# This is our newest channel????



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

searched for babies/baby/channel and didn't see the fantastic new news posted yet 

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6331434.html

DirecTV Babies Its Customers
By Linda Moss 5/3/2006 10:00:00 PM

Going for a really infantile demographic, DirecTV Inc. will debut a new educational channel for babies and toddlers next week.

The new network will launch nationally on the satellite provider May 11. After that, it will be available to other cable and satellite companies.

A spokeswoman declined to comment on who is behind the network, or what its name is, although it is purportedly being created by child-development experts.

There will be a press conference on the launch date, May 11, in New York to unveil details of the commercial-free channel.

The new network will have programming designed to meet the unique developmental needs of babies up to three years, with content that offers a unique co-viewing opportunity for parent and child, designed to engage parents in the viewing experience, according to the invite to the press conference.


----------



## Fluffybear (Nov 10, 2000)

I have had a channel like this on my system for nearly 3 years now. When my daughter was born, we set up a 5 disc DVD player which plays nothing but Baby Einstein DVD's and modulated the signal & feed it to the kids room (keeping the DVD player away from little hands).

I like the idea of a toddler channel and I think it is about time someone actually did something. There is not enough programming out there for Toddlers and I will be the first to testify that crap like Baby Einstein is just the ticket to get Mom and Dad a nights sleep


----------



## dogdoctor (Feb 20, 2006)

Fluffybear said:


> I have had a channel like this on my system for nearly 3 years now. When my daughter was born, we set up a 5 disc DVD player which plays nothing but Baby Einstein DVD's and modulated the signal & feed it to the kids room (keeping the DVD player away from little hands).
> 
> I like the idea of a toddler channel and I think it is about time someone actually did something. There is not enough programming out there for Toddlers and I will be the first to testify that crap like Baby Einstein is just the ticket to get Mom and Dad a nights sleep


I don't want to start a thread war, but this has go to be the most rediculous thing I have heard. "Not enough programming out there for toddlers" WTF? I didn't know that Toddlers needed a TV and DVD player. Are we trying to get our kids addicted to TV? Seriously though, I didn't grow up with a toddler channel or Baby Einstein and I am sure many people posting with children didn't either. Having kids equates to no sleep as a parent. Having kids means you work at raising your kids, playing with them, READING to them, and giving them BOOKS among lots of other tasks to long to list. It shouldn't mean turn on the TV and leave the child mesmorized by a moving, talking screen. Its just an excuse to let the TV be the baby sitter and the parent.

Now as for the baby channel...obvioulsy it is catering to the parents that don't really want to work at raising their children. This should be a pay per view as I see it as a you would have had to pay for the babysitter anyhow. People come on, turn the TV off. I know you are tired when you come home from work. I know you are tired when you raise your kids - they are a hell of a lot of work. But no one told you you had to have them. Now that you do - read to them. There is no more need for the TV/Video game addicted, socially inept children that can't even tell all the capitols of the US states. That's just sad.

Overall good channel to have.  As I see it this should be the channel the TV addicted parents should have on all the time. Then at anytime you know you will never see a gun shot, gory violence, sex, those crazy perky and oops I showed a nipple on tv shots that the ultraconservatives are always worried about. I mean really things like that can't happen in real life can they? But that is for a whole other thread.

And before you ask...I don't have kids, we are trying to have them now. I look forward to the long nights and oh, so so much more.


----------



## Fluffybear (Nov 10, 2000)

dogdoctor said:


> And before you ask...I don't have kids, we are trying to have them now. I look forward to the long nights and oh, so so much more.


I'm not going to get in a war with you either because your opinion will change when you become a parent. 
I thought the same thing before my daughter was born but I'll give you about 3 months before you are either bald or willing to try anything to calm that child (especially if they have colic and the first one usually does). Some of products not only calm the child but stimulate their minds and assists with their growth.

BTW, I never said plant your kid in front of the TV and allow it to raise it for you. My daughter was a micro premie (100 days early) and recently was tested by Mayo Clinic and it was determined she is nearly 6 months ahead of her actual age developmentally (9 months adjusted age). We read to her, took her outside, played with her, etc.. and allowed her sometime to enjoy something she liked.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

Fluffybear said:


> I'm not going to get in a war with you either because your opinion will change when you become a parent.
> I thought the same thing before my daughter was born but I'll give you about 3 months before you are either bald or willing to try anything to calm that child (especially if they have colic and the first one usually does). Some of products not only calm the child but stimulate their minds and assists with their growth.
> 
> BTW, I never said plant your kid in front of the TV and allow it to raise it for you. My daughter was a micro premie (100 days early) and recently was tested by Mayo Clinic and it was determined she is nearly 6 months ahead of her actual age developmentally (9 months adjusted age). We read to her, took her outside, played with her, etc.. and allowed her sometime to enjoy something she liked.


The first child USUALLY has colic. Wow, are you informed.


----------



## pdawg17 (Mar 1, 2003)

Fluffybear said:


> I'm not going to get in a war with you either because your opinion will change when you become a parent.
> I thought the same thing before my daughter was born but I'll give you about 3 months before you are either bald or willing to try anything to calm that child (especially if they have colic and the first one usually does). Some of products not only calm the child but stimulate their minds and assists with their growth.
> 
> BTW, I never said plant your kid in front of the TV and allow it to raise it for you. My daughter was a micro premie (100 days early) and recently was tested by Mayo Clinic and it was determined she is nearly 6 months ahead of her actual age developmentally (9 months adjusted age). We read to her, took her outside, played with her, etc.. and allowed her sometime to enjoy something she liked.


I agree...it's true you don't want your infant addicted to tv...my use of the tv is to have 20-30 min/day to get things done around the house when my kids don't feel like playing alone...it'll be nice to have a channel to turn to rather than have to turn the dvd player on, switch to the correct dvd on my changer, and switch the audio on my receiver...

Btw, colic was 0 for 2 with my kids


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

dogdoctor said:


> And before you ask...I don't have kids, we are trying to have them now. I look forward to the long nights and oh, so so much more.


You didn't have to say it. Your detached, abrasive attitude said it clearly enough.

I hope you lose that self-righteousness pretty darn quickly if you ever do have children or they will be in pretty deep trouble. In all seriousness.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

bengalfreak said:


> The first child USUALLY has colic. Wow, are you informed.


"Usually" might be inaccurate, implying a majority, but, for some reason, first children are much more likely to have colic than their younger siblings. So, yes, I would say he's informed.

By the way, although my children are 17 and 12 and a little beyond the toddler stage, I think such a channel, if it is well done, is quite welcome.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

dogdoctor said:


> I don't want to start a thread war, but this has go to be the most rediculous thing I have heard. "Not enough programming out there for toddlers" WTF? I didn't know that Toddlers needed a TV and DVD player. Are we trying to get our kids addicted to TV? Seriously though, I didn't grow up with a toddler channel or Baby Einstein and I am sure many people posting with children didn't either. Having kids equates to no sleep as a parent. Having kids means you work at raising your kids, playing with them, READING to them, and giving them BOOKS among lots of other tasks to long to list. It shouldn't mean turn on the TV and leave the child mesmorized by a moving, talking screen. Its just an excuse to let the TV be the baby sitter and the parent.
> 
> Now as for the baby channel...obvioulsy it is catering to the parents that don't really want to work at raising their children. This should be a pay per view as I see it as a you would have had to pay for the babysitter anyhow. People come on, turn the TV off. I know you are tired when you come home from work. I know you are tired when you raise your kids - they are a hell of a lot of work. But no one told you you had to have them. Now that you do - read to them. There is no more need for the TV/Video game addicted, socially inept children that can't even tell all the capitols of the US states. That's just sad.
> 
> ...


While I'll agree that some parents may abuse TV with their kids, most of this post is pure crap. My kids don't watch TV during the week (unless my 4 year old has been being really good and he'll watch 30 minutes of TV before dinner as a treat), but they watch a couple hours of TV on the weekends. Yes, we read to them as well. Yes, I play games with them as well. But get real, we're with them for 11 hours on Saturday and another 11 hours on Sunday. A couple of hours of TV interspersed throughout the day while we make dinner or mow the lawn or do any of a number of things is not going to harm them. In fact, a lot of the shows help them. Heck, my son knows a lot of Spanish (more than me) which is reinforced through Dora. I welcome more educational TV for toddlers.


----------



## dogdoctor (Feb 20, 2006)

Fluffybear said:


> BTW, I never said plant your kid in front of the TV and allow it to raise it for you.


Fluffybear...It wasn't a personal attack. Sorry if it came off that way. It was meant as a general commentary that we as a society seem to be creating more tv addicted children than ever before. And this just seems to be helping it move one step closer, by giving them (parents in general) one more tempting option to turn on the tv. I guess I hit a nerve with that original post. Sorry about that. From the intelligent responses it appears that people in this thread, monitor closely the amount of TV their children watch - and for that I commend you, I just feel sorry for the children of parents that don't. The thought that toddlers need more TV programming is still amusing to me and I think the OP.

What I find truly amusing is that in the face of low bandwith and HDlite - D* manages to come up with some the most off the beat choices for channels. If this one is done properly it could be good - I guess - for its "small"  number of viewers. But I am pretty sure that the VHS/DVD market for baby stuff already had parents well covered.

For those that posted about me not having children: Maybe my tune will change. Tough to tell now, but coming from personal experience, I know that my brother is addicted to TV/Computers and I will do my best to keep that from happening to my children.

Note: I'm not saying all tv is bad (ie. no TV for children), moderation is the key and in many cases, less is more. The more you use the TV as a distraction/education device the more you risk future addiction problems. And yes there are medical studies out there.

And lastly...for the personal attacks, of which I really only see one:


dtremain said:


> You didn't have to say it. Your detached, abrasive attitude said it clearly enough.
> 
> I hope you lose that self-righteousness pretty darn quickly if you ever do have children or they will be in pretty deep trouble. In all seriousness.


Dude, grow up. I seriously hope your aren't that rude around your children. I find it amusing and quasi offensive that _you_ think I am self-righteous because I am worried about a problem concerning children. This is a place for discussion, not character attacks. You may not like what I wrote, or implied, so point to that. Your post added absolutely nothing to this discussion. If I were you I would spend less time attacking someone else's character and more time reflecting on the nature of your own. But thanks for the constructive advise. Seriously.

In all, do I think we need this channel? No (just as we don't need half the stuff out there now)
Does it have its benefits? Yes
Can it be abused? Yes - let's all just hope it isn't.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

dogdoctor said:


> What I find truly amusing is that in the face of low bandwith and HDlite - D* manages to come up with some the most off the beat choices for channels. If this one is done properly it could be good - I guess - for its "small"  number of viewers. But I am pretty sure that the VHS/DVD market for baby stuff already had parents well covered.


Okay. I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I think you would do well to do a little less examination of the rest of the world, and a little more examination of self.

Now, as far as this statement is concerned, what you call "off beat" is what people in the broadcast industry call "narrowcasting." The ability to have enough stations available so that some can be aimed at a narrow interest group or population is what cable (and, now, satellite) is supposed to be all about. Seven, or so, on the air channels did a perfectly good job of entertaining the masses with the King Family and Donnie and Marie.

And, so, if you are interested in military history, there is a channel for you. And, after this channel goes up, if you are looking for programming for your toddler, there is a program for you.

Your anecdotal evidence of your brother, by the way, is hardly research. Television "addiction" among children reached its peak in the 1960's and has trailed off ever since (just ask those poor people that are trying to sell them stuff). More kids than ever, as should be obvious, are spending their time in organized, sports, karate classes, cultural learning, computer learning, music, dance, what have you, and spending less time in front of the tube.

There are no X-Boxes or PS2's or whatever in my house, by the way. Just one GameBoy that is taken out every now and then. There is a lot more to do in life than watch TV, but it has its place, even for toddlers.

And, by the way, as an educator, I have read the research regarding television 
"addiction" and how watching televsion, in and of itself, causes a deterioration in thinking ability. I have also read the overwhelming body of counter research. Have you?


----------



## Fluffybear (Nov 10, 2000)

bengalfreak said:


> The first child USUALLY has colic. Wow, are you informed.


Out of at least 2 dozen people that I personally know who have more then 1 child, just about every single one of them went through this.


----------



## dogdoctor (Feb 20, 2006)

dtremain said:


> Okay. I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I think you would do well to do a little less examination of the rest of the world, and a little more examination of self.


Do you really think you hurt my feelings? I guess offend was a poor choice of words. Insulted would have been better. As for your quote - you just keep telling yourself that the world doesn't have problems we'll all be ok. See Below.


dtremain said:


> There are no X-Boxes or PS2's or whatever in my house, by the way. Just one GameBoy that is taken out every now and then.


Good for you. But how do you respond to some statitics like this - Forrester found that in the US 77% of 16-25 year-old males regularly play video games. Among the 12-17 age group, the figures are even higher - with a staggering 94% regularly indulging in game playing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4587902.stm. That is a crapload of kids. I'm glad your seeing the bigger picture that is beyond your home.


dtremain said:


> Now, as far as this statement is concerned, what you call "off beat" is what people in the broadcast industry call "narrowcasting." The ability to have enough stations available so that some can be aimed at a narrow interest group or population is what cable (and, now, satellite) is supposed to be all about.....And, so, if you are interested in military history, there is a channel for you. And, after this channel goes up, if you are looking for programming for your toddler, there is a program for you.


Well see there is a problem here. D* already has too many channels and not enough space for channels that would be higher in demand. Thus as you say "Narrowcasting" seems counter intuitive when space is at a premium.


dtremain said:


> Your anecdotal evidence of your brother, by the way, is hardly research. Television "addiction" among children reached its peak in the 1960's and has trailed off ever since (just ask those poor people that are trying to sell them stuff).


As a so-called "educator" you would think you would know to refrain from calling peoples first hand personal family struggles as anecdotes. You just seem to like personal attacks. Do you know what an anectote is? That shows absolute lack of class and quite frankly lowers the way I see you as an educator. I'll just leave it at that.


detremain said:


> And, by the way, as an educator, I have read the research regarding television "addiction" and how watching televsion, in and of itself, causes a deterioration in thinking ability. I have also read the overwhelming body of counter research. Have you?


You can read all the counter research you want, but you can't change the fact that I am seeing the problems first hand. Till you actually do you might want to consider dropping the I've read it in journals/research attitude. Not everything is like you read it. You of all people should know that. To answer your question though, I'll be honest - no I haven't read all these "so-called counter research articles". But let me be clear, did I ever say it deteriorates the brain? No. Nor do I think it does. The point is that for every second, minute, hour, and cummulated years of watching TV, it is time that is wasted time not reading, not being active, not interacting with people or family, not cultivating a healthy mind, or doing pretty much anything other than being sedentary infront of a moving picture. And that is the main problem. It is pretty much a given fact that the more you read, the smarter you are.

In closing you and I agree on this...there is a lot more to do in life than watch TV. And as such I just don't see the need for toddler TV.


----------



## Dodge boy (Apr 7, 2006)

Fluffybear said:


> I'm not going to get in a war with you either because your opinion will change when you become a parent.


I am a parent and sticking children infront of a TV so you can "screw off" all day is not parenting..... IT IS NEGLECT 

Now back the the channel itself, I thought we had an infantile channel already, it's called Fox News.


----------



## vigfoot (Dec 1, 2003)

Dodge boy said:


> I am a parent and sticking children infront of a TV so you can "screw off" all day is not parenting..... IT IS NEGLECT
> 
> Now back the the channel itself, I thought we had an infantile channel already, it's called Fox News.


amen!


----------



## eboydog (Mar 24, 2006)

As a father of 3, with a 16, 14 and 4 year old; I personally know that a TV for a baby sitter is no good in any aspect. The best one can do is for themselves to be there with their infant/toddler and leave the TV off.

A infant needs actual human contact not a DVD or a colorful image on the TV in front of them. There is no substitute for being a parent and I am sure that Directv can't better stimulate my child better than I can!!!


If parents don't have time to be a parent then they should not be parents.

While Tivo is sweet, there comes a time when you just need to leave the TV turned of!! :up:


----------



## kramerboy (Jul 13, 2001)

Dodge boy said:


> I am a parent and sticking children infront of a TV so you can "screw off" all day is not parenting..... IT IS NEGLECT
> 
> Now back the the channel itself, I thought we had an infantile channel already, it's called Fox News.


 Why do people see the need to tell others how to parent? We're talking about TV, people... Not locking your kid in a car on a hot day.... let's get some perspective here.

This thread is way off topic. Perhaps we should get back to it instead of attacking others.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

kramerboy said:


> This thread is way off topic. Perhaps we should get back to it instead of attacking others.


on topic...this 'may' be the channel

http://www.babytv.info/


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

My toddler watched virtually no TV until age 2.

Now at nearly 2 1/2, she watches a variety of selected DVDs and TiVo'd nature programs. No regular shows or series.

Before TV, it was pretty easy. Now, she often gets upset if she can't watch something. It's a nasty addiction.


----------



## Hodaka (Mar 12, 2005)

we've been really limiting our 21mth old on her TV, but I'd welcome another good channel. We mostly let her watch Sprout (PBS Kids) shows. I'm sick of Noggin showing these teen sex show commercials (Degrassi, South of Nowhere, etc) during the day while she was watching Blues Clues, etc. She's still a bit too young to have learned the 30second skip..

A channel fully dedicated to babies and toddlers hopefully won't have this crap..


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

I can see DirecTV adding this before any other channels. They seem to be adding every nitch, religious, shopping and foreign channels they can. I guess it looks good on paper, for the news and to attract new subscribers.

Who cares what channels might actually interest the majority as after all we are already paying subscribers.


----------



## willardcpa (Feb 23, 2001)

dogdoctor said:


> ....It is pretty much a given fact that the more you read, the smarter you are......


Hell, everybody else is ganging up on you.  I might as well too.  
This struck a raw nerve. Having recently seen another example of this on a local TV commercial hyping music programs in schools (band, orchestra, chorus, etc). They purported that music students did better at other subjects too, so their conclusion was that studying music made you smarter.

The more you read - the smarter you are? - No, now if you said "the more educated you are" I would concur.

Observations that smart people read more and take music programs in school is not necessarily indicative that these two activities made them smart. They were smart to begin with, I think that the correct observation is that smart people are more likely to read and take music programs than those not so smart.

This logic is about as bass-ackwards as saying that "Being a NASCAR fan will make you an idiot".


----------



## Directvlover (Apr 12, 2004)

dogdoctor said:


> And before you ask...I don't have kids, we are trying to have them now. I look forward to the long nights and oh, so so much more.


Trust me man..once you have kids...you'll love the kids programming and wish there was more.....thanks to channels like pbs kids, nick, noggin...etc....my wife and i actually get a half hour or hour to sit and talk about our day.


----------



## i_be_broke (Feb 16, 2006)

Fluffybear,

No offense, but you walked right into this one! Not only has the American Academy of Pediatrics said outright that TV should be avoided by children under 2 years of age(http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/augdis.htm), but current studies are showing that the 'Baby Einstein' videos are a scam (http://blogfromthepond.blogspot.com/2005/12/are-educational-baby-videos-scam.html).

As a parent of a preemie (70 days early, now 7 months old), I sympathize with the desire to turn on the 'tube'. Heck, while playing an audio CD on the DVD player (to listen to songs while we play together), my daughter's eyes become 'glued' to the Apex DVD logo on the TV set!

I received a couple of those Baby Einstein videos and, I have to be honest, have you watched those things? They're so freaking repetive and inane, with no opportunity to interact with the image. To my way of thinking, Baby Einstein is the adult equivalent of Pink Floyd's DSOTM after you've ingested some illicit substance. Is it entertaining...Yes! Is it educational...No! To make matters worse, Sesame Street is getting in on the action with their latest crop of videos (Sesame Street Beginnings). With products like these, the job of parenting is going to get a whole lot harder.

The whole 'pro vs. con' argument about infant TV viewing and ADD (with research supporting both sides) reminds me of the argument about whether or not smoking causes cancer...no matter what the outcome, it's not a good idea.

As Chris Rock once said (drawing a parallel about single parenting), "Just because I can steer my car with my feet, that doesn't make it a good idea!"


----------



## Directvlover (Apr 12, 2004)

i_be_broke said:


> Fluffybear,
> 
> No offense, but you walked right into this one! Not only has the American Academy of Pediatrics said outright that TV should be avoided by children under 2 years of age(http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/augdis.htm), but current studies are showing that the 'Baby Einstein' videos are a scam (http://blogfromthepond.blogspot.com/2005/12/are-educational-baby-videos-scam.html).
> 
> ...


That's your opinion...and you're entitled to it.....i disagree though. Baby Einstein and things like it are very good in moderation.....We never let the tv just baby sit our toddler....but a little doesn't hurt....in fact i think those videos stimulate their brains in ways you couldn't. They get exposed to animals and the sounds they make. They get exposed to different languages. Numbers, colors....the list goes on. You're viewing them through an adults eyes...so naturally they are repetitive....but to a child they are so much more.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Directvlover said:


> Trust me man..once you have kids...


I do...


> you'll love the kids programming and wish there was more


...but I don't.


----------



## Fluffybear (Nov 10, 2000)

i_be_broke said:


> Fluffybear,
> 
> I received a couple of those Baby Einstein videos and, I have to be honest, have you watched those things? They're so freaking repetive and inane, with no opportunity to interact with the image. To my way of thinking, Baby Einstein is the adult equivalent of Pink Floyd's DSOTM after you've ingested some illicit substance. Is it entertaining...Yes! Is it educational...No! To make matters worse, Sesame Street is getting in on the action with their latest crop of videos (Sesame Street Beginnings). With products like these, the job of parenting is going to get a whole lot harder.


I am not going to debate this with you as it really is off-topic but I will say that I completely disagree with you, Baby Einstein is very much an educational product and yes, I have sat down and watched them with my child.


----------



## rigs49 (Mar 30, 2005)

People everyone has their own way of parenting. I am a father of 2 and they love whats on tv for them. The important thing to me is that if they are happy then I am happy that is all that matters. They do not watch hours and hours of tv but they do watch it.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

You're fun to argue with.


dogdoctor said:


> Do you really think you hurt my feelings? I guess offend was a poor choice of words. Insulted would have been better.


 If you are so easily insulted, I would recommend you avoid internet forums in the future.


dogdoctor said:


> But how do you respond to some statitics like this - Forrester found that in the US 77% of 16-25 year-old males regularly play video games. Among the 12-17 age group, the figures are even higher - with a staggering 94% regularly indulging in game playing. .


One way I might respond would be to point out the latest innovations in surgery. For the past several years radical prostate removal and single heart bypasses are often done using the DaVinci robotic system. The system makes the surgery much less invasive (avoiding the cutting of the sternum in the bypasses) and greatly lessesn side and after effects and radically shortens recovery time. The surgeon sits at a console that looks like a big video game with his/her hands in two control grips. Almost everyone who is able to master this skill is young. Can you guess why? One learns from everything. Play a game of baseball and you have greatly improved your spatial skills. Reading is not the only source of learning, nor does it, in and of itself, make you smarter. As another poster points out, you have cause and effect confused.


dogdoctor said:


> As a so-called "educator" you would think you would know to refrain from calling peoples first hand personal family struggles as anecdotes. You just seem to like personal attacks. Do you know what an anectote is? That shows absolute lack of class and quite frankly lowers the way I see you as an educator. I'll just leave it at that.


I didn't write, "anecdote;" I described your use of your brother as an example as "anecdotal." You might want to find out what the word means before you take such umbrage. It merely means that one example cannot be used to make a general statement. If *one * child drinks grape juice and becomes a genius, I would not necessarily run out and buy grape juice stock.


dogdoctor said:


> I'll be honest - no I haven't read all these "so-called counter research articles".


Nothing so-called about them; I'm referring to the mainstream research on the subject.


dogdoctor said:


> It is time that is wasted time not reading, not being active, not interacting with people or family, not cultivating a healthy mind, or doing pretty much anything other than being sedentary infront of a moving picture.


 Only from your perspective. Televsion, well used, is quite capable of informing and educating. To say otherwise is to make an unfounded blanket statment. I agree, of course, that it should not be used as an unguided babysitter. No one here has said it should be. I do not deny, by the way, that some people use it that way. Happily you do not have to. In fact, there is no requirement for you to so much as have one of the dreadful devices in your home.


dogdoctor said:


> And that is the main problem. It is pretty much a given fact that the more you read, the smarter you are.


Not at all. One can read like the dickens and, unfortunately, be of a pretty low intellectual ability and one can read little and be quite smart. The world is quite full of examples of both. Reading is certainly an important way of becoming *informed* but that is not the same thing as being smart.

As another poster has pointed out, the more likely cause and effect is that people who are already smart are therefore more likely to enjoy reading.


----------



## Hodaka (Mar 12, 2005)

so does anyone know what channel this will be on? After all, it's supposed to debut Thursday..


----------



## Dodge boy (Apr 7, 2006)

Hodaka said:


> so does anyone know what channel this will be on? After all, it's supposed to debut Thursday..


Who cares.... I need only 2 channels 24 hour sports and 24 hour girl on girl networks  seriously good question though.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Hodaka said:


> so does anyone know what channel this will be on? After all, it's supposed to debut Thursday..


Channel? What channel? 

Oh, yeah. No idea! Haven't had a "toddler" in 11 years.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

yes, what channel...must....find...out


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060511/D8HHCIDG0.html?PG=home&SEC=news

NEW YORK (AP) - Escalating an already heated national debate, a first-of-its-kind TV channel premieres Thursday designed specifically for babies - an age group that the American Academy of Pediatrics says should be kept away from television altogether.

The new, round-the-clock channel is called BabyFirstTV. For $9.99 a month, it will be available initially by satellite through DirecTV and later through cable TV providers as well.

TV offerings already abound for older toddlers, and a lucrative - though controversial - market has developed for baby-oriented videos, attracting the Walt Disney Co. and the makers of Sesame Street, among others. But until now there had been no ongoing TV programming aimed at infants.

"This is the first channel dedicated to babies and their parents - transforming TV from its original purpose into a way for them to interact," said Sharon Rechter, BabyFirstTV's executive vice president for business development and marketing.

"The fact of life is that babies are already watching TV," she said. "That's why having BabyFirstTV is so important - what we want to offer is completely safe, commercial-free and appropriate content."

A 2003 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 68 percent of children under 2 watch TV or videos daily and 26 percent have a TV in their bedroom. Nonetheless, the pediatrics academy recommends that children of that age not be exposed to TV or videos, saying that learning to talk and play with others is much more important.

The academy's guidelines were cited last week in a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission, challenging claims by leading makers of videos for babies that their products were educational.

Seattle-area pediatrician Donald Shifrin, chairman of the academy committee that studies television and children, urged parents to exercise prudence and to view the new TV options skeptically.

"Sesame Street has opened a Pandora's box by legitimizing the idea that TV needs to be developed for this demographic," Shifrin said. "We're not the nation's nanny, but we do want to provide a little balance - we don't want to make TV the default entertainer for children."

Critics of TV for infants also are skeptical of assertions by BabyFirstTV and other companies that their products are designed to be watched by babies and parents together in an interactive manner.

"Experience tells anyone that it's not going to be used that way," said Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. "Parents use it to park their kids in front of the TV so they can get things done."

Rich said the companies "are basically letting parents off the hook from their guilt by saying, 'This is educational,' so parents can justify it to themselves."

Rechter said BabyFirstTV is not claiming that its programs - designed for viewers from 6 months to 3 years old - will make babies smarter. "But having babies and parents interact helps children's development, and we give them that opportunity," she said.

Asked about the possibility that parents might simply use the new channel as a baby sitter, Rechter replied, "We could speculate as much as we like about what parents should do."

"If a baby is watching TV, let's put them in front of appropriate content," she said. "At the end of the day, parents make the decisions."

BabyFirstTV's advisory board includes Dr. Edward McCabe, a pediatrician who is physician-in-chief at UCLA's Mattel Children's Hospital.

"I was skeptical when I first heard about it," McCabe said. "But I became convinced that this is a major evolution in media for kids."

Rechter said BabyFirstTV will start with 250 hours of content, 80 percent of it original. Some of its programs will come from baby DVD companies, including Brainy Baby and First Impressions, and it has an agreement with Sterling Publishing, a Barnes & Noble subsidiary, to use children's books in a "Story Time" program.

By the end of 2006, Rechter said, BabyFirstTV also will be available in Spanish.

The three companies behind BabyFirstTV are Regency Enterprises, a film and TV production company that is a partner of Fox Entertainment; Kardan N.V, an investment group based in the Netherlands and Israel; and Bellco Capital, a private Los Angeles-based investment fund.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Well, if they are going to charge ten dollars a month for it, it is obvious that it is not going to be around very long, making much of this discussion moot. They have to be crazy.


----------



## Dodge boy (Apr 7, 2006)

dtremain said:


> Well, if they are going to charge ten dollars a month for it, it is obvious that it is not going to be around very long, making much of this discussion moot. They have to be crazy.


Yeah I know! Playboy $15.00 or kiddie crap $10.00....... Choice is simple, "Dear get the kids, I'm watchin' porn!"


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Dodge boy said:


> Yeah I know! Playboy $15.00 or kiddie crap $10.00....... Choice is simple, "Dear get the kids, I'm watchin' porn!"


I know you're joking (saw the smile face), but I wouldn't do either. However, yes, I'm afraid that your equation adds up.

One factor, however, is that there are lots of "free" ways of getting kid tv. Free porn is just...uh...oh yeah, all over the internet.


----------



## davidmin (Dec 3, 1999)

Sometimes even doctors can be full of baloney. See http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/ (linked to serious academic paper), there's no evidence that watching TV harms kids or makes them dumber.

Although $10 is wacky. Unless my 2yo wants to fork up the cash for it...

David


----------



## Dmon4u (Jul 15, 2000)

Sales slogan for the new channel:

" Come see the future of TV now. It's good enough for the whole family ! "

Fine Print: 

" * PTC approved for all Adults and Children and a prime example of the only type of programming that will be available once we get our way."


----------



## Daytona24 (Jun 8, 2005)

Wow I got tired of reading the responses to the guy who dosent yet have kids. But my boy is only 3 months old and while I hate sticking him in front of the TV you do whatever works. I look forward to playing with him and we do read to him but sometimes you need what the TV can do. Its actually quite cute when your feeding your child and they seem to be intently watching the same show your watching (mostly its just the light or images from the TV).

I too always thought no TV, then when my boy was born I came to the realization that those that report that TV is bad for children and parents shoudnt let thier kids watch TV, well, THEY DONT HAVE KIDS!!!

And no I dont use the TV as a babysitter, I spent my childhood actually playing with toys and being creative and having fun without TV and video games. I'll let my child play games (hopefully together) and watch TV, but I also hope he has as much fun being a kid as I still do today!


----------



## i_be_broke (Feb 16, 2006)

"...but sometimes you need what the TV can do. Its actually quite cute when your feeding your child and they seem to be intently watching the same show your watching."
-Daytona24

No offense, but given the fact that your on the Tivo community, can't you just hit the PAUSE button...feed your son...then go back to watching your program?

I will be the first to admit that having a Tivo has made me a better parent. If my 7-month old daughter is hungry or needs to be picked up, I can hit 'record' or 'pause' and get back to it later.


----------



## ElVee (Feb 20, 2002)

What channel number is it? 

I still haven't received any channel update messages.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Ch 293


----------



## deniselane (Feb 2, 2006)

It is 293.. and they are giving a free preview for the entire month of May


----------



## beanpoppa (Jan 7, 2004)

I don't think that it's so much that the first child has colic more, but that after the first, you tend to not get so worked about and responsive to crying, and ignore it. As a result, the baby learns to express him/herself in different ways (as you've removed the reward response-attention) and the 'colic' behavior dissipates more quickly.

And to the original topic of the thread- Some children spend too much time watching TV. Before it was TV, some children spent too much time reading, or playing one particular sport. Too much of ANYTHING isn't good developmentally. As a parent, I couldn't make my son addicted to TV. There is pretty much a TV on all the time in my house, but he very rarely will sit down and watch it. It just doesn't interest him. I've never had to meter his TV viewing. My daughter on the other hand (who is only a year old) seems to be mesmerized by the TV, so I'm sure I will have to limit her exposure, and redirect her to other activities as she gets older.



Fluffybear said:


> Out of at least 2 dozen people that I personally know who have more then 1 child, just about every single one of them went through this.


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

I watched a few minutes of this channel and didnt notice much different from what can be found for free on other shows and/or channels. Singing the ABC's, counting to 10, its all around already.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Rkkeller said:


> I watched a few minutes of this channel and didnt notice much different from what can be found for free on other shows and/or channels. Singing the ABC's, counting to 10, its all around already.


Really, I haven't watched it yet, but if they think anyone is going to paying ten bucks for the type of programming that is all over the place, even OTA on Sesame Street and similar shows, somebody clearly has some major screw loose.

It's too funny to be real.


----------



## cowboys2002 (Jun 15, 2001)

Fluffybear said:


> I'm not going to get in a war with you either because your opinion will change when you become a parent.
> I thought the same thing before my daughter was born but I'll give you about 3 months before you are either bald or willing to try anything to calm that child (especially if they have colic and the first one usually does). Some of products not only calm the child but stimulate their minds and assists with their growth.
> 
> BTW, I never said plant your kid in front of the TV and allow it to raise it for you. My daughter was a micro premie (100 days early) and recently was tested by Mayo Clinic and it was determined she is nearly 6 months ahead of her actual age developmentally (9 months adjusted age). We read to her, took her outside, played with her, etc.. and allowed her sometime to enjoy something she liked.


I'm with you . (side note my 10 year daughter was born 3 months premature and is doing fine in school).

A a parent to a 10 year old, 6 year old and 1 year old, i don't park them in formt of the TV. I This includes letting them play videogames or going on the internet. Some of these activities are limited on school nights as well as the wekend.

I could think of many channels added by DTV and cable companies that I personally hate and never watch.

Prior to being a father and homeowner, I thought HGTV and DIY were useless. Now they are required viewing in my home.

The great thing about having a tivo is you can record live tv and spend time with your family. We actually watch shows with our children, although we may have a book or magazine in hand!!


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Now I've watched it for about ten minutes. As a parent, researcher, and educator, let me tell you, this is a nightmare! While there may be sound (although very behaviorist) principles behind the approaches of some of the short vignettes that are strung together here, there is no personality, no humanity, to the mess. The educational principles are similar to the ones used on TeleTubbies (yes, believe it or not, there is an educational approach there that many would accept). But, Teletubbies has the personality of the happy little goofy folks (yeah, I know that one of them's gay, but that's his own business).

This is a skinner box. Picture mesmerized little toddlers being trained by robotic little images parading before their eyes.

I thought this was funny before, due to the ten dollar price tag. Now, I fear for whoever is dumb enough to pay it and stick their kids in front of it.


----------



## Dmon4u (Jul 15, 2000)

dtremain said:


> Now, I fear for whoever is dumb enough to pay it and stick their kids in front of it.


As noted above, for those that support the PTC:

- This IS the kind of programming they want all of us to watch ( if we are dumb enough to still watch TV after they gain control of it ).


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Dmon4u said:


> As noted above, for those that support the PTC:
> 
> - This IS the kind of programming they want all of us to watch ( if we are dumb enough to still watch TV after they gain control of it ).


Absolutely correct.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

we watched this for 2 min over the weekend. Now I know what the above poster meant about thinking he should smoke something while watching. And some of the stuff was just gross. The closeups with the bugs freaked me out. I felt like i was watching a survivor challenge. Can't believe that's ok for babies to see. What's up with the guide data? I'd be irritated paying 10 a month to have generic guide data. I must know exactly when binks the lovable baboon is on so i can record it.


----------



## Hodaka (Mar 12, 2005)

my daughter actually liked this and was participating in several of the activities for younger toddlers (she's almost 22mths). It definitely helps if you take some initiative and interact with your child at the same time (as the popup bubbles sometimes suggest). 

However, there's no way in the world I'm paying $10/mth for it.. she'll go back to watching Sprout..


----------



## Markman07 (Jul 18, 2001)

So they aren't going to include that as part of another package? 10 bucks extra no matter what? WOW! I guess the other 6 kids channels will do for now.


----------



## mrbillpsu00 (Oct 28, 2004)

Markman07 said:


> So they aren't going to include that as part of another package? 10 bucks extra no matter what? WOW! I guess the other 6 kids channels will do for now.


Thats insane, I have total choice premier.. and if I'm adding any adding $$ to my bill, it will be to add a channel with boobies


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Hodaka said:


> my daughter actually liked this and was participating in several of the activities for younger toddlers (she's almost 22mths).


I am just one opinion and you can do as you please for your child (and certainly your interaction is a good thing and may go a long way toward rectifying the problems), but in my experienced opinion, this channel is not just poor, it is dangerous. The fact that she likes it and participated with it isn't enough to make it okay.

You might want to do some reading about behaviorism, it's history and it's approach to learning before you make this choice.

Peace.


----------



## willardcpa (Feb 23, 2001)

mrbillpsu00 said:


> Thats insane, I have total choice premier.. and if I'm adding any adding $$ to my bill, it will be to add a channel with boobies


Is your toddler still nursing??


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

willardcpa said:


> Is your toddler still nursing??


----------



## cowboys2002 (Jun 15, 2001)

My 10 year old and 6 your put this channel on for the baby. If the channel is free, I'm okay with it. But for $9.99 a month, I'll pass.

PBS Kids , and Sprout are sufficient!


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

dtremain said:


> somebody clearly has some major screw loose.


I cant see the channel lasting long. I looked a few times at it and haven't seen anything thats not "been there done that" on one of the free shows or channels.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Rkkeller said:


> I cant see the channel lasting long. I looked a few times at it and haven't seen anything thats not "been there done that" on one of the free shows or channels.


Absolutely, and generally done much better because there are human interactions. I know it prompts such with parents, but lots of times there aren't going to be parents there. Yuck.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

So has anyone recorded a few hours of this channel for later use? 

Does it repeat a lot? 

Why would anyone pay for this?


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

if it was in HD i 'might' ....nahhh

but good point about recording...if would actually pay for you to buy another tivo and record then turn off the tivo and you'd have a few hundred hours of stuff for your baby. Doubt they'd even recognize they are repeats..or care


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Or put it on a few DVDs or even VHS.


----------



## davidmin (Dec 3, 1999)

I watched it with my 2 yo... He was amused for a few minutes, or more like confused. He finally decided that it's a "puzzle." He then resumed his quest to climb on top of my head.

As for being a "dangerous" behavorist experiment, to me it just looked like a bunch of kiddie videos from the dollar bin at Wal-Mart strung together. 

David


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

davidmin said:


> I watched it with my 2 yo... He was amused for a few minutes, or more like confused. He finally decided that it's a "puzzle." He then resumed his quest to climb on top of my head.
> 
> As for being a "dangerous" behavorist experiment, to me it just looked like a bunch of kiddie videos from the dollar bin at Wal-Mart strung together.
> 
> David


I didn't use the word "experiment" in reference to it. I simply diescribed it as "behaviorist" and, in my opinion, quite "dangerous."

I base this on my own education and background as an educator and educational administrator with lots of research into human development theories.

Apparently it *is* a bunch of kiddie videos. The on-screen description gives me the impression that it is a bunch of DVD's. Perhaps these "Baby Einstein" videos that others here have compared it to.

I don't know. I've never watched any of them.


----------



## washins (Jan 22, 2004)

Well, my 2yo daughter did take a little bit from this new station over the weekend...she can clearly say "apple" and can do the sign for it and a few other words.....and that's just from it running in the background for a bit.

Now before someone gets all preachy (and there are a few I've noticed),  we've been trying to get her to call an apple an apple instead of "ball" for a few weeks now, so it's not for a lack of trying. However, she has been more moody since then, but I think that's just because she takes after her mother. I kid!

Seriously though, the station seems to be geared primarily towards stay-at-home parents with money to burn and no desire to parent, but not enough cash for a nanny -- $10 per month vs. $10 per hour. And since it's a pay channel it's gotta be good! Right?!?! It WILL eventually go the way of Total Choice Plus...or else it will just turn into another jewelry shopping channel....love those.

I personally hate it, the little I caught was of a group of people dressed up like mice, talking trash and generally ripping off the Teletubbies schtick, but speaking in somewhat clear sentences...which made me hate it a little bit less.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

washins said:


> Well, my 2yo daughter did take a little bit from this new station over the weekendNow before someone gets all preachy (and there are a few I've noticed),


If you are talking about me, I am not trying to be preachy. I am trying to warn people about what is being done to their children. I don't have anything to sell but freedom. Behaviorism catches on in Germany in the generation before Nazism (I'm not joking).



washins said:


> I personally hate it.


And that should tell you something. You will like truly good children's programming (i.e. Shari Lewis).

Joe Raposo, a writer for Sesame Street, once said in an interview that adults should not only like good children's programming, they should like it for the same reason that the children do. His own song "C is for Cookie" is a perfect example of this.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

washins said:


> Well, my 2yo daughter did take a little bit from this new station over the weekend...she can clearly say "apple" and can do the sign for it and a few other words.....and that's just from it running in the background for a bit.
> .. we've been trying to get her to call an apple an apple instead of "ball" for a few weeks now, so it's not for a lack of trying.


By the way, this incident of learning is what Piaget calls "accommodation." Children categorize items into existing categories where the items resemble each other. Your daughter was calling an apple "ball" because it resembled a ball enough for her to make the accommodation. Some difference, recently, became strong enough for her to separate it out into its own category. Perhaps she thought about the fact that she does not eat balls or gave more weight to the irregular shape or different feel.

Anyway, lots of kids call skunks "cats," etc. and then create new accommodated categories as the differences become meaningful to them.

Could your daughter have seen something on that channel that triggered this inevitable step in learning? Sure. Would she have made the leap soon anyway? You bet (it was in what Vygotsky calls her "proximal zone of development"). Do children learn facts and abilities from a behavioristic approach? You bet. It is the framework in which they learn them that has negative effects.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

ok who's paying for this now? fess up


----------

