Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Children should watch more TV instead of playing outside
Edit: Don't take this tongue-in-cheek title literally!
TV has a bad reputation. It's known as an "idiot box," an evil contraption that corrupts young, innocent minds. It's also known as an "electronic babysitter" or a "glass teat" on the basis that it occupies kids for hours while mothers and fathers get on with stuff around the house — the only downside being that kids miss out on quality playtime outside in the fresh air. "Kids should read more," say disapproving analysts. "TV is warping their brains, filling their heads with mush and interfering with their natural learning abilities."
Really? I disagree. As long as kids watch the right kind of stuff, I think TV can be a far more effective learning tool than reading or playtime. I know for a fact that my own little girl has learnt a LOT from certain TV programs and DVDs that we've allowed her to watch, and in some cases these shows have notably advanced her alphabet and counting skills beyond that of her friends. The Baby Einstein DVDs for toddlers are incredibly boring to watch if you're an adult, but they really push a kid's buttons. Open-eyed, slack-jawed... half an hour of surreal learning. But it really works. After a few repetitions, kids start recognizing objects in real life. "Dog," said Lily every time she saw one in a book. "Ball," she said, studying it carefully as it rolled across the floor. And, when she was a little older, we moved on to the "Letters" and "Numbers" DVDs and she watched them over and over with great interest. Kids love repetition. Then she started playschool and it turned out she was further ahead with recognizing numbers and letters than the other kids in her class, even though these other kids were actually older than her.
Then there's the fact that many of the shows she watches now — The Backyardigans, Little Einsteins, Max and Ruby, and many more — are so well written and performed that she hangs on every word and often anticipates what's going to happen next. She helps solves puzzles, dances along with the music, joins in with the chanting... These shows are about as interactive as you can get, and are designed to teach, not just to entertain. My wife and I can't stand Little Einsteins, an animated show that weaves classic art and music into its cute little stories, but we have to admit it's pretty amazing to hear our four-year-old girl in the living room humming along to Mozart and Beethoven. Also, Lily has a computer of her own and she plays Little Einsteins games online — more fun learning!
The reason I'm saying all this is because I think kids — older kids, say around eight onwards — could perhaps benefit from more TV rather than less. Or maybe not more, but better quality; shows designed with a specific purpose in mind, such as lessons in history or geography. More to the point, major networks should make more shows like this. It would be nice if you could tune it to the Disney channel during prime time and see something a bit more educational than Hannah Montana and all those teen sitcoms. America has way too many sitcoms, and teen sitcoms in particular are about as low as you can get. How about a show set in a tumbledown cottage from the olden days instead of the same old recycled Huxtable house from The Bill Cosby Show. How about threadbare clothing from 200 years ago rather than the usual jeans and t-shirts. How about educational stories about the struggle to make ends meet, the way people used to live. Done right, these shows could be every bit as popular as That's So Raven or The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and would actually teach kids something at the same time.
This approach certainly works with adults. One of my favorite TV shows in the last few years was HBO's Rome, a lavish production based around the rise and fall of Julius Caesar and following a number of different characters in their wholly fictional but historically accurate lives. Just recently I finished watching the second season of The Tudors, all about Henry VIII and, naturally, his six wives. Now, at the the end of season two, Catherine of Aragon has long since passed away and Anne Boleyn has had her head chopped off. While I've been watching this avidly, I've been sitting there trying to remember my history. What happened to Jane Seymour? How many others were beheaded? I just couldn't recall, so I felt obliged to Google it and ended up at Wikipedia reading the life history of King Henry VIII. I would NEVER have done that if my interest hadn't been piqued by a dramatized show. Now I know far more about Henry VIII than I ever did, and I "blame" it entirely on a show that's so well made I just developed a thirst for knowledge of the 16th Century.
I tried to imagine a kids' version of a show like this, without the adult content. It may be hard to do, as life was so different back then and what was acceptable in those days would be horrifying today — such as entire families going along to a public execution! I can't imagine watching such a thing myself, never mind taking Lily along to one! *Shudder* But clever writers could probably come up with a light-hearted drama for children that has some realistic, perhaps serious undertones, that educates as well as entertains. For Americans, perhaps European kings and queens wouldn't be so high on the "must learn" list, but certainly life in the early settlements and colonies would be of interest.
And, jumping forward in time, how about some adventures and mysteries set in, oh, 1943 Britain, with a group of children and a dog who go off across the moors having picnics and getting tangled up with villains. Young viewers could become immersed in the period setting, with shorts and blazers everywhere, a baker's boy, a village bobby, old-fashioned shiny black Bentleys, cooks and cleaning ladies, and so on. And young viewers would learn to their shock and horror that houses in the 1940s rarely had telephones. Imagine! And no television! However did these people survive? Throw in a few scenes where the children are sitting in the living room with a crackling fire, listening to the Prime Minister, and the next day children would amaze their teachers with talk about the things Winston Churchill used to say on the wireless. And, although not very Blyton-like, some well placed drama involving rations and gas masks would really hammer home some facts about life as it used to be.
In fact, I distinctly remember The Machine Gunners, a children's TV series set in wartime Britain that was both educational and entertaining. One thing that stuck with me was the fact that each kid had to go to school every day with a box hanging around his or her neck, containing a gas mask, in case of an air raid that contained gas bombs. These masks were written into the storyline — far more interesting than reading about it all in a history book, or listening to the teacher (or Granddad) drone on for an hour.
(And surely this is far more educational than Disney's new Famous Five animated series! WHY oh why did they have to go that route? A missed opportunity, methinks.)
A set of historical dates and facts on the blackboard simply does not compare to a thrilling story — in any form. Kids have always read "literature" at school, and that's all well and good, and should be encouraged. Everyone should read. But many children just don't like to read, and if they're not "into it" then perhaps those children in particular would benefit from carefully crafted historical shows. I remember reading Shakespeare and being thoroughly bored by the endless stream of meaningless archaic language. But I remember watching a TV drama at school based on Macbeth, and that show stuck with me, and what little I know about Shakespeare today probably comes from having watched that show. I remember reading The Lord of the Flies and it was okay; but when I saw a TV adaptation (admittedly a bad one) it just made me appreciate the book more. I wish Disney and Nickelodeon would, once in a while, churn out something a little more useful in life than brain-dead teen sitcoms like Drake & Josh. I think parents might actually let their older kids watch more TV if it wasn't filling their heads with mush.
Okay, gotta go — Spongebob Squarepants is on.
This post has 15 comments
This may be a controversial topic, but as you say, everyone has a right to give their opinions, so I'm giving mine. When I was little, I used to love TV, watched all kinds of programmes. But when they started showing some boring ones, my interest mellowed, till it finally disappeared when I was about 11. Now I don't watch TV any more, except football matches and some really good shows.
You're right in one point. If one doesn't like to read (most of the children nowadays don't like to read, however I'm a reading fanatic) can be allowed to watch television, but with many restrictions. But I shall be always firm in my belief -- i.e. reading or sports is BETTER than watching silly TV. And my opinion is that it's right when they call it 'the idiot box!' It really is an idiotic show, although one of the best inventions of Science. It has many advantages, and many disadvantages. It's up to us to see that it remains our slave, and not our master.
Julian Parry
In our house we watch very little live TV, selecting only certain programs that we like. For about three days in a row the telly doesn't go on at all because there is nothing worth watching. If we want to just relax in front of the TV for a couple of hours, we'll put on a DVD instead.
I've always operated like this, even when as a kid of 10 I had my own portable TV in the 1970s. I watched what I wanted, then turned it off. Hopefully, my son, who's 7, is learning the same selective habits. There is some very good TV for adults and for children, but there is also way too much garbage. And it's the same with books -- reading Captain Underpants is hardly an intellectual pursuit!
However, my son is very sporting and does after-school sport four nights per week, and I'm more than happy that he does that rather than comes home and sits in front of the telly. He loves books and reading too -- and looks for smugglers on holidays! Yeah ... !!
As for TV, yes, some of the programmes are very educational and the younger children can learn a lot. A good advantage to give them a start before they begin schooling. Yet some of the programmes which we would love to see, as you've described Keith, such as a programme during the war years, on how the children lived and coped etc, would only be commissioned I think if it was proved to be worth while in a money context. I think a lot of what is shown on TV whether it be good or bad for the children is governed by money, and how much profit these TV companies can make. If they make more than they thought in profit, they keep it, if not it gets axed. It doesn't matter to them what the majority want to see, or if the programme is educational or not, they only see pounds, shillings and pence, as we used to say.
I too have noticed the difference in programme quality between pre-school and older kids' channels -- and am rather sorry that my nearly 6 y.o is on the cusp of moving away from CBeebies, which is well-presented and carries great material -- including some explicit educational programming like SpringWatch -- all with no adverts at all!
To be fair, there is also some rubbish on CBeebies: I'm thinking of Lunar Jim and Bob the Builder, but even that is not as bad as the programming aimed at 8-11 year olds. And in compensation there is The Story Makers and the BackYardigans (we like that too, Keith). I suppose the BBC can't get away with showing complete crap to the UK pre-school audience, presumably because educationalists, politicians and other interest groups exert too much pressure and the regulator is also watching with a beady eye.
I agree with Julie's point on lowest possible cost of programming for kids' TV to ratchet up the profits. This is why there are so many cheap, poorly-drawn cartoons and game shows on the UK kids' channels -- and it probably explains why the Bill Cosby house is still being re-cycled in the US!
In response to Julian's previous comments on reading versus TV: I read Carrie's War, A little Princess, Ballet Shoes, The Secret Garden and The Swish of the Curtain because of the 70s TV adaptations. Usually I sought out the books because I couldn't stand waiting for the next episode to find out what happened. Today there don't seem to be so many serialisations, if a novel is televised, it's a 2-hour complete adaptation. I think that's a pity, as it doesn't encourage reading in the same way.
"...and sitting long hours in front of the TV hampers their eyesight and contributes to the lack of enthusiasm in sports."
I don't think there's much evidence to support the fact that TV hampers eyesight, any more than a computer screen. I'd wager that reading in poor light is worse. By the way, what IS the fascination with getting kids involved with sports? A competitive nature isn't always a good thing to teach, and there are injuries to consider, sometimes serious ones, plus the fact that I don't see sports as educational in the slightest. Sports are just games, after all, but many people take them way too seriously and -- heck, look at the football fan riots during the World Cup. In America particularly, there's a LOT of pressure put on kids and teenagers to do well in sports. And for what? A stupid game! Sorry, I disagree there. And if it's exercise we're talking about, kids can get that in any number of other ways!
Fiona B said: "I adore Spongebob Squarepants." Heh, me too! Why it's on a kids channel I don't know... I don't care what anyone says, this is a top-notch show that must always play continuously no matter what. :-)
Liz said: "I think most of the criticism of kids' TV-watching is aimed at those families who have the TV on from the minute they get up to the minute they go to bed..." Yes, I think you're right there, Liz. "And it's the same with books -- reading Captain Underpants is hardly an intellectual pursuit!" A very good observation! You could argue that reading *anything* is good because you're improving your reading skills, but from that point of view, *watching* anything is good too, because you're improving your listening skills! :-p
Julie said: "They should get out more and play as children used to do, but I understand that in these times in which we now live, it is really unsafe for children to do this. Even the parks are not safe if the children are left unattended. Such sad times I think."
Yes, indeed. I used to love playing with my go-cart around the housing estate I grew up in. We just ran wild -- loads of kids, lots of fun, and my fair share of scraps too. The place is a real dump when you see it as an adult, but none of that mattered back then.
Kay said: "Usually I sought out the books because I couldn't stand waiting for the next episode to find out what happened. Today there don't seem to be so many serialisations ... I think that's a pity, as it doesn't encourage reading in the same way."
Exactly! I do find it odd how Disney channel is an endless cycle of teen sitcoms around 4pm onwards. They're all the same! You just don't see any serious, thought-provoking dramas of any kind.
Nigel said: "In any event, encouraging kids to read is far better than sticking them in front of the box. Keith, you need to get out more!"
That's a short, simplified answer, but there's a lot more to it than that, I think. TV networks churn out rubbish programs because they're profitable and do nothing but "entertain." If the networks took a chance and produced some decent, quality programs that inspired kids to learn more, then you'd be happy with that, right? If these kids watched a show and thought, "Gosh, I want to learn more about this!" and rushed off to the library to check out some book, then they'd benefit from both mediums. Just switching off the TV and trying to get them to read may not be inspiring to all kids, and I'm sure many would just prefer to go play instead. Some kids just don't like to read. So for those kids (and there are many!) why not give them better quality, educational TV shows that might inspire them to read, and if not, well, at least they've learned something while watching.
There are lots of ways to look at it, and I agree with many points of view. Heck, I'm about to go and throw Lily outside because it's nice out and she's watched enough Spongebob this afternoon! I get where you're coming from, Nigel (and others), but I don't think TV itself is bad at all -- it's just the crappy programs the networks churn out for older kids.
I know from my own childhood that teenagers were often the cause of angst, with all that standing around on street corners and getting into mischief. I'll bet parents were thinking, "I really wish my son would stay in and watch TV so I know where he is..."
Finally: "You need to get out more." Heh. But funny enough, some adults seem completely oblivious to what's going on in the world, and I wonder if that's because they're always out partying instead of watching TV occasionally. Those people should stay in more! :-)
Then, you said that you can't understand the enthusiasm in sports. A question: are you one of those boys who don't like sports? In my opinion, if Blyton had known you, she would have frowned!
Nigel, you are right.
Also, you said "Readers are sensible -- TV watchers are not." What a vague, unsubstantiated remark!
You asked if I was one of the boys who didn't like sports at school. Truthfully I liked things like long jump and high jump, football was okay, softball was boring, rugby was horrible. It was a bit of a mix for me. Later in life I was even a football fan for a complete season -- I "dove in" and went to every home game and got into it, almost as an experiment to see what all the fuss was about. The game itself is okay, and I admit could be quite exciting, but I wouldn't invest huge amounts of my life into it as a fan, or take it up as a hobby or profession. I'm not going stop my little girl from whatever sports she wants to do, and we've already taken her to soccer for a season (she's going back next season) but I certainly won't be pushing her hard either, as many parents do.
But I think my original point has fallen by the wayside a little. The title of this topic is a little misleading and tongue-in-cheek; in fact my main point was NOT that kids should watch more TV and play less, but that better quality programs should replace some of the rubbish that's being churned out.
Actually, Natalie, despite the title, this post doesn't suggest that anyone watches more TV rather than play outside. Did you read it, or did you get hung up on the dubious title?
You say your eyes suffered after just two hours a day in front of the TV, but I don't buy that at all. Many kids need glasses regardless of whether they watch TV or not. Perhaps you needed them anyway, but you were just told it was because of the TV? I'm not a doctor, but two hours a day doesn't sound like much. If that was all it took then I'm sure there would be millions more kids wearing glasses today!
Funny enough, your last point falls right in line with what this post is really about: That decent, educational TV shows (in place of rubbish ones) may inspire kids to want to learn about a particular subject. You watched Backyard Science, and now you love science. My point exactly!
I didn't say there was no problem, I just said "many kids need glasses regardless of whether they watch TV or not" -- meaning their eyes are bad, but not necessarily because of TV or anything else. It could just be an inherent genetic defect.
Having said that, I do think it's a shame you said you were a "laughing stock in class" because of your glasses. Kids can be so cruel to each other! I'll bet you actually look very cute, as well as intelligent, and your class mates are jealous. :-)
I am not too surprised when you wrote about a television being the idiot box as well as electronic babysitter which occupies kids for hours. We Malaysians have this kind of problem too. In fact, this issue is one of the major problems for us.
Not all programs in the television is bad for you. Yes, I admit that most of the programs are too fatal with brutalism, porn-isme, violence and such others. If we can select our television programs, there would be no issue that television is an evil contraption that corrupts young, innocent minds. In this case, parents should be very selective when their children are watching the television. If they have more time, there's not a wrong doing if they watched the program first before they let their children watch the stories.
It's harder than you think to select a good story with a good moral value for young children as well as older children. Malaysians have major problem in this because our national religion and belief is Islam. Islam believers have various rules that we must follow. One of it is, we cannot watch such sexy scenes that involves kissing and sex. That makes us ever so hard because most of the films or telly do have that kind of scenes.
One more thing, a horror story at the category of 18PG (is it PG or something else, I don't really memorize the categories of the films here). I, for instance, a fourteen-year-old teenager always sneaking to watch the movie which can be watched only by eighteen-and-above. My sister, a nineteen-year-old always told me, "You might not take this seriously, but look, you must watch the movies of your age. And the answer is no!" I don't really care at that time -- early fourteen age -- and I kept sneaking to watch horror or war films that is not suitable for my age. But, nowadays I got to think a lot of things and I just thought that why I should watch a film unsuitable for my age? It's bad for me and influence everything of myself without me noticing it.
Oh yes, I read various books from fiction to non-fiction and some times romance for a change. Reading filled up most of my schedule. I read before I go to sleep. I read when I woke up. I read in my bath. I read as I eat. I read as I walked to my bus. I read in my bus. I read at school. I read when I'm on duty (I'm the school prefect). I read when my teacher is on relief. The conclusion is, I read all the time.
I think reading is very good for you if you did not think television as your entertainment. Reading is one of the most interesting entertainment, without you noticing it. Reading is very persuasive. Reading, for me, enchants myself and absorbed me into the plots of the story. I, for instance, caught myself too further from the reality of the world when I started to read a story book. If I read an interesting book, I never notice that the time is passing by with such speed.
That's for now. See you later.
Love and cheers,
Mimsy Kirana
POSTS ARE NOW CLOSED