Shield children from dangers, including boob tube
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Monthly Digital Subscription
$0 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*No charge for 4 weeks then price increases to the regular rate of $19.95 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.
Monthly Digital Subscription
$4.99/week*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*Billed as $19.95 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $16.99 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $23.99 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/09/2011 (5226 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
As though parents didn’t have enough to worry about, now those with young children have to add SpongeBob SquarePants to their worry beads.
A study published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics showed it is not only how much television children watch, but what they watch that can affect their attention spans.
Sixty four-year-olds were given one of three tasks: watch SpongeBob (which was considered a fast-paced cartoon), view a slower paced cartoon or draw pictures.
After nine minutes of exposure, the children were given mental function tests — and those who’d watched SpongeBob scored “significantly worse” than their peers in the other two study groups.
The study’s authors suggest that while more evidence is needed to confirm if watching a full program “could be more detrimental,” it is something that parents should be aware of.
The study was predictably criticized by the show’s producers for its small sample size but the findings have been defended as “robust” by University of Washington pediatrics professor Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis, who wrote an accompanying editorial.
It’s too easy to park the kids in front of the TV amid the day’s demands, allowing whatever rolls across the screen to act as temporary nanny while parents try to cook dinner, plan out the next day, attempt to have an adult conversation and the like.
But studies such as these are a good reminder about the danger in relying on the boob tube to fill young minds, especially given the typical child begins watching TV nowadays at four months and is involved with media for up to eight hours a day.
Shielding children from predators, accidents and playground bullying is second nature to moms and dads, but taking a stronger stance on both the amount of TV and what is watched seems a wise choice — particularly for the younger set.
Activities like playing educational games and picking up a book take more time and engagement, but have much greater benefits to children and families. As a newspaper, we are obviously huge supporters of improving literacy.