# baby first tv, channel 293



## danny7481 (Dec 6, 2005)

anyone else having problems with this channel? fuziness, blurry, ect.


----------



## willardcpa (Feb 23, 2001)

They haven't had any complaints. 999 out of a 1,000 of their viewers wouldn't notice.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

You decided to pay for that? You're the one!!!


----------



## danny7481 (Dec 6, 2005)

dtremain said:


> You decided to pay for that? You're the one!!!


my 4th month old loves it, so its worth it.

as yes, it is very noticable.


----------



## Markman07 (Jul 18, 2001)

My 15th month old and 4 year old can watch the other 10 children channels as part of my current package.


----------



## Stanley Rohner (Jan 18, 2004)

$9.99 extra per month for BABYFIRST channel ?

What are they thinking ?


----------



## GusMan (Nov 16, 2004)

$10 just for that one channel? No way!


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

danny7481 said:


> as yes, it is very noticable.


Not to the target audience.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

danny7481 said:


> my 4th month old loves it, so its worth it.


In all seriousness, as an educator and researcher with a strong background in human development, and having watched it some during the free preview, I would not recommend it for your four year old. It is far too behavioristic in its approach and "teaches" in a superficial and deceptive manner that will only have to be unlearned later.

Just my opinion.


----------



## goony (Nov 20, 2003)

Does it feature that purple master of toddler mind control, aka BARNEY?


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

goony said:


> Does it feature that purple master of toddler mind control, aka BARNEY?


Actually, as annoying as he is to adults (and really good kids tv should be enjoyable to parents as well, like Sesame Street or the late Shari Lewis), Barney is a lot better than Baby First. At least the things it teaches (self-concept, friendship, cooperation, the difference between imagination and reality, rythmn and music, etc.) are appropriate to the pre-school audience and are appropriately taught.

Typically, the shows on PBS and "Sprout" like Sesame Street, Barney, Mr. Rogers (well maybe Tellietubbies) are far superior to that dreadful nonsense that the OP is paying an extra $10 a month for.

Whille there is nothing wrong with letting a four month old, by the way, spend a little time in front of the tube, it shouldn't be much time. The time should be spent with Mommy and/or Daddy and, perhaps, with other babies, in a truly interactive environment.

I live in the real world, and am a father. I know there are times when the ideal has to be sidestepped, but I would never put such a high priority on putting a baby in front of the TV that I would actually pay $10 a month extra for the programming.

Sorry for the preaching.


----------



## tbb1226 (Sep 16, 2004)

dtremain said:


> It is far too behavioristic in its approach and "teaches" in a superficial and deceptive manner that will only have to be unlearned later.


This sounds pretty sinister. My interest is piqued. Got a for instance?


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

tbb1226 said:


> This sounds pretty sinister. My interest is piqued. Got a for instance?


It's not really sinister. It's well intentioned, but inappropriate in the view of most educators since the late 50's. The methodology used would be based on the teachings of behaviorists like B. F. Skinner. Basically, one is taught to label things or to respond to things in an "appropriate" way, and then later taught why. So, one memorizes numbers in order, and then later learns about the notion of quantity.

Many educators, based on the teachings of people like Piaget and Vygotsky would say that this type of learning is superficial and is a futile effort to teach a child something that they are simply not ready to properly learn. Swiss-born Jean Piaget actually called the drive to earlier and earlier formal education the "American Folly."

Surely, the producers of the programming are well-intentioned, and they could certainly point to certain types of measurement that would support their beliefs. Others, like me, would argue that the wrong things are being measured, and that there is not really "education" because no concepts have been learned.

Babies have an amazing capacity for learning. They learn an entire language, totally without any effort to instruct, in their first couple of years of life. Too often, however, efforts to teach them are inappropriate and not conducive to real and meaningful learning.

I hope that's pretty clear. I'm trying to make it as concrete as possible.


----------



## tbb1226 (Sep 16, 2004)

Sorry for taking this so far off topic, but I think I understand what you're saying.

It's sort of like how I have tried to learn to play music in the past. If I practice one song enough times, I can eventually produce a recognizable rendition, which sounds OK unless someone distracts me and I lose my place and have to start over. Ask me to play any other song, and I'm completely lost. I can't even find the first note.

I was keying on the word "deceptive" in your earlier post, which made me think that somehow the programmers of this Baby First channel were trying to put one over on parents. Now I understand that you meant something different.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

tbb1226 said:


> Sorry for taking this so far off topic, but I think I understand what you're saying.
> 
> It's sort of like how I have tried to learn to play music in the past. If I practice one song enough times, I can eventually produce a recognizable rendition, which sounds OK unless someone distracts me and I lose my place and have to start over. Ask me to play any other song, and I'm completely lost. I can't even find the first note.
> 
> I was keying on the word "deceptive" in your earlier post, which made me think that somehow the programmers of this Baby First channel were trying to put one over on parents. Now I understand that you meant something different.


Yes. It is the method, not the programmers, that I find to be deceptive. By memorizing how to play one song, you have not really learned to play piano. But, you are an adult and you realize what you have and have not learned.

I had a friend who was a reading teacher. When she was young she was a counselor at a sleep-away camp. There was a child, about eight or nine years old, registered in her cabin. When the child's parents dropped him off, they instructed the camp that he was to have the New York Times every Sunday (if you don't live in the New York area, that is one unimagineably huge newspaper). When asked why, they told the camp director that he read it.

And he did. Rather than being with the other kids and having constructive fun, he spent the entire day reading the New York Times. He was perfectly capable of reading the words, but had no idea, of course, of what the stories were actually about. While he could have been involved in constructive activities, he was wasting his time doing nothing. His parents, however, were deceived into believing that what he was doing was "reading" and, therefore, highly educational.


----------



## danny7481 (Dec 6, 2005)

geez, i was just asking if anyone else is having trouble with the channel coming in. and for all the other responses, my 4 MONTH old, not 4 years, likes the channel so i let him watch it, (and no, i dont just put him in front of the tv all day). if you dont want to pay 10 bucks a month to get it, the dont. as for barney, seseme street, ect. yes those are good shows, but my son if 4 months old, like he can learn about friendship.


----------



## TVKitty (Oct 25, 2004)

dtremain said:


> It's not really sinister. It's well intentioned, but inappropriate in the view of most educators since the late 50's. The methodology used would be based on the teachings of behaviorists like B. F. Skinner. Basically, one is taught to label things or to respond to things in an "appropriate" way, and then later taught why. So, one memorizes numbers in order, and then later learns about the notion of quantity.
> 
> Many educators, based on the teachings of people like Piaget and Vygotsky would say that this type of learning is superficial and is a futile effort to teach a child something that they are simply not ready to properly learn. Swiss-born Jean Piaget actually called the drive to earlier and earlier formal education the "American Folly."
> 
> ...


This made me think of something. My friend's nephew (2 years old)watches Baby Einstein. One day in the grocery store, he recited that the Mona Lisa was painted by Da Vinci. While it was cute, and makes him sound smart, I don't think he knows who Da Vinci is or what the Mona Lisa really is.

Is this what you mean?


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

danny7481 said:


> geez, i was just asking if anyone else is having trouble with the channel coming in. and for all the other responses, my 4 MONTH old, not 4 years, likes the channel so i let him watch it, (and no, i dont just put him in front of the tv all day). if you dont want to pay 10 bucks a month to get it, the dont. as for barney, seseme street, ect. yes those are good shows, but my son if 4 months old, like he can learn about friendship.


I was just offering my advice on what I consider a serious issue. As I said, it is just my opinion.

To my mind, at least, this is not a simple matter of whether something is good entertainment or not, but far more important, and a much more important decision for you.

I just felt it should be an informed one.

Why you think that your child's being four months old makes it less important, I do not know. I understood that fully from your initial posting.

As I said, do as you wish.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

TVKitty said:


> This made me think of something. My friend's nephew (2 years old)watches Baby Einstein. One day in the grocery store, he recited that the Mona Lisa was painted by Da Vinci. While it was cute, and makes him sound smart, I don't think he knows who Da Vinci is or what the Mona Lisa really is.
> 
> Is this what you mean?


It's exactly what I mean. He could be spending his time really learning things rather than rote memorizing things that mean nothing to him and add nothing to his learning.

I've never seen those DVD's, but from what I understand, Baby First is essentially modeled after them.


----------

