var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
bloggerX
October 29, 2009 3:16 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Excuse my ignorance, what the hell is Baby Einstein???

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
lightaugust
October 29, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: WHO is Baby Einstein. She's the kid who developed the Theowy of Special Wehwativity.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
October 29, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bloggerX: It's a video series for babies that was touted as \"educational.\" Disney owns them and recently settled by allowing customers to return the videos for $15 or freebies and coupons.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bloggerX
October 29, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq, we are all made of stars.: Ah, Good ole Disney! Since this money-making scam didn't work out, they decided to make their stores child-capturing black holes! What's on the other side, you ask? Those kids as permanent Disney fixtures!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
October 29, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bloggerX: A way to make a quick $60 if you happen to find 4 copies.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
temporaryerror
October 29, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A series of videos aimed at infants that claimed to make your baby smarter. Apparently they lied.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
bloggerX
October 29, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@temporaryerror: Isn't that what Sesame Street does?!?!? People paid for this too o_0

Reply
\"user-pic\"
amberlink
October 29, 2009 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bloggerX:

However, Sesame Street was free on PBS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
October 29, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@amberlink: Also sesame street is meant as an educational aid to children, to generate discussion and encourage kids to further explore the concepts on the show in an actual teaching setting.

Also, the target demographic is a little older than baby age.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Falcon5768
October 29, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: And that whole Children's Workshop actually employed REAL educators and young childhood education studies in the creation of their content and didnt just make crap up

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ceez
October 29, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

lol, all those stupid parents that love to plop their children down in front of a tv as part of their education training just got punked.


you have a stupid baby now.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
SOhp101
October 29, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceez: I'm pretty sure that ceez was joking. Jeez, sometimes sarcasam just needs to be added in big bold red letters for everyone to understand.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
amberlink
October 29, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceez:

No, it didn't make kids stupider. It just didn't have the promised affect of making them smarter. Just because something doesn't make you smarter doesn't automatically imply that it makes you stupider. If that were the case anything people read that they don't understand would imply they are getting dumber.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Working for the man, he pays well.
October 29, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceez: The research did not say these types of things lower IQ. It looked at a very narrow group of subjects and only looked at one variable. TV time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
yasth
October 29, 2009 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drewconrad: Actually the research did look at cognitive development and indeed putting your baby in front of this does indeed make them stupider. You can put your baby in front of a mobile and they will end up smarter (more so if you talk to them).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Working for the man, he pays well.
October 29, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@yasth: Not really. Go read the actual research. I'll just repost a previous comment on this topic:
It is worth noting that the actual research purported to answer nothing, see the related links. Consider that they looked at one aspect of a child's life and made a sweeping causal statement. I am not sure basing your parenting style off this \"research\" is any better than basing it off Disney's word. The NY Times piece does not really even identify the impact. 6 to 8 words less for every hour… What does that mean? Out of how many words on average?


The bigger concern for me is that I see many comments justifying their use of these products. It goes to show how worried we are about how others will perceive our parenting. As if we need an excuse to occupy our children for an hour; to maintain our sanity. My wife and I used them. No excuses needed. Our kids are fine 5 years later. As long as you love your kids, they will be fine.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
FatLynn
October 29, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait, so if you like to look at things, those things make you smarter? I like where this is going!!!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
October 29, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So Boing-Boing and the NYT took a snippet from a bio-piece and took it to be damming evidence? That's a stretch. It also doesn't say that they never did any research, just that they had an idea and ran with it for their first video.

It also bears noting that Mrs. Aigner-Clark sold the business to Disney in 2001. The videos eligible for refund are 2004 or later. She may not have been involved in the marketing/research decisions for the eligible videos at all.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
October 29, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq, we are all made of stars.: For clarity, I agree that the advertising was deceptive and that the settlement is as-good-as an admission of guilt on Dinsey's part. But implying that the creator of the product was lying to suck money from boob-tube-babysitting parents is hard to swallow.

My kids don't watch TV.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Toffeecake
October 29, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2: My 15 month old daughter has liked Jimi Hendrix since she was in the womb. We're trying to teach her to play the drums too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Working for the man, he pays well.
October 29, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq, we are all made of stars.: Wow. You are a super parent. I am envious of your children, and I wish I could have the sense of superiority that your comment conveys. I guess this is the internet version of keeping up with the Jones...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Segador
October 29, 2009 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dunno, my 12-month old seems to like Rock Of Love Bus and the Who Da Daddy? 44 Maury special just fine.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
downwithmonstercable
October 29, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if all these people that are pushing classical music CD's that make your baby smart will be next?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sanspants
October 29, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@downwithmonstercable: While I don't claim to know any research about making a baby smarter, I know a little about music therapy and it's fascinating what people can accomplish with it. So it might not be that much of a stretch to think classical music at such a young age could be somewhat beneficial.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
October 29, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@downwithmonstercable: That was another arm of the BE empire. Frankly, the only reason to ever consider one of those CDs was that it wasn't as mind-numbingly irritating as a lot of the other \"baby friendly\" CDs. Could you get the same music from the Classical bargain bin, an pay 1/5th of what the BE CDs cost? Yes.


Of course, once I found out that my kid likes They Might Be Giants and The Ramones, we moved past that.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
October 29, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This has got to be the most ridiculous witch hunt ever.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Platypi {Redacted}
October 29, 2009 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My kids watched the Baby Einstein and Baby Mozart videos, and LOVED them. They are much better stimuli than the crap on tv, and the music is great for infants (classical stuff, very soothing). The colors and simple movement is nice for the small children to zoom in on while you are making their dinner or trying to clean up a mess (or another child).

My kids are now 11 and in \"smartypants school\" for the top 1% of kids in the district. I like to think genetics and how we raised them has something to do with their intelligence, but it COULD have been Baby Einstein!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Platypi: \"My kids are now 11 and in \"smartypants school\" for the top 1% of kids in the district. I like to think genetics and how we raised them has something to do with their intelligence, but it COULD have been Baby Einstein!\"

No, it's cause of genetics and how you raised them and in spite of Baby Einstein.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
October 29, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Platypi: That was the whole argument against Baby Einstein videos, though. For example, I've sat my daughter on my lap and showed an iTunes visualizer to her for one or two songs. Before I played it, she was looking around being a happy baby observing her surroundings and looking briefly at the computer screen, and when I turned it on she just shut down and stared vacantly at the screen. I don't think she moved for a couple minutes and then I stopped it.


There are those sections in the BE videos where the flashing lights dance around on screen, and that just hypnotizes the child. Studies showed that essentially they would become oblivious to the outside world and just... stare.


I would much rather put my baby down in front of the TV for a few minutes while I do the laundry or some brief work than a BE video. At least she looks away and plays around some of the time instead of just staring at the screen for 20-30 min straight.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DoubleEcho
October 29, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wish there was a video to teach kids common sense - that seems to be lacking big time nowadays, all the way up through adulthood.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
blueneon
October 29, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I never understood why people thought it was a good idea to start the tv addiction as an infant.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
October 29, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@blueneon: My mother (an early-childhood education specialist) and I went out to eat the other night and a few tables away, there was a family sitting with a portable device in front of their in-a-high-chair child, playing some kind of animated video. The kid just sat there, staring at the screen, not even bothering to eat, while the rest of the family just ignored them. Mom was absolutely gobsmacked.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
October 29, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@blueneon: I have to admit that we own a couple of the Baby Einstein DVDs (I believe all were given as a gift). Our kids would occasionally watch them, but it was mostly when we needed something to attract the baby's attention (cooking dinner, or cleanig up a mess (if you drop a bottle of cooking oil on the floor, you DON'T need an infant's help), or as something for the baby to focus on if there was too much other stimulous.


We did not think that it was necessarially educational, but just a very simple DVD with a single subject on a white background with relaxing music...the perfect thing to catch a child's attention and distract them from a dangerous or messy situation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 29, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: I think this is the right place/market for BE products.


It's not a self-service education. It's a tool, to be used with other forms of interaction, toys, mobiles, play, talking, reading, etc. that you can use to raise your kids.


It's also a better alternative to a typical cartoon when you want to TEMPORARILY entertain your kids while you do something else.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_ThatChickRockingKicks
October 29, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So like most pseudo-science and other \"woo-woo\"(James Randi's word), this is a very effective way to separate people from their money, and even when it's revealed that is is woo-woo, people will claim it worked for them and it will still be sold and bought?

Damn, some people have all the luck. I wonder if I can claim my comments are homeopathic, and charge people to read them......

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
secret_curse
October 29, 2009 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_ThatChickRockingKicks: Thanks to the placebo effect getting stronger, it may very well work.


However, if you're going to claim they're homeopathic you'll probably have to start leaving your comments with one character per hundred billion blank comments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_ThatChickRockingKicks
October 29, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: I don't think it's getting strong, I think we are getting stupider and more gullible. I mean, who REALLY believes that pads can suck toxins from your body through your feet?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lehrdude
October 29, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

NICE!


No I can tell my wife the Sponge Bob is just as educational as Baby Einstein!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
October 29, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This just in!!

Mr. Rogers admits he just made it up!

Let's go live to the Congressional Hearings:

\"I thought children would like King Friday and my cardigan sweaters. I confess I made it all up.\"

[crowd gasps]

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@twophrasebark: Sure Mr Rogers just made it up. He made the show because kids liked it - he never claimed it would make him a genious.

Sounds like Aigner-Clark made it cause her baby liked it and didn't originally think it would make babies into geniuses. The genius part was the work of sleazy marketers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lchen
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@twophrasebark: i don't think mr. rogers intended for you to leave your infant in front of his show and to make them smarter.
the problems with baby einstein products were the age group they were targeting and the goals of the videos.
if they came out and just said; here's product that will pacify your infant for a while but use with supervision, results vary.
maybe they wouldn't be in this particular situation

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
October 29, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I watched LOADS of TV growing up. My brother and I were the original latchkey kids. We would come home from school, split an entire box of Little Debbie's, watch about 3 hours of reruns and then go deliver newspapers two hours late. Every Saturday morning we would plop down around 7:30 and watch until noon. I always felt sorry for the kids whose parents didn't let them watch TV. They missed out on all the college drinking games that referenced TV shows.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
oneliketadow
October 29, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the legal threats that Disney made against the University of Washington after researchers there showed that the videos were useless.

\"Disney asks UW to retract 'irresponsible' statement on baby videos\"

The Walt Disney Co. called on the University of Washington on Monday to retract a news release of a study on videos for infants, calling it \"misleading, irresponsible and derogatory.\"

[www.seattlepi.com]

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SadSam
October 29, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under two do not watch any t.v. So, not sure how these videos aimed at babies are supposed to be good for them.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
chocobo
October 29, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Baby Einstein producers actually never claimed that their products will make your baby smarter. They simply picked a very suggestive name for the products, and talked about providing a wide variety of visual and auditory stimulation.

People just assumed they were making claims that simply aren't there if you look for them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
catniplover
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: We must be about the same age, these are the shows I remember (along with reruns of Brady Bunch and Partridge Family). Now they have these cartoons on Boomerang, a Cartoon Network cable channel; so you can watch them again and see how they really SUCKED and your childhood memories of watching The Jetsons will really be ruined.

I refuse to eat Kraft American Cheese Singles and drink Kool Aid while watching though...I don't need ALL my childhood memories crushed!!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catniplover: Aw rats, I don't think I had this. Although I did find Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids online and watched one. MEEEEEEEMMMMMOOORIIIIEEESS!!!!!

Yum, fake cheese and sugar water...food o' the gods.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
catniplover
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone gave us those videos when our first son was born in 2000. I watched one and not only could my son not sit through it, but I couldn't either.

The board books were good though, I remember both boys as babies liked those.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
frogman31680
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I went to my local library and rented about 45 baby Einstein DVDs and brought them back for my firstborn. I was skeptical at first... Then I sat my daughter in front of the first one and this really creepy freakin puppet jumped up on the screen and she stopped, stared for 5 seconds, then proceeded to belt out the worst scream I had ever heard in my life.


I guess she was smart enough to know to stay away from people that have creepy puppets like that in their house.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
lchen
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@starrion: if they were in the clear why would disney take the initiative to refund. does it have something to do with the way they were marketed after 2004?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
crichton007
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is this really news? I got some of these for my kids but I don't recall ever seeing a promise that these would make my kids smarter; I figure this is more like Vitamin C for colds: it doesn't really make a difference but it doesn't hurt either.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lehrdude: Yeah, but I can't tell you...I'd have to kill you.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I totally remember an argument about this when these vids were hot back in the late 90's early 2000's. I'm not surprised at all. Lady cashed out like a bandit, though.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
littlemisslondon
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn: This is the only disadvantage of having been a kid who watched only Sesame Street til age 4 or so, and then had a limit of a half hour of TV per day thereafter: I am clueless when it comes to most pop culture TV references.

Oh well.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Clumber
November 13, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Garbanzo: I take umbrage - UMBRAGE, sir! For I have a photograph of 3 generations of my family all watching Sesame Street together, and not a one of us was under 18 at the time!

You may choose the dueling weapon. I shall be waiting for you, sir, out behind Mr. Hooper's.

Reply
");