go to the bathroom alone in a restaurant, while at a birthday party for my wife recently, and TWO of her family members nearly ripped me a new you-know-what for risking their lives like that? WTF? My older boy (8) will punch any interloper right in the nuts. He told me tonight that he'd probably try to run away before fighting unless the person tried to hurt his brother. Holy crap. Feisty little bugger.

The second study--positive results--seems to be much less exhaustive than the first, to put it mildly. And duh. Your child, exposed to violence and bad behavior, is going to exhibit more violence and bad behavior than those exposed to non-aggression and prosocial behavior. But why does the TV have to play that role at all. Watch a child's eyes after even a half-hour of any television: bleary, slow to react. Ask him or her questions: same result. TV is not a positive role model or "good" exemplar. It also acts on the brain in some less than wonderful ways. How about getting parents to engage in parenting and limiting screen time? We also limit our children's exposure to the audiobooks I listen to (say, crime novels), and we choose carefully the books we read to them and that they read. Parents' job is to guide--not shelter but guide.

I'm also questioning the study that shows positive results, Heuristic. Too much TV is a bad, bad thing. I'm not fully in line with the "no TV for kids!" people, and I like TV myself (only the good stuff, natch), but few people are concerned with the dangers of TV and how we use it in our society.

Mander's book is fairly interesting, but to say that TV offers nothing to anyone is silly. It's another source of information and entertainment. Like any such source, it should be used judiciously and with reflection. "TV rots your brain" is a silly stance, just like "Rock and roll corrupts the youth." The problem with TV is how we use it.

18: I know what the argument is, silly Nulli. I've read it. I was commenting on the general discourse, not specifically on Mander. I found his book interesting but extremely unrealistic. I meant to say earlier that it's not the four topics, but the underlying reasons/factors that are valuable. Again, it's how you use the medium. The lack of reflection for most TV viewers is the main problem (see Bill McKibben's Age of Missing Information and Neil Postman's pretty much anything). Naturally, there are numerous other factors as well. I just wanted us not to get into reductive "TV rots your brain" nonsense. It's much, much deeper than that. Btw, Nulli, I'm a media educator; I've read lots of books and studies on TV. I'm just not the doom-and-gloom kind of media educator.

And Postman says (I'm paraphrasing) that it's not Starsky and Hutch and The Brady Bunch that we have to worry about; it's 60 Minutes and Sesame Street (the stuff pretending to be good for you).

I read it maybe five years ago. If you're interested in TV, you should read Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (brilliant!) and McKibben's Age of Missing Information (not as brilliant, but damned good). I use the latter in my HS media course. I've been thinking of how to use the former.