nellebelle

Maybe everyone is in a zombie-like trance in front of the TV.

Seriously though...
I am reading The Plug-In Drug. It was recommended, during a discussion on
another list, as a book that explains why TV is bad for kids and other
people.

I have the 2002 revised edition. The author uses false logic and parent
testimonials to back her belief that TV is bad. She frequently contradicts
herself.

I am thinking of writing an essay to critique the book. That would flex
some muscles that haven't been used in a while!

Mary Ellen

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/21/03 9:00:50 AM, nellebelle@... writes:

<< I am thinking of writing an essay to critique the book. That would flex

some muscles that haven't been used in a while! >>

I'd be glad to put it on a website. I've been collecting good parts for a
free-media-access page for my website already.

When I read that book years ago (before it was "improved" ? <g>) I was struck
by its assumptions and wanted to say "Yeah, but..." all the time I was
reading. I didn't bother to finish it or to write to the author and say
"yeah, but..." because she had her fervent agenda, but it wasn't anything
like my own.

Good for you, Mary Ellen, if you're willing to share a detailed review so
others don't have to read it if they don't want to.

Sandra

MARK and JULIE SOLICH

what is the author's name? I'd be interested in reading the book?

Julie

----- Original Message -----
From: "nellebelle" <nellebelle@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:54 PM
Subject: Plug-In Drug, was Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Are you there?


> Maybe everyone is in a zombie-like trance in front of the TV.
>
> Seriously though...
> I am reading The Plug-In Drug. It was recommended, during a discussion on
> another list, as a book that explains why TV is bad for kids and other
> people.
>
> I have the 2002 revised edition. The author uses false logic and parent
> testimonials to back her belief that TV is bad. She frequently
contradicts
> herself.
>
> I am thinking of writing an essay to critique the book. That would flex
> some muscles that haven't been used in a while!
>
> Mary Ellen
>
>
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

nellebelle

Marie Winn. First edition is from the 70's. Be sure to get the 2002
edition so you can learn all the ways that computers, DVDs, etc. are also
bad. Radio and books on tape are good. So not all technology is bad, just
some <g>

Mary Ellen

----- snip-----
> what is the author's name? I'd be interested in reading the book?

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/22/03 10:33:58 AM, nellebelle@... writes:

<< Marie Winn. First edition is from the 70's. Be sure to get the 2002

edition so you can learn all the ways that computers, DVDs, etc. are also

bad. Radio and books on tape are good. So not all technology is bad, just

some <g> >>

Maybe the author is just NOT at all a visual person and hates pictures.

I'm only partly joking.

My most verbal anti-TV acquaintance is also so narrowly "intelligent" that
she's practically an idiot-savant (only I'm not sure where here savantitude
might lie, but she's proud to be second generation Mensa, so fine; whatever).
Someone here or at the forum last year had found something about a
"disability" in which the person could only learn from the printed word.
Nothing else worked at all as to useful input. That's her!

Maybe it's also the anti-TV author.

I notice lots of times that an expert will say "THIS is the one way learning
and education and school should work for all kids," and then I note that it
seems to be most likely the way it worked for THAT person and his own kids.

And I think that about unschooling sometimes. Yeah, sure swirling through
all the info in the world around me works for me. TONS of it sticks. Works
for my kids too.

Are there people for whom it won't work? Seems so. What are the criteria?
I don't like to think about it.

Sandra

nellebelle

Safe TV limits declared!! Here is the amount that kids can watch before
their school grades will be impacted. A 1999 *survey* showed that children
could watch 4 hours and 34 minutes of "screen activities" (TV, video games,
etc.) and still get good grades. Kids who watch 5 hours and 27 minutes will
get "fair to poor" grades.

The book didn't tell what happens to the kids who watch 4 hours and 35
minutes. Maybe they are the ones who get "good to fair" grades.

'Course, this is an unschooling list, so the impact of TV upon grades is not
relevant here.

Mary Ellen
**1999 survey: Kids and Media @ The New Millenium, Menlo Park, CA: The Henry
J Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999.

nellebelle

I wonder too that children's picture books aren't mentioned as a problem,
only TV. TV is bad, according to the author, because it gives you the
image, whereas in reading you have to form the image yourself in your brain.
Maybe the real culprit behind lower reading scores, etc., is children's
picture books!

Mary Ellen

----- snip----- > Maybe the author is just NOT at all a visual person and
hates pictures.

Deborah Lewis

*** TV is bad, according to the author, because it gives you the
image, whereas in reading you have to form the image yourself in your
brain.***

Well that's just silly.

Is reading about a river better than seeing a river?

Is reading about stained glass better than seeing stained glass?

Is reading about the migration of a two thousand Snow Geese better than
seeing the geese?

I was walking down by the river this morning, looking for birds and other
little critters and I have to tell you that river gave me some images.

I'll probably never go into space and I do like reading about it but MAN!
those pictures!

I'd better go wash my mind out with soap.

Deb L

Elizabeth Roberts

--- SandraDodd@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/22/03 10:33:58 AM,
> nellebelle@... writes:
>
> << Marie Winn. First edition is from the 70's. Be
> sure to get the 2002
>
> edition so you can learn all the ways that
> computers, DVDs, etc. are also
>
> bad. Radio and books on tape are good. So not all
> technology is bad, just
>
> some <g> >>
>
**** Well, we use the TV quite a bit. PBS, Discovery,
TLC, Food Network (my 3 year old LOVES Emeril "I watch
BAM! Mommy?!), National Geographic shows, Nova, A&E,
History Channel...there is SO much on there that is
great. Sarah is an audio learner and while she may not
pay attention to something that is on TV, she'll later
come up to us talking about something she heard about
sharks, or whatever.

Me, if I threw out the TV (and I'm tempted to often
when all they want to do is watch cartoons) it
wouldn't bother me a bit as long as I had books and a
radio. But my husband isn't a reader, so we'll keep it
and do our best to use it wisely!

Elizabeth

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Elizabeth Roberts

Deb, if that's the case, please pass that bar of soap!
LOL there are so many things I'll never do or see, I'm
thankful I can through the TV.

Elizabeth

--- Deborah Lewis <ddzimlew@...> wrote:
> *** TV is bad, according to the author, because it
> gives you the
> image, whereas in reading you have to form the image
> yourself in your
> brain.***
>
> Well that's just silly.
>
> Is reading about a river better than seeing a river?
>
> Is reading about stained glass better than seeing
> stained glass?
>
> Is reading about the migration of a two thousand
> Snow Geese better than
> seeing the geese?
>
> I was walking down by the river this morning,
> looking for birds and other
> little critters and I have to tell you that river
> gave me some images.
>
> I'll probably never go into space and I do like
> reading about it but MAN!
> those pictures!
>
> I'd better go wash my mind out with soap.
>
> Deb L
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/22/03 12:27:51 PM, nellebelle@... writes:

<< The book didn't tell what happens to the kids who watch 4 hours and 35

minutes. Maybe they are the ones who get "good to fair" grades.

>>

And what about those who watched LOTS more and still got A's? Some kind of
disability as to fitting on charts, no doubt. And those who didn't have TV
and didn't get good grades? Profoundly retarded?

No, the studies are profoundly retarded.

<< 4 hours and 34 minutes of "screen activities" >>

In a week? A day? During the five school days?

Where did they find families they KNOW answered honestly?

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/22/03 12:44:59 PM, ddzimlew@... writes:

<< Is reading about stained glass better than seeing stained glass? >>

Depends on the stained glass.

Does the book have clearish pages you can let the light through? Does it
have great color photos even on opague pages?

<<Is reading about the migration of a two thousand Snow Geese better than
seeing the geese?>>

NO.

Is looking straight up at two thousand geese better than not? Wear goggles.

Sandra

nellebelle

I don't know how much time and energy I am willing to put into this, but it
is tempting to look up all of the studies cited and see for myself what the
studies say, how they were performed, etc.

Winn mentions another study where two groups of boys were compared. They
were looking for a link between TV viewing and violence. "One group had
seen little or no TV in the previous two years while the other had watched
an average of 42 hours a week for the same period of time" (This study was
in the 70's and was only TV, didn't include other video activities.)

How did they track the hours spent watching TV over the "previous two
years"? Did they find a bunch of kids to study, then have them keep track
of TV viewing for two years? I doubt it!

As I continue to read this book I find myself increasingly annoyed with it.
However, I think it will be helpful to know where people are coming from
when they argue against TV, to better counter their arguments.

Mary Ellen

----- snip----- > Where did they find families they KNOW answered honestly?

Deborah Lewis

***Is looking straight up at two thousand geese better than not? Wear
goggles.***

And keep your mouth shut!

Eew.

Deb L

Sorcha

I got a book out of the library called “Ready for Reading: A Handbook
for Parents of Preschoolers.” It took about two paragraphs of the
introduction to alienate me. It looked like a book full of fun
activities to do that expand on children’s books, but right from the
start it turned out to be a lecture against “electrical toys: a TV,
electronic games, a joystick, a VCR, a stereo, and an astonishing
variety of remote controls”.

It gives an example of a family that promotes reading. The kid is read
to quietly before bed and is learning. In the second example, of a
family that apparently has idiot kids who won’t ever read, has “harsh
sounds emanating from whatever electronic device is being played
within.” The first child drifts quietly off to sleep. For the second
child, “sleep, when it comes, is not gentle”. All this right in the
intro.

I really resent the implication that letting kids play video games means
that your home doesn’t promote reading. I have my choice of TV, videos,
the computer, or books, and I use each daily. I read more books than
anyone I know. The more I read, the faster I read, and I’ve been
reading three books a day for a long time, not to mention all the books
I read to my children. I read them hundreds of books each year, which
is why I’m always on the lookout for books that recommend children’s
books. And I don’t read “bedtime stories”. My son plays computer games
before bed. His recent choices have been Thomas the Tank Engine Railway
Adventures, Zoo Tycoon, and Blues Clues Kindergarten.

I was telling my husband earlier (after reading the intro and tossing
the book down) that it’s really naïve in this day and age for educators
to ignore the learning that goes on when children use computers and
videos. I’m a huge bibliophile, but come on. How could anyone say, in
2000 (the copyright date), that the kid who’s read a bedtime story is
learning more than the kid who play video games before bed? Gag.

Sorcha


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

MARK and JULIE SOLICH

I have had a real problem with the TV. When the boys were little they
watched it all day! It was all they ever wanted to do.

We have had pretty strict rules about the TV since they were 5 and it has
been the one area I have been very reluctant to loosen up with.
When we officially began homeschooling the TV could only be watched on the
weekend. It seemed to work well and the kids played longer.

BUT, now I am questioning everything!!! It's driving me nuts! <g>

I don't think they would go back to waching it all day coz life is much more
fun than it used to be now that we are unschooling. Well, maybe my oldest
boy would.

I am hugely biased toward books but I guess I am getting past the idea that
everyone has to think that.

Once you start to remove the rules, you begin to question all the rules you
ever set. I haven't come up with any good answers yet!

So, as of yesterday, TV limits are off. Wish me luck!

Julie




----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: Plug-In Drug, was Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Are you there?


>
> In a message dated 3/22/03 10:33:58 AM, nellebelle@... writes:
>
> << Marie Winn. First edition is from the 70's. Be sure to get the 2002
>
> edition so you can learn all the ways that computers, DVDs, etc. are also
>
> bad. Radio and books on tape are good. So not all technology is bad,
just
>
> some <g> >>
>
> Maybe the author is just NOT at all a visual person and hates pictures.
>
> I'm only partly joking.
>
> My most verbal anti-TV acquaintance is also so narrowly "intelligent" that
> she's practically an idiot-savant (only I'm not sure where here
savantitude
> might lie, but she's proud to be second generation Mensa, so fine;
whatever).
> Someone here or at the forum last year had found something about a
> "disability" in which the person could only learn from the printed word.
> Nothing else worked at all as to useful input. That's her!
>
> Maybe it's also the anti-TV author.
>
> I notice lots of times that an expert will say "THIS is the one way
learning
> and education and school should work for all kids," and then I note that
it
> seems to be most likely the way it worked for THAT person and his own
kids.
>
> And I think that about unschooling sometimes. Yeah, sure swirling through
> all the info in the world around me works for me. TONS of it sticks.
Works
> for my kids too.
>
> Are there people for whom it won't work? Seems so. What are the
criteria?
> I don't like to think about it.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

MARK and JULIE SOLICH

I had never made that connection. Makes you wonder about art too. Should
Degas and Rembrant have used words to describe what they were seeing? I
don't think so!

Julie

----- Original Message -----
From: "nellebelle" <nellebelle@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 3:23 AM
Subject: Re: Plug-In Drug, was Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Are you there?


> I wonder too that children's picture books aren't mentioned as a problem,
> only TV. TV is bad, according to the author, because it gives you the
> image, whereas in reading you have to form the image yourself in your
brain.
> Maybe the real culprit behind lower reading scores, etc., is children's
> picture books!
>
> Mary Ellen
>
> ----- snip----- > Maybe the author is just NOT at all a visual person and
> hates pictures.
>
>
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/22/03 7:21:28 PM, sorcha-aisling@... writes:

<< In the second example, of a

family that apparently has idiot kids who won’t ever read, has “harsh

sounds emanating from whatever electronic device is being played

within.” The first child drifts quietly off to sleep. For the second

child, “sleep, when it comes, is not gentle”. All this right in the

intro. >>

Well... if he's never HAD a child play video games until he's really tired,
he doesn't know what he's talking about.

How sad.

Holly, with full range of choices, has been playing Gameboy before she goes
to sleep lately. She could be read to, watch a video, TV (will turn itself
off if she wants), CDs or tapes (all right by her bed), and she chooses,
peacefully, Gameboy.

She has sweet dreams when she remembers any, and tells them beautifully.

Sandra

MARK and JULIE SOLICH

.

I was telling my husband earlier (after reading the intro and tossing
the book down) that it's really naïve in this day and age for educators
to ignore the learning that goes on when children use computers and
videos. I'm a huge bibliophile, but come on. How could anyone say, in
2000 (the copyright date), that the kid who's read a bedtime story is
learning more than the kid who play video games before bed? Gag.

Sorcha

Maybe it's easier to blame video games rather than school for illiteracy.

Julie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~

If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the
moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).

To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/22/03 7:28:12 PM, mjsolich@... writes:

<< Maybe it's easier to blame video games rather than school for illiteracy.
>>

Probably the exact truth.

They tried blaming parents a while back and that didn't work.

Sandra

sablehs

Sorcha,
I understand and agree with everything you have said. My oldest
learned to read by playing the role-playing game Harvest Moon. {she
is 9 now}
Any one who has seen this game knows just playing it a little is
mind work {there is a storyline of a "young man" that receives a run
down farm and it's his job to get it up and running again and get
along with his community.} Anyway she had to stay aolg with the
story line and it gave her the incentive to learn to read. :)
Tracy

--- Sorcha <sorcha-aisling@...> wrote:
> I got a book out of the library called �Ready for Reading: A
> Handbook
> for Parents of Preschoolers.� It took about two paragraphs of the
> introduction to alienate me. It looked like a book full of fun
> activities to do that expand on children�s books, but right from
> the
> start it turned out to be a lecture against �electrical toys: a
> TV,
> electronic games, a joystick, a VCR, a stereo, and an astonishing
> variety of remote controls�.
How could anyone
> say, in
> 2000 (the copyright date), that the kid who�s read a bedtime story
> is
> learning more than the kid who play video games before bed? Gag.
>
> Sorcha
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

mary krzyzanowski

My 12 yodd and 10yodd enjoy listening to books on tape just before they fall
asleep. I wonder what the author of that book would say about that. My
12yo is usually drawing at the same time and my 10yo makes bead critters.
Mary-NY





>From: "Sorcha" <sorcha-aisling@...>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: Plug-In Drug, was Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Are you there?
>Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 21:18:14 -0500
>
>I got a book out of the library called �Ready for Reading: A Handbook
>for Parents of Preschoolers.� It took about two paragraphs of the
>introduction to alienate me. It looked like a book full of fun
>activities to do that expand on children�s books, but right from the
>start it turned out to be a lecture against �electrical toys: a TV,
>electronic games, a joystick, a VCR, a stereo, and an astonishing
>variety of remote controls�.
>
>It gives an example of a family that promotes reading. The kid is read
>to quietly before bed and is learning. In the second example, of a
>family that apparently has idiot kids who won�t ever read, has �harsh
>sounds emanating from whatever electronic device is being played
>within.� The first child drifts quietly off to sleep. For the second
>child, �sleep, when it comes, is not gentle�. All this right in the
>intro.
>
>I really resent the implication that letting kids play video games means
>that your home doesn�t promote reading. I have my choice of TV, videos,
>the computer, or books, and I use each daily. I read more books than
>anyone I know. The more I read, the faster I read, and I�ve been
>reading three books a day for a long time, not to mention all the books
>I read to my children. I read them hundreds of books each year, which
>is why I�m always on the lookout for books that recommend children�s
>books. And I don�t read �bedtime stories�. My son plays computer games
>before bed. His recent choices have been Thomas the Tank Engine Railway
>Adventures, Zoo Tycoon, and Blues Clues Kindergarten.
>
>I was telling my husband earlier (after reading the intro and tossing
>the book down) that it�s really na�ve in this day and age for educators
>to ignore the learning that goes on when children use computers and
>videos. I�m a huge bibliophile, but come on. How could anyone say, in
>2000 (the copyright date), that the kid who�s read a bedtime story is
>learning more than the kid who play video games before bed? Gag.
>
>Sorcha
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/22/03 9:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sorcha-aisling@... writes:

> .” The first child drifts quietly off to sleep. For the second
> child, “sleep, when it comes, is not gentle”. All this right in the
> intro....
>
> How could anyone say, in
> 2000 (the copyright date), that the kid who’s read a bedtime story is
> learning more than the kid who play video games before bed? Gag.
>
> Sorcha
>
>

Or that falling asleep with the TV isn't gentle. We have a TV in our bedroom
and have a family bed. We watch TV before we fall asleep to unwind. Our
sleep is gentle and peaceful.
Pam G.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/22/03 9:58:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mjsolich@... writes:

> I don't think they would go back to waching it all day coz life is much more
> fun than it used to be now that we are unschooling. Well, maybe my oldest
> boy would.
>
> I am hugely biased toward books but I guess I am getting past the idea that
> everyone has to think that.
>
> Once you start to remove the rules, you begin to question all the rules you
> ever set. I haven't come up with any good answers yet!
>
>

That is the point, YEA! Question all the rules. If you take away the
restrictions they may watch TV a lot and that has to be OK. It won't last.
My boys have never been restricted but there are days when all they do is
watch TV. It is OK. They are wonderful boys.
Pam G.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

zenmomma *

>>And keep your mouth shut!>>

This may be the first time someone gets away with suggesting Sandra shut her
mouth. <g>

Life is good.
~Mary

"The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green
earth, dwelling deeply in the present moment and feeling truly alive."

~ Thich Nhat Hanh




_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/23/03 6:44:14 AM, meembeam@... writes:

<< My 12 yodd and 10yodd enjoy listening to books on tape just before they
fall

asleep. I wonder what the author of that book would say about that. >>

My guess would be that they would say the most important thing about a parent
reading the child to sleep is the interaction. But I think that partly
because I think the book is about control more than anything, and the author
seems to want to tell people what to do, and give it a pseudo-scientific
justification.

A book on tape beats my reading at night, because I fall asleep reading if
it's dark and there's a bed involved in any way.

And by that "interaction" argument it should be just as good for the parent
to sing to the child or to tell how the day went, or make up fantasy stories.
*I* think it's as good. But those who defend book reading are, I believe,
influenced by the belief that there are certain books people must have in
them. I think there are ideas that are good to have, but they're in places
other than specifically prescribed books.

And the bigger thing is that all those researchers and theorists and
parenting advisors of the past (and most of the present) had not even
considered the differences there would be if a child didn't go to school, but
spent the whole week, the whole year, at home with parents, and out and about
with parents. Bedtime is no longer the only possibility for quiet
interaction.

Holly's been wanting me to tuck her in lately, and I do. I wish she'd go to
sleep earlier sometimes! And in the past week I've gone to sleep before her
twice, but I did all the set-up I usually do, and put the bedlamp on and
turned the covers down and got her 's the mom-prepared bed-nest she seems to
really want.

Sandra

Kelli Traaseth

JULIE SOLICH <mjsolich@...> wrote:

**So, as of yesterday, TV limits are off. Wish me luck!**



Go Julie!! Go Julie!!

(Just a little cheer for you!)

Kelli



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~

If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).

To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]

Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jana Eagle

"nellebelle" <nellebelle@...> writes:

> I think it will be helpful to know where people are coming from
> when they argue against TV, to better counter their arguments.


I think TV does work for many families, but for my own reasons I
decided to get rid of it... having it completely gone was a lot
easier for me than trying to sift through the programming in order to
find shows that were worth watching. There weren't very many. I am
also highly selective with books I pick out to read... I just find
that there is so much over-stimulation these days that I want my home
to be a refuge from the media.

I am not sure why people say that they can have unrestricted TV in
their house *and* also find the time to do all the other things they
want to do with their kids. I say, "Bravo!" if you can do that. I
sure can't. It is my experience that the television watching directly
interferes with contact with other human beings, contact with the
natural world, and relaxing and getting enough sleep, among other
things. It directly interfered with or replaced story-telling, music,
walks outdoors, and the like in our family, all things that I love and
my daughter loves. The other thing I hated about television was that
when we did have it, it was too easy for me to use it as a babysitter.

Whenever I have watched children's television programming, all it said
to me is: here is the way to train little kids to be good members of
society. get them excited about compulsory schooling, distract them
from what the world is REALLY like-- make them think it is always
happy, with bright, primary colours, and animals that smile and talk
and also go to school. I do think television is addictive-- our
physiology has no way of dealing with it, because it is so different
than anything in nature, and believe it or not, we have evolved over
millenia to be part of nature. TV is not a waterfall, it is not a
flock of geese, it is not a replacement for an actual sensorial
experience of nature.

i haven't read any of the anti-TV books, but these are some of my
thoughts anyway.

Jana

kayb85

> I am not sure why people say that they can have unrestricted TV in
> their house *and* also find the time to do all the other things
they
> want to do with their kids. I say, "Bravo!" if you can do that. I
> sure can't.

We watch a lot more tv in the winter than we do in the summer. It
is something that we do on our "down time", when we're tired and
need to relax.

Or sometimes we use it because tv is full of really cool ideas.
Today at the park when my kids were pretending that the merry-go-
round was a time machine, I thought about the movie "Back to the
Future". They have never watched it and I think that my son
especially would REALLY like it. He loves the idea of inventions
and cool contraptions that he can make and would REALLY find
enjoyment from that movie. I can't wait to watch it with him. But
not tonight--Blank Check is on tv tonight, and I think they'll
really enjoy that too.


> Whenever I have watched children's television programming, all it
said
> to me is: here is the way to train little kids to be good members
of
> society. get them excited about compulsory schooling, distract
them
> from what the world is REALLY like-- make them think it is always
> happy, with bright, primary colours, and animals that smile and
talk
> and also go to school.


I hate the "stay in school" commercials, the constant preaching from
the media that "school is cool", the getting kids excited about
school and even daycare on Barney, Sesame Street, Arthur, etc. I
REALLY think it would be cool, as part of their accepting others
themes, to have homeschoolers and UNSCHOOLERS represented on their
shows. Can you picture it? The Barney kids come out of their
school and there is a new boy already playing with Barney. They
introduce themselves and ask him why he's not in school. He
explains that he's homeschooled and that he spends ALL DAY playing
with Barney while they're in school, but that he would be glad to
come by after they get out of school to play with them too. ;)

I do think television is addictive-- our
> physiology has no way of dealing with it, because it is so
different
> than anything in nature, and believe it or not, we have evolved
over
> millenia to be part of nature. TV is not a waterfall, it is not a
> flock of geese, it is not a replacement for an actual sensorial
> experience of nature.

Personally, I find the computer to be much more addictive than tv.
Dh is more attracted to the tv than I am. Different personalities.

I just can't resist pointing out that you're putting down tv because
it's not a replacement for an actual sensorial experience of nature
while you're typing on a COMPUTER. A computer isn't a replacement
for actual sensorial experience of nature either. ;) Or are you on
a high-tech laptop sitting beside a waterfall as you type? <grin>

Sheila

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/24/03 5:36:47 PM, jana@... writes:

<< I am not sure why people say that they can have unrestricted TV in
their house *and* also find the time to do all the other things they
want to do with their kids. >>

They say that because it's true.

I AM sure why people suggest that unrestricted TV would mean TV on all day.
It doesn't happen when people actually lift restrictions. It is a fantasy or
fear of the restricted.

If I limit or banish TV and then my kids do things with me, will they will be
doing it because they have no choice. I want to be interesting enough that my
kids will turn the TV off to do something with me, and I am, and they do.
But unless it were an emergency I would never ask anyone, kid or adult, to
turn a show off if they were really interested and it wasn't on tape or DVD.
I wouldn't ask someone to stop reading NOW and help me do something. I
wouldn't wake someone up from peaceful sleep just because I wanted them to do
something with me. I see all those things as similar. People make choices
about where to be and why and then will amend their choices to do something
different or better.

It happens here all the time, every day.

<< It is my experience that the television watching directly
interferes with contact with other human beings, contact with the
natural world, and relaxing and getting enough sleep, among other
things. >>

That has not been my experience at all.

<<It directly interfered with or replaced story-telling, music,
walks outdoors, and the like in our family, all things that I love and
my daughter loves. >>

It IS music. We have and do live music too, here, and other means of
recorded music. But if there's to be recorded music, I'd rather the kids
have a chance to see the musicians at work than just to hear the music in the
absence of knowing what instruments are being used.

<<I do think television is addictive-- our
physiology has no way of dealing with it, because it is so different
than anything in nature, and believe it or not, we have evolved over
millenia to be part of nature. >>

This sounds good but doesn't make clean sense to me. I hope others will
comment, because I have only 20 minutes until two other musicians are coming
over to play with me and my husband for a couple of hours. Kirby's at work,
Marty's gaming with friends, and Holly is painting a doll bed and watching
Friends. One of the musicians has a young son who will be here to play with
Holly.

Sandra