TV-Turnoff's travail

Back in 1994, an organization called TV-Turnoff Network was started to alert the public to the consequences of watching too much TV.

The fallout included (and still includes) obesity, social isolation and depression, lack of exercise, addictive behavior, poor school performance, an acceptance of violence, hyper-consumption, personal debt, eating disorders, and the erosion of family time.

The list went on and on, and new concerns were raised along the way. Pediatricians began telling parents that no child under the age of two should watch any TV — NONE.

Of course the TV/media industry wasn’t having any of that, and responded with “Baby Einstein” and “Baby Mozart.” The DVDs were marketed to suddenly Einstein-fixated parents of children in the very age group the doctors deemed most vulnerable.

Disney (whatever happened to Baby Dumbo?) now owns the “baby prodigy” programs.

TV-Turnoff’s way of fighting back was organizing a week without TV — once a year. The week’s events were arranged around the schools, often by parents. The hope was that families would enjoy their week without TV so much that they’d cut back on viewing once the week was over.

Of course, TV wasn’t the only concern. Other electronic media were working their way into our lives. To meet the new challenge, TV-Turnoff morphed into “The Screen-time Awareness Network.”

When TV-Turnoff began, the average American was putting in four hours a day in front of the tube. Put another way, if the average American lived 75 years, that’s works out to nearly 12.5 years in front of the TV.

Imagine yourself reaching 75 and wondering what you could have done with those 12.5 years of 24 hours days besides watch the tube?

So after 15 years of TV-Turnoff weeks and Screen-Time Awareness, how much time is the average American logging in front of the TV (to say nothing of computer screens).

The answer is: four hours and 49 minutes according to a recent Nielsen reports.

That’s more than a 20 percent increase and an all-time high.

So why have the numbers defied the efforts of TV-Turnoff?

According to one story, “researchers say the continued increase in television consumption can be attributed to several factors including: more television sets in the home; more channels and content to choose from; and greater use of personal video recorders.”

I’ll venture another reason. The message of TV-Turnoff isn’t being disseminated by the media, particularly by TV, the most influential media.

If it isn’t on TV it isn’t part of the culture. In short, we are what we watch, and — surprise, surprise — messages telling us about the harmful consequences of too much TV watching aren’t appearing on our screens.

The TV industry and the advertising industry, its Siamese Twin, rely on maximizing the number of eyeballs viewing ads. The ads propel the profits. The TV and advertising industries, so essential to the consumer economy, certainly don’t want those viewers camping in the mountains, hiking the back-country, reading a good book or visiting with family and friends.

So TV-Turnoff gets no traction. And the time Americans spend with TV goes up and up — even as it takes us down and down.

One organization that is using screens to good advantage to educate students and others is the Media Education Foundation. The organization produces and distributes excellent documentaries about media issues.

For more on the Nielsen audience study, go here. You can find out about TV-Turnoff here, but, sadly, the website seems to be unattended. You can’t even find the dates for the 2010 TV-Turnoff. In the past it has been the third week in April.

There is a silver bullet after all

The New York Times Science section ran a story today that confirms what those of us in the media literacy movement have been saying for years: Get the frigging TV (and computer) out of your kid's room.

Why?

The story — and the research — lists the reasons.

Tip-toeing around the "O" word

I had a surreal moment last week as I attended a meeting of our coalition to get kids to spend less time transfixed and inert in front of screens where they often pass the time munching junk food.

The chief motive behind the effort is childhood obesity and the resulting, astonishing rise of diabetes among children.

Our group, which consists primarily of public health professionals, is preparing an all-out effort to get child-care providers to come to a meeting where we can address the problem.

As we wordsmithed our invitation, somebody said, “Don’t use the word ‘obesity’ because many childcare providers are obese and take it personally. They’ll just tune us out and won’t come to the meeting”

Ooooooh Kaaaaaay.

After I let a politically appropriate and sensitively calibrated length of time elapse (like until the end of the meeting), I approached a colleague with the obvious question.

“If the problem is obesity and we can’t talk about obesity because the people we are talking to are obese, how are we going to make any progress?”

She didn’t blink. “Talk about fitness.”

“But fitness isn’t the problem.”

“But it is the solution.”

“But doesn’t talking about fitness offend obese childcare workers who aren’t fit?”

“Well, some of them may be fit.”

“Even though they’re obese?”

“Yup.”

“So what’s the problem with childhood obesity?”

“The kids are at risk of developing diabetes and many who are obese aren’t fit.”

“Aren’t the childcare providers also at risk?

“Well, yessss.”

“So?”

“So we talk about fitness. There’s a better chance they’ll listen.”

Unless, of course, they consider themselves and the children in their daycare to be perfectly fit — however overweight they all might be.

If that’s the case, they still aren’t going to listen.

Did somebody say the emperor has no cloths on?

Screens: When more is harmful

Jean Rystrom, my friend and fellow member of the Healthy Kids Watch Less TV coalition, once again has shared some of the 2007 research that bears on our interest in the consequences of excessive screen time for kids. Jean is Kaiser-Permanente Northwest's regional practice director for pediatrics.

Here is what she has written us:

This is the last of my series of brief impressions from important medical studies in 2007 pertaining to screen time. Consider all of the usual caveats: I'm not a researcher, and I "might" be biased.

The first message simply updated the status quo: By age 12 months, the average baby is watching about 1 hour per day, despite the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation of no screen time before age 2.

The second message showed significant delay in language acquisition associated with screen time in very young children, and sustained exposure was associated with problems in aggression (by far the strongest), sleep, self control, attention and cooperation.

The third message looked at the rapidly growing information about attention issues, where there is still much controversy. But it appears that there is some sort of connection, perhaps a tendency to become accustomed to rapid pacing from entertainment media, which leads to boredom with the real world.

Now, finally, the news on obesity, hypertension, and one article that ties together the issues with media, sleep and learning.

Obesity:

* Family eats together, more likely to serve fruits or veg

* Television on, less likely to serve fruits or veg

* Having dinner together does not overcome the adverse effects of having the television on during mealtime in terms of fruits and veg

Fitzpatrick et al, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, April 2007

Hypertension:

Looking at children who are obese, researchers found that both severity of obesity and daily TV time were significant independent predictors of the presence of hypertension.

* As is well supported elsewhere, TV time was positively correlated with the severity of obesity.

* Children watching 2-4 hours per day had 2.5 times the odds of hypertension compared to those watching less (adjusted for BMI, race, and site, but not SES), and 3.3 times the odds for over 4 hours per day of watching.

* The odds of having hypertension increased by 26 percent for each hour of TV watched per day.

Pardee, et al, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, December 2007

Sleep, memory and learning:

Very small German study in which 13 year old boys were given sleep studies and memory tests on 3 separate days: a) after 1 hour of "mild violence" video game, b) after a PG movie, and c) no screen time.

* Significant changes in sleep patterns were found the night after the video game and the movie, with greater changes for the computer game than the movie (hypothesis: the movie was pretty ho-hum for these boys, who are generally unrestricted in their viewing)

* The sleep pattern changes seen may be related to the learning "consolidation process" which takes place during sleep

* Verbal memory performance was much lower after the video game and also after the movie (but not quite statistically significant for the movie)

* The effect of media on sleep patterns could explain some of the negative association between school performance and screen time

Dworak et al, Pediatrics, November 2007

Parents surrendering, then losing kids to "screens"

My friend and fellow media activist Jean Rystrom of Kaiser Permanente is a great source of information about trends in excessive, damaging "screen-time" use among children.

In the last two days, she has sent me and others two telling e-mails. The first is a link to a Wall Street Journal column, "Teenage Zombies," which echoes many concerns I've heard recently from parents. The primary one is that kids are becoming addicted to video games and are isolating themselves from their families and others.

The second lays out the alarming exposure of very young children to screen images, despite the medical community's warnings about the dangers posed, particularly to those under two. Parents, it seems, are turning over responsibility for their children's well-being to television programmers and TV hucksters.

Here's her report, which I have edited slightly:

I'm sending you a four-part series (one a week) of my brief impressions from important medical studies in 2007 pertaining to screen time (you'll be happy to know that I'm leaving out articles which pertain primarily to content as opposed to time). Consider all of the usual caveats: I'm not a researcher, and I "might" be biased.

This first message is simply an update, particularly about younger children. The issue continues to grow in importance and urgency as more opportunities to watch are developed and marketed, and aimed at younger and younger kids. Clearly we continue to have a lot of work to do: raising awareness is still a priority. Most parents are not aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time at all before age 2 (which has more to do with brain development than obesity, although that too is an ever more serious problem).

* 20 percent of children under age 3 have a TV in their bedroom

* 43 percent of children age 3 and 4 have a TV in their bedroom

* Most common reason cited by parents (54 percent): "it frees up other televisions in the house for other family members to watch their own shows"

* 27 percent of 5 and 6 year olds use a computer on a typical day

- Vandewater et al, Pediatrics, May 2007

* By 3 months of age, about 40 percent of children regularly watched television, DVDs, or videos

* The median age for introduction was 9 months

* Average 1 hour per day by age 12 months

* Parent reasons: education, entertainment, and babysitting

- Zimmerman et al, Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Med, May 2007

Jean and I are part of a coalition making a major push in the next two years to ensure that the dangers of early childhood exposure to screens are widely known and addressed in Oregon. Jean represents Kaiser Permanente (see its excellent website on screen time and its impact on kids); I represent Media Think. Other members include the State Health Department, Multnomah County Library, the County Health Department, WIC (Women, Infants and Children), Community Health Partners and the Oregon PTA.

We'll keep you informed of our progress.

Froot Loops and Red Boxes

They’ve done it again. Both the New York Times and The Oregonian have put a major media story, affecting millions of kids, on their business pages.

The story is that Kellogg Co., under pressure from a lawsuit brought by child health advocacy groups and two parents, is phasing out its advertising of sugary, fat-laden foods to children under 12.

The company will also stop using branded toys and cartoon characters to market products that fail Kellogg’s nutritional guidelines. A whole host of Kellogg’s products fail to meet the guidelines: Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, Pop-Tarts, Rice Krispies, Cocoa Krispies, to name the most familiar.

So much for food that’s “fun” to eat.

So why, pray tell, is this a business story? Because it might affect Kellogg’s stock? Because rice manufacturers might take a hit?

No, this is a story that belongs on the front page in 48 point type. Parents need to see it far more than investors do.

Couple the story with the surge (there’s that word again) in childhood obesity over the last few years. Food like this and inactivity caused by screen addictions and physical inactivity are the causes.

The business page of The Oregonian featured another related media story worthy of the front page. “Happy Meal and a McDVD to go” reads the headline. Seems that McDonald's patrons soon will be able to rent DVDs from vending machines at McDonald’s outlets.

The story carries a photo of a rotund woman selecting a DVD from one of the bright red vending machines. “Happy Meals” could well be her staple. One can hope, although it is unlikely, that she intends to watch her DVD while on an exer-cycle. According to calorieking.com, she’ll need to exercise for 91 minutes to burn off the 600 calories in a “Happy Meal.” If she’s into cheeseburger Happy Meals and soft drinks, which appears likely, she can add another 30 minutes on the bike.

But because this to is written and presented as a business story, the connection between “Happy Meals” and DVDs and obesity is unacknowledged.

By the way, McDonald’s founded the DVD rental company, Red Box, spun it off but still owns a large share of it.

It’s a deadly combo.

The larger question, and the one that is hard to track unless you have the stomach for a lot of TV, is how, and whether, these stories played on television. Most people in this country get their news from television, which may explain the fix we are in.

Gamer's Surprise: "The blood's real, the death's real"

Front page headline in yesterday’s New York Times……“Violent Crime in Cities Shows
Sharp Surge, Reversing Trend”

The news….Many communities are suffering a rise in murder, robbery and gun assaults since late 2005 because of methamphetamine use, gangs, poverty, more released ex-cons on the streets, easy access to guns and, according to the story, “a willingness, even an eagerness, to settle disputes with them, particularly among young people.”

But the real kicker comes next, in a quote from Chris Magnus, the beleaguered police chief of Richmond, Calif.: “There’s a mentality among some people that they’re living some really violent video game…What’s disturbing is that you see that the blood’s real, the death’s real.”

And that’s it: A passing reference to a culture of video-game violence that most certainly plays a significant role in fueling crime among vulnerable youth in vulnerable communities.

The story is loaded with statistics, but none reveals how much time these young robbers and murderers spend in a cruel, addictive video world that teaches them that violence is fun, acceptable, and carries zero consequences.

It’s bad enough that time spent with these violent games is time utterly wasted for all players. Chief Magnus and others in law enforcement may be realizing that “Grand Theft Auto” and its ilk are conditioning the suggestible to kill.

The law enforcement/crime prevention community needs to wake up, gather the evidence, connect the dots and demand legislation that will address the problem. They might start by looking at this Free Radical "video games" site, which is packed with links to references on video games and crime.

While they are doing that, we—adults and kids alike—need to take back our lives from a synthetic, mediated world of twisted values and violence.

More resources: You can find help at the Center for Screen Time Awareness and the Northwest Media Literacy Center.... An excellent video on this subject is "Game Over."