Disney is in an uproar demanding a retraction on a University of Washington study that their Baby Einstein videos don’t advance children’s learning development, and in fact “infants who watched DVD’s and videos designed for babies understood fewer words than did infants who didn’t watch the recorded programs.” No news yet on whether Disney will sue for that retraction in order to save the “educational patina” of this $200 million a year brand.
A university news release announced the study’s findings by stating that, “despite marketing claims, parents who want to give their infants a boost in learning language probably should limit the amount of time they expose their children to DVD’s and videos such as ‘Baby Einstein’ and ‘Brainy Baby.’”
The release also quoted Frederick Zimmerman, the study’s leader and an associate professor of health services, as saying that “the most important fact to come from this study is there is no clear evidence of a benefit coming from baby DVD’s and videos and there is some suggestion of harm.”
The two primary reasons that the researchers cite for the negative influence of the videos on infant development are thus:
1) Because the videos are supposed to promote cognitive and language development, parents whose children have poor language acquisition may be turning to the videos for help instead of turning to professionals.
2) Parents who believe videos can promote the development of language and cognitive skills in baby may be less likely themselves to take a proactive approach with their children’s development.
Children do glean things from watching educational videos, but what they glean is troublesome from a parent’s point of view. Covered nicely in an old Salon article called “The Littlest Shopper,” author and interviewee Susan Gregory Thomas elaborates on the corporate benefits of marketing the Baby Einstein brand and it’s offshoots to our toddlers. In this case she targets Sesame Street:
It’s complicated for an infant or toddler to process television. When they are put in front of the television, the only thing they seem to be getting out of it in a verifiable way is character recognition. That’s why you see babies and toddlers so thrilled when they’re at the supermarket and they recognize Elmo. But still, it wears what the marketing industry calls an “educational patina.”
What is so awful about character recognition?
The problem is that the great social values that Elmo and the characters on “Sesame Street” teach are lost on children under the age of 3. They get solely a flat, one-dimensional character recognition. And the only other times that children are going to encounter the character are when a company is trying to sell the kid something. You don’t see Elmo running around your park. You see Elmo when he’s in diapers, when he’s on juice boxes, when he’s on Band-Aids and when he’s on toothbrushes.
The saddest part of it all is that parents are spending their money on products that are supposed to be educational and developmental in nature, and instead they’re unknowingly spoon-feeding their children more of the corporate model. Sesame Street in particular is another sad case because it promotes learning, tolerance, and social issues as part of its brand, but because of the Republican federal government cut gigantic chunks PBS funding, a good portion of the funding is left to “Viewers Like You” — and corporate giants like Pampers and McDonald’s with their own markets in mind.
President Bush gave a shout-out to Baby Einstein creator Julie Aigner-Clark in his January State of the Union address. He praised her “enterprising spirit” as something for which all Americans should aim, meaning that in America anybody can sell bullshit with the right marketing team.
See also: Marketing Elmo’s World
I’m trying to write something that doesn’t Blame the Parents.
It’s not working so well.
I question the individual who believes The Walt Disney Company (or any other corporation) has any concern for children’s education beyond the education/socialization of product preference/loyalty. (Most of us here have gone through public school; surely we can remember the extreme differences between even our corporate history textbooks and the history we later found when we took it upon ourselves.)
We aren’t taught in public schools to critically question media and its contents/messages. Some children can go on for hours about their favorite video game, but that they are discussing intricate details about the speed of a Dodge Ram and how that plays into product placement within their mind is a concept missed on them — and usually the parent(s). That they can even distinguish a Dodge Ram from any other vehicle unnerves me. But car culture is not the main focus here….
I was reading through the archives of the No Impact Man blog a few days ago and in one entry that stuck with me, he responds to an email from another parent regarding how he is able to raise his daughter without teevee — the whole “what do you do for entertainment instead?” concern. He explains, simply, they do stuff instead of watch stuff. (And here is the post: Entertaining Isabella without TV).
The thing is, NIM is able to do these things because his and his wife’s careers and modest wealth(?) allow him the time to spend with his family. Folks who are working a lot don’t often have the time, or, especially, the energy, to get off their butts. But there’s also an element of laziness: watching teevee is fucking easy.
I don’t know.
I don’t have a child, but I was one and I get to hang out with some. They’re curious little beings and the amount of shit they are able to soak up is amazing; I find they’re usually just soaking up the “wrong” stuff. (I realize how subjective I’m being.)
I do know that even if we have children, we will continue to not have cable teevee, but there will be the occasional movie/film. I don’t know about video games; our three (old) systems are currently collecting dust, although I’m lusting after a Nintendo DS lite. Ugh.
I like trips to the local libraries, parks, and just walking around town. These seem like great activities for children, and even greater places for potential learning experiences. A movie cannot replace living life, just as it can’t be a substitute for real education.
PS
The link to “Marketing Elmo’s World” doesn’t work.
Try the link again — it’s fine for me.