1. Absolutely. And Sigman's work has problems. Lots of problems. Obvious are connections between short attention spans and excessive TV viewing -- because of the short-timed cycles of programs and advertisements. Less obvious is childhood obesity, but that certainly follows a logic because TV viewing is usually sedentary. Lowered immunity? Early onset of puberty? These are mere statistical associations. Early onset of puberty -- especially menarche in girls -- can be associated with childhood obesity, whether that obesity is a result of excessive TV viewing, over-eating, or genetic tendency toward obesity. Lowered immunity could be from a range of trickle-down causes resulting from excessive TV viewing, or it could be a mere statistical anomaly. Thing is, Sigman doesn't know, yet he states the associated health risk as if it is proven.

Sigman's work is like the list of side effects you see with drug advertisements. One of the side effects of, say, a cholesterol-fighting statin is cold or flu. Cold or flu? How can a statin cause cold or flu, you ask? Well, it can't. But a certain number of people, a statistically significant number of people, in the test group caught a cold or influenza during the trial. So when they publish the results of the trial they have to include them as a possible side effects.

When Gutenberg invented movable type and brought printing to the masses -- well, a lot more of the masses than previously could have had something printed or had accessible to them printed materials -- for a century thereafter 25 percent of the people thought he was a genius; the other 75 percent thought he should have been put to death as destroyer of contemporary society.

TV is still relatively new. Always-on, multi-channel, broad-scope-programming TV is still brand new anyway you cut it. It's part of the human condition that some people always take new technology as the Devil's work. In his time, experts lined up to tell the people how Gutenberg's press would ruin society and that men weren't meant to read lots of things all the time. It was unhealthy, it skewed the work ethic, it was bad for the eyesight and the constitution. They cited associative evidence, too.

This is sensationalism at its worst. In order to well develop, children should participate in a variety of activities, including, low-key, relaxing entertainment that can be if parent's wish watching their favorite, age-appropriate TV programs. TV is here to stay, folks. Sigman is not.

Posted at 4:20PM on Apr 25th 2007 by san

2. I can't speak for the scientific validity of Sigman's study, but I agree wholeheartedly that TVs don't belong in bedrooms. That goes for the parents, too.

Posted at 4:26PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Caelligh

3. "I agree wholeheartedly that TVs don't belong in bedrooms. That goes for the parents, too."

And you know this how? I think it's fine if you don't want TVs in your bedroom or your children's bedroom. I think it's fine if people want TVs in their bedrooms and their children's bedrooms. It's a personal preference. Watching TV just before or while trying to fall asleep can inhibit one's ability to fall asleep, and people who keep sets in their bedrooms should be aware of this -- especially if they have transient or chronic insomnia. But this business of disassociating the bedroom with sleep just because you sometimes watch TV in bed is a bit of a stretch. You can make the same claim about reading in your bed or just within the bedroom, and no one wants the same prohibition on books in the bedroom; yet books stimulate wakeful brain activity too, often to a greater degree than most TV programs -- there are PET scan studies that show the brain activity from reading, TV, playing video games, etc.

The bottom line is that people, especially as busy and tired and time-starved as most of us are these days, should day whatever the hell they want on issues like this, whatever makes them comfortable, maintaining a watchful eye for any problems that might be corrected by reducing TV time or removing TVs from certain areas of the house.

But you can pretty much reconcile the calendar by the decade-long spans between rounds of TV-bashing. We must be just getting into a new one.

Posted at 4:47PM on Apr 25th 2007 by san

4. We're flexible. It's quite unusual for the two younger girls to be watching t.v. during the school week except for the last hour before their 9 o'clock bedtime. Even on the weekends, they're usually involved in something else.

I have never set up a strict schedule and we do have cable. I do pay attention though.

Our oldest girl isn't able to be as active so I know she watches more. Usually though she's either watching one of her videos or the educational channels (History, Discovery, Animal Planet), etc. Not a problem for me. They've all led her into reading and researching more of what she's seen on the dreaded t.v.

I've always thought it isn't the t.v. that's the problem. The ultimate responsibility lies with parents. If that means no t.v., fine. For me, I don't go that far.

Posted at 7:17PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Ann Adams

5. This study really activated my B.S. detector.

Television causes autism? Oh, please.... this is utter nonsense.

Posted at 8:02PM on Apr 25th 2007 by Nancy Toby

6. Nancy,

"Television causes autism? Oh, please.... this is utter nonsense."

Hmm, oh, what's that? Ah, it's a *brain*. How novel. Haven't seen one of those in a while.

To put it politely, Sigman's research methodology is, um, flawed. Glad to see someone else can instinctively pick his conclusions out for what they are: garbage. Unfortunately, he's getting a lot of positive press for it, because for some reason many parents seem to like it when people tell them they shouldn't let their kids watch television.

Posted at 9:44PM on Apr 25th 2007 by san

7. I agree that the Sigman's research seems questionable. I also think that kids today probably spend more time sitting in front of a computer screen or video game than the TV. That said, I have noticed that when I let my boys (ages 6 and 3) watch one 30 minute program in the evening (usually something like Backyardigans or Dora), they have no problem going to bed but they are grumpier in the morning. I think that they don't sleep as well after watching TV, even something as mild as Dora. For that reason, we have started NOT letting them watch any TV on weekday evenings. We do let them watch TV or a DVD on the weekends; I find its the only thing that gets them to sit still for any length of time giving us a much-needed break! They hardly ever watch actual TV (rather than a DVD), other than PBS Kids or Playhouse Disney shows, but that has everything to do with the lousy content of children's programming on network TV and the incessant commercials for everything from junk food to junky toys.

Posted at 9:48AM on Apr 26th 2007 by Kallie

8. I didn't get the impression that the methods or conclusion of the study were particularly stringent. The old adage "correlation does not equal causation" very much should be applied here. It sounds like one more way to judge how parents function.

Here I thought 15 minutes of Little Bear every morning so that I could get dressed (alone!) was fine for my 2 and 4 year old, especially since they don't watch anything else. Apparently it's going to cause them to become autistic, ill and hit puberty early! Maybe they'll be serial killers too... after all, we've seen a massive upswing of serial killers since kids started watching TV.

Posted at 3:32PM on Apr 26th 2007 by wookie