Graham- Thanks for stopping by.
Reading is much better than TV for both children and adults. It develops the imagination, strengthens vocabulary and comprehension, as well as exposing oneself to a multitude of information and entertainment.

And though TV does indeed have its place in society, limited exposure is often more enjoyable than saturation.

I am an avid reader, and enjoy a few TV programs, but I could easily live in a world with no TV, whereas the same could not be said for a world without books.

Windspike- It’s never too late to voice your thoughts. Thanks for chiming in.

Yes, too many rely on TV as a babysitter under the pretense that the world is too unsafe, ironically a concept reinforced by popular tv programming. And the lack of physical activity in favor of sedentary entertainment like tv is indeed a growing factor in poor health.

I too lived for long periods without a television, and can easily do without. I wish the same were true for most people.

The trouble is when television becomes a surrogate for babysitting. The national average for children is something like 4 to 6 hours of television a day. No wonder there is an obesity problem in America.

In our house, we don’t use television often, and when we do watch it with the kids, we use dvds (Blues Clues, Sesame Street, etc..) of shows we approve. We rarely, if ever, watch commercial television with the kids. They don’t even like the shows.

No one is stopping you from turning off the television and for a long time – before I was married, I didn’t even own one (think about that when folks came over for a party, they would be astounded at the lack of tube in my apartment).

My mantra was that television often sucks you in and spits out your soul. If you feel dirty afterward, could be because the content stinks. Hollywood bends over for the money. And in the case of entertainment, often go for the least common denomenator (never misunderestimating the viewer), with a special subgoal of subjecting prospective consumers with a barrage of adverts designed to stick it to you from cradle to grave. Just why do you think Disney owns Baby Einstein anyway…

I think it’s probably wiser to expose them to different, more challenging forms of art and entertainment. If, and when I have kids I will make sure they read, and read a lot, all the way until their eighteenth birthday… TV, and especially US TV, rarely nurtures the mind.

Shae- Animal rescue shows can also be disturbing, but cats can always be rehabilitated with a little catnip.

Jessica- I hope that Common Sense exists in greater quantities than sometimes seems apparent. And I enjoyed your essay. Thanks for the link, and drop by again soon.

GTL- Yes, me and my rebellious ways. Next thing you know I’ll be telling people to read and think. (Wait…I already do that too!)

Always glad to hear from you!

And the answer to Kevin’s question – NO! A parent needs to evaluate EVERYTHING going on under their roof, including information that comes via the radio, tv sets, game boxes, or whatever. It’s not the Government’s job to provide censorship (as Ken pointed out), it’s a parent’s job. I’d even go as far as to say even if the “child” has passed 18 but still lives under the same room, the above should apply. If they don’t like it, pay for their own roof.

Another great post, Ken!

Your posts about common sense remind me of what I posted in my blog, you can find it at: http://thislifeinanutshell.blogspot.com/2005_04_27_thislifeinanutshell_archive.html

I appreciate your “common sense” blog! I’ll be linking to it so others can enjoy it too!!

mama- Thanks for the rounding show of support. I think this is kind of a Common Sense issue, if people would only decide not to always put themselves ahead of their childrens need for interaction.
Please drop by again.

Jolly- It seems we have something in common here. There is so much more to do than always sit in front of the tv. Good to hear from you again.

Moda- Now you’re talking. I wish more people had your attitude. That’s not to say that every waking moment should be dedicated to our children, but that the time we do have to spend and teach shouldn’t be wasted in fron tof sit-coms and so-called realty tv.

ShaeNC- For not having kids, you seem to get the issue just fine. And yes, different material become appropriate, or at least less objectionable, at different ages. After all, we don’t want our children to be completely absent from the world, and exposure to tv and movies and the like offer opportunities to address these things. However, the creators of popular media can’t be expected to dumb everything down to the level of a four year old, and that is where parental interaction enters the field. Still, some content that wasn’t full of not so subtle sexuality, cursing (even mild) and violence should be available beyond the level of the telly tubbies.

Vulture- Definitely worth the effort to prevent kids from seeing too much of the trash. Some exposure is good and even helpful, but each age must be guided by parents who are involved enough to know what their kid is ready for.
And of course, variety is a big key to a growing mind, so too much of the same thing can easily become obsessive in young kids.

Kevin- Shae has one answer, but here is my take: Filtering by parents is not an exact science, since not all kids grow at the same intellectual, emotional, or physical rate. Factual information is presented in stages, with more details revealed as the child can accept and process it. The same should be true with the main themes of modern mass media.

And as Shae comments, filtering can evolve into a flow of information and opinion between parents and children, offering a much better chance for understanding than complete abandonment of the medium.

Great comment!

Is there an age before 18 that it’s okay to stop filtering the entertainment (books, movies, music, etc.) that children listen to, watch, or read?