var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 5:41 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Did anyone really expect they would retract the statements? Looks like this could go back and forth for awhile.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 5:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The problem is they are both making a separate point and neither will really address each others concerns. Disney is saying that the University didn't prove that Baby Einstein videos make kids dumber, which is true, because all they tested was \"baby videos\" which include really stupid shows whose goal is not to educate children. Then the University is saying they stick by their research that says \"baby videos\" make kids dumber. It would have been fine for the university to come out and say their research initially shows that \"baby videos\" seem to lead to smaller vocabularies, but then they started calling Disney out as though Baby Einstein videos were all they tested.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 5:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sure it could. Disney is looking at this as the university is saying \"Baby Einstein makes kids stupid\" or they're worried that those who read the article will walk away with that notion. A company that puts out a product like that doesn't care who does what research until that research will stop people from buying their product.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 6:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Here's a thought -- maybe instead of blasting this valid study and its valid findings, Disney should publish the results of its own research showing that their Baby Einstein videos are in fact beneficial.

Or maybe Disney merely made this sh!t up and their \"Baby Einstein\" line is more marketing than science.

Common sense dictates that personal human interaction and basic human teachings are far superior learning tools than an electronic box that does not involve family interaction. How is this a surprise to anyone?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 17, 2007 6:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

In a war between PR flacks and scientists, bet on the scientist every time.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

hubris

August 17, 2007 6:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bluegus32: That's not really the point, though. I don't have a problem with the study, and agree with their findings; nothing can substitute for human interaction. The point is that in their press release, the University is blasting a *particular* \"baby video\" by name. And I can see Disney's point about that, valid as the study may be.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Denada

August 17, 2007 6:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It seems to me like a better course of action for Disney would be to request that the press release be revised or a correction be released, or however these things work. Just take \"Baby Einstein\" out of the press release and everyone could be happy.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 6:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@omerhi: But if you make a product that does not perform as intended, and in fact has the opposite result, what is the problem with identifying that product?

It would be akin to saying something like, \"we have found that ingesting gasoline, such as that provided by Chevron, is dangerous to one's health.\" I'm not sure I see the problem.

In this case, the study determined quite validly, that baby videos have no beneficial effect and likely have a detrimental effect. Identifying one of such line of videos that falls within the study's findings is perfectly appropriate. Disney may think it's mean to single them out but they provide the single most popular version of product identified in the study. I

Am I missing something?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 7:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Not to nitpick here, but the press release referred to a category of baby videos:

\"For every hour a day that babies 8 to 16 months old were shown such popular series as \"Brainy Baby\" or \"Baby Einstein\"...\" (my emphasis)

These were among the videos under study, and included in the data count. It just so happens that \"Baby Einstein\" is the most popular of its type, so citing it in the press release functions as a way of identifying the video category. Was it also a bit of sly marketing? Well, duh--it is a press release, after all. Touché, Disney. Go science!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

BrockBrockman

August 17, 2007 8:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm a big fan of science. I'm not a big fan of plopping kids in front of the TV with the intent of making them smarter. I question, however, whether the research done by UW -- which involved the methods of observational study and self-reporting -- was truly sound.

I don't doubt UW's common sense conclusion; but I don't think that Brainy Baby, in and of itself, makes kids dumber. Dollars to donuts, UW will release a follow-up report that places the blame on inattentive parents, who are more likely to shit kids up with DVDs, and not squarely on the videos themselves, thereby helping everybody \"win.\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 8:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Also, I just noticed the topic name above: \"Dumb Babies, Redux\". That made me laugh like a kookball. Meg, if you're responsible for that, then my crush on you has just bumped up another notch.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 17, 2007 8:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BrockBrockman: Actually, the study made no conclusion as to any causal connection between the baby videos and dumber kids. They only found a correlation. it is very possible that the types of parents who plop their kids in front of televisions have a greater chance of having dumber kids.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

August 17, 2007 8:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

who are more likely to shit kids up with DVDs

@BrockBrockman: ?!?!?!?!?

What kids up?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

August 17, 2007 10:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Considering that everytime that a trend is found with digital audio players, it comes out, \"Listening to your iPod while driving can KILL you!\", I think Disney needs to take its lumps and move on.

There are a ton of advantages to being a market leader in a category. And some disadvantages. This is one of them.

Disney should grow up. Especially since Baby Einstein videos were part of the tested titles. Just because a huge mega-corp can pick on a couple altruistic scientists doesn't mean they should. Go fight for Net Neutrality instead - something that helps both Disney and the world, and we'd applaud.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 18, 2007 4:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well, there certainly seems to be no correlation between Baby DVDs and smarter babies. I'd say the \"no DVD\" segment is a symptom of a particular type of parent. The ones that take a generally more active role in parenting.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

BrockBrockman

August 18, 2007 5:40 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Would you believe ... an evil monkey sabotaged my keyboard? Freudian slip? Typo?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

acambras

August 18, 2007 1:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BrockBrockman:
Maybe it was a \"dumb baby.\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

legotech

August 18, 2007 4:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

People keep saying that the test covered specific DVDs or lines of DVDs, but thats not true...the researchers sat on their behinds in their offices and called people on the telephone and asked about \"baby videos\" not any one specific title. The scientists never observed anyone watching anything, the researchers have no clue if the parents use the vids as a babysitter or actually interact with the kids. They simply talked to mom/dad on the phone.

For them to then go ahead and say DISNEY MAKES YOUR KIDS DUMB is irresponsible at best.

When they redo this study with the specific titles and in a situation where the scientists are actually seeing how the kids and parents interact, then they can send out a press release with the specific titles listed. But calling the trailer park and asking Bubba and Bubbette if they let the kid watch videos does not good science make.

Its like the Mattel recall, millions of toys are recalled, but the only one the news used pictures of was some minor character from Disney's Cars movie...We get it, y'all don't like Disney, but lets wait until there's something real to use against 'em? Please? Otherwise it just dilutes the argument.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

August 18, 2007 4:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bluegus32: Since most consumerist readers are probably fairly solidly middle class or above, they may not be aware of the levels of television watching vs. human interaction that occurs in some impoverished households, where the television is on LITERALLY ALL DAY and is LITERALLY baby sitting the kids all day, without an adult in the house at all, because all available adults are working to buy food. The effect this has on language acquisition is SPECTACULAR (spectacularly bad, of course).

I think a lot of parents who read these studies are mentally applying the results to their own peer group of middle- and upper-middle-class parents, where parental interaction tends to be fairly high and television exposure (comparatively) low. So when parents say \"I let my child watch no TV and therefore am infinitely superior to the parent who lets their child watch 15 minutes while showering and uses the TV as a babysitter, this study proves it,\" they're \"skewing\" the results by applying the data only to their own experience.

In many of these studies what drastically drags down the \"TV negatively impacts language acquisition\" is the set of children who spend all their waking hours in front of the television with almost no human interaction; households where KINDERGARDENERS are truant because they have to watch the younger children. The impact on the language acquisition of 20 minutes of Bob the Builder on a toddler with involved middle-class parents is likely to be negligible.

(Also, for God's sake people, there's no such thing as perfect parenting and no such thing as perfect children, and one mistake in infancy or toddlerhood is unlikely to doom your child to a lifetime of failure. Although hyperactive overparenting may doom them to a lifetime of therapy. The level of hysteria these studies can create among the hyper-parents is troubling.)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 19, 2007 1:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@trai_dep: the scientist(s) will be right every time, but sadly they may not win the debate every time. Usually science can't afford a good PR machine, unlike corporations (like, oh, for example, Disney...)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

August 20, 2007 1:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BrockBrockman: I'd believe typo but the evil monkey makes for a much more entertaining visual.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

August 21, 2007 10:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee: Spoken like a true lawyer -- i.e. let's argue a completely different point than the one at hand.

The question was, quite simply, does watching t.v. cause a potential mental deficit in young children? Answer: yes. In fact, your entire comment seems to complete concede that television watching, and more specifically watching Baby Einstein-type videos are potentially damaging.

You then go off on talking about how some parents, especially those who are near destitute, have no other choice. I agree with everything you've said. However, that does not change the argument we are having here; namely, that watching t.v. is detrimental to a child's mental, behavioral, and emotional development. The question of its avoidability in low income families is a completely different argument that has nothing to do with psycho-biology and has only to do with social engineering and socio-economic status arguments.

");