Why TV Matters - I had strong reactions to this Newsweek op/ed from a parent who does not allow her child to watch television. Immediately, I wondered why she would rob her children of something with potential benefit? Sure, "kids who watch more than 10 hours of TV each week are more likely to be overweight, aggressive and slow to learn in school." But her kids won't be in that demographic. From the sound of things, she keeps them on a tight leash and will be able to monitor and approve of what they watch. She would also be able to ensure that the amount of viewing is kept within reasonable limits and would not have a detrimental effect on their health. I understand her concerns about raising active, engaged individuals, but by even expressing that concern, it seems unlikely to me that she would ever leave her children with the television serving as the "other parent."

While her children are currently ages 6 and 3 it is possible to enforce the edict against television, at any time, in any location. But forbidding anything absolutely only arouses more curiousity. Why not demystify TV and allow your kids to watch an hour of Sesame Street, so that they aren't sneaking around when they're older to watch TRL. Rebellion is a natural reaction.

It's not just a matter of being cool, and being able to hold up playground conversations about TV shows. I also think there's an important distinction between watching the news or sporting events and watching entertainment programming. Of course every person's viewing tolerances are different, in the example of football games mentioned in the article, television is a way for people who would not otherwise be able to attend a game on Thanksgiving Day to see the action firsthand. Only later in the commentary does she acknowledge that it's inevitable that they'll allow the kids to view the World Series or rhythmic gymnastics competitions someday.

Finally, Jazzy??