America, You Have Jumped The Shark
There's a new PAY channel debuting. Baby TV. Round the clock videos for infants and toddlers.
A 2003 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 68 percent of children under 2 watch TV or videos daily and 26 percent have a TV in their bedroom.
I do not have a TV in my bedroom. Why do so many babies? Do these babies all have lucrative employment of which I am not aware? Are these babies filled with discernment?
People. BABIES DO NOT NEED TELEVISIONS IN THEIR ROOMS. NOR DO THEY NEED THEIR OWN 24-HOUR CABLE TELEVISION CHANNEL.
I know I'm not a mother. Still, I can see the value in grabbing yourself 28 minutes of free time by popping in a "Baby Einstein" or (God Forbid) Boobah video.
Nevertheless, BABIES DO NOT NEED TELEVISIONS IN THEIR ROOMS. NOR DO THEY NEED THEIR OWN 24-HOUR CABLE TELEVISION CHANNEL.
posted by Kat Coble @ 5:10 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
thank you. I had the exact same thought when our best friends bought a tv AND dvd player for their 9-month-old son's nursery.
what?
I don't think my 14 and 12 year olds should have tvs in their rooms. I was overruled by Dad and Grandma years ago on that. My dad never would let me have one as a teen..he said "I'd never see you." He was right!
I HATE....HATE....HATE...those Anne Geddes pictures of babys in pea pods, bunny suits, and crap like that...HATE it. My biggest pet peeve.
Babies *have* 24-hour TV. They can look out the window, look out the front door, watch the pets, watch their parents ... it's a veritable cornucopia of stuff to look at! And it's never a rerun!
And that's not even counting books.
So yeah, Baby Fishmouth don't play dat. Well, she might accidentally see a few minutes of "Between the Lions" because we like it, too. Otherwise, she's too busy being occupied with the rest of the world to give two poots about something inside a glass box. (Unless it is her fish. She likes her fishy.)
P.S. Boobahs scare me. Seriously.
And don't get me started about the implications of Noo-noo's behavior around the Teletubbies. It's just weird. (I had to watch that for a while during babysitting duties for a friend's baby's serious illness. It kept her sane, which I bless, but it disturbed me a lot.)
Oh come on, people, you're missing the point!
Babies need televisions in their bedrooms so that they can have early imprinting by marketers! Sure, they call it "commercial-free," but how many children's shows do you know of that don't have merch tie ins? When they learn to talk, how will they know what to ask for for their birthdays and Christmas unless you give them images and sound pre-verbally?
And you can bet that "commercial free" will only last as long as the first few negative balance sheets. How else will they get a subliminal need for Coca Cola triggered when they get to their own purchasing age (like 5?)
It's just like giving your email address so that you can receive 5% off purchase coupons in your email... the tradeoff here is simply offering up the impressionable mind of your child so that you can have peace and quiet while they're glued to BabyTV.
This is consumer engineering at its finest!
BTW, complete coincidence that the pediatrician that recommends it in the AP article is from Mattel Children's Hospital.
tv AND dvd player for their 9-month-old son's nursery.
My brother and sister-in-law did the same thing. I could maybe see it if its for the mother to watch while she nurses. But in most cases it seems to actually be FOR THE BABY.
I HATE....HATE....HATE...those Anne Geddes pictures of babys in pea pods, bunny suits, and crap like that...HATE it. My biggest pet peeve.
You too? I think they're hideous. And I think they're the one of the leading culprits of idolising and objectifying infancy and childhood. Babies are no longer little people to be trained up. They are, in many cases (not all), accessories to be kept juvenile as long as possible.
P.S. Boobahs scare me. Seriously.
Boobahs are evil. Clearly.
the tradeoff here is simply offering up the impressionable mind of your child so that you can have peace and quiet while they're glued to BabyTV.
Which, when you think of your child as an accessory, is not hard to do.
I'm such an unmarried marriage counselor....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
fvbyou always say that I need to
"read the book" Well you need to "have kids" same thing right?
Except that God didn't take away your ability to read in the same way that He has taken away my ability to have kids.
Dan that was cruel and tasteless. Shame on you.
In fairness to Dan, I don't think he meant it that way.
I think he just gets tired of me telling people to read "the book" (i.e. Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter)
You don't have to have kids in order to realize that tv isn't good for them, so no, it's not the same thing. In our house, the kids are allowed about 30 minutes of Boomerang before bed and they each can get a movie on the weekends. Cutting the commercials out (Boomerang doesn't have commercials) has made a world of difference in the kids. We no longer have to have the "it" toy, or have to go to McD's for such and such happy meal toy. The commercials were turning them into gimme-birds ("gimme this, gimme that"). Now they fill their time with playing dress-up, or reading, or whatever else they should be exploring as kids.
TV in the bedrooms? NO WAY!! There are no childhood memories developed in the tv set.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
7&6 year olds AREN'T babies.
...nor should they have tvs in their bedrooms. At least in my opinion. But then again, nobody really asked that, did they?
Why does he keep deleting his comments?
I'm not sure. I think he says something and then changes his mind later.
Post a Comment
<< Home