I couldn't agree more with the section titled "no more studies needed" !! DUH, we know already, now why and how do we fix it!?!? This issue correlates to our current economic issue, meaning no personal accountability is at the root!! Which again, duh, we know... but why and how do we fix it!?!

Mr. Fischoff, you seem to be making two arguments
here. First of all that, obesity aside, up to
3-5 hours per day of TV is ok.

Mr. Fischoff wrote:

"Never mind! Look, the trouble with all these
"correlational" or even "causal" or experimental
studies is that they typically fail to note that
ordinarily there is something called a threshhold
effect in these data. That is, it is only when time
doing "TV" or "movies" or "music" or "Internet"
gets beyond a certain number of hours do problems
emerge. Use of these media up to, say, 3-5 hours
a day, generally does not negatively correlate with
poor grades in school or poor reading skills.
In other words, we're talking about serious excess."

Note, this idea of 3-5 hours per day of TV
being ok for academic achievement is NOT supported
by the study:

"watching TV in early childhood and adolescence
was significantly associated with poor educational
achievement at follow-up"

"Increased cumulative odds of poorer school performance
was seen with higher weekday television screen time.
Weekend screen time and video game use were not associated
with school performance."

"Greater hours spent watching TV were associated with
lower scores on cognitive functioning tests"

"Greater hours watching TV were associated with poor
school achievement"

"Number of hours of TV viewed/day were statistically
associated with lower cognitive function test scores."

Etc, etc, etc,

Later on, when writing about obesity, you don't
make such a claim instead you argue that obesity
is a symptom of poor lifestyle choices.

You argue that:

"The media didn't create the desire to eat and sloth
about. Its principal guilt is largely that, in its
various forms, it enables these predelections which
are,themeselves, vestigial tendencies from our remote
ancestors and their uncertain food sources when we
really had to work for our food and lights went out
at around sundown. Today, we don't work for our food,
we pay for it. Today we have time to kill and little
need to burn calories. It's not the media. It's people."

50 years ago, before this media onslaught, parents
(even negligent parents) didn't have to worry about
their kids spending hours every day slothing around,
nor was obesity a problem for the vast majority of
children.

Now that we have electronic machines *designed* to
be very, very enticing it is hard for both parents
and children to tear themselves away.

So of course, with all that time spent in front
of the TV, there is less time to prepare a healthy
family meal. Coincidentally, the TV advertises many,
many alternatives to healthy food. Are you arguing,
Mr. Fischoff, that junk food advertising has no effect?

what to do about it?

Well, I like the way USA Today wrote about the study.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-12-01-media_N.htm

The article included recommendations for parents:

SET LIMITS

Experts offer these tips to protect children:

• Limit screen time to one to two hours a day.
Consider ditching cable or TV altogether.

• Learn about new media, such as text-messaging
or social-networking websites, and how your children
are using them.

• Don't rely on the ratings for video games.
Instead, watch or play the games yourself.

• Don't allow children to have computers,
TVs or other media in their bedrooms.

• Set limits on how a child may use a new purchase,
such as an iPod, from the beginning.

Sources: Emanuel Ezekiel, National Institutes of
Health; Michael Brody, University of Maryland;
Jane Brown, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Victor Strasburger, University of New Mexico
School of Medicine

Terry,

If you look at my exact words, not your paraphrase, you will see that I said:"That is, it is only when time doing "TV" or "movies" or "music" or "Internet" gets beyond a certain number of hours do problems emerge. Use of these media up to, say, 3-5 hours a day, generally does not negatively correlate with poor grades in school or poor reading skills." I was referring to a collective use of these media, not TV per se but perhaps I could have been a bit clearer. Nonetheless,other research reported by W. James Potter in his book on Media Literacy (2005)

http://books.google.com/books?id=TmUrgu561K8C&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=thresh...

supports these numbers and indicates that the threshold where trouble begins, on average, is around 30 hours per week. And he is discussing only TV watching;Trouble because it indicates that there are already other problems operating which is why the child (or teen, or adult) is retreating into passive entertainment for extensive periods of time. Perhaps the motive is escape from unpleasant realities, escape from depression, escape from demands and responsibilities or a combination of such motives.

As for junk food ads, I know of no research which makes the case that watching junk food ads embedded in programming or in commercials, unconnected with an already sedentary life style, produces obesity. In other words, watching a lot of TV AND being inactive AND using food as self-medication and eating whatever is in front of you almost automatically is also correlated with depression and other psychological conditions and family settings. These life style issues and psychological states are all intertwined, co-occurring, mutually reinforcing. It makes little sense to pick out TV watching per se or general videophilia and say,"there's the villain."

Even if parents pull the child away from TV and let him do something more cognitively complex and engaging, the child is still sedentary, despite the parents' more positive sentiments about media interactivity.

And, of course, Terry, the big problem is not just parents not setting limits, as you point out, but why the parents aren't looking into the reasons behind so much escapist media use. That is often a symptom not the problem.

Well, you are right I should not have paraphrased you.

Your said that 3-5 hrs of *media* wouldn't hurt
academic achievement. And, under certain circumstances
I would agree. If a child was spending 3 hrs per day
playing educational computer games and/or reading
and writing on the computer, then I think that
wouldn't hurt their academic achievement, and might
even help. Regardless, they would be learning skills.

The problem with the word "media" is that it is so
amorphous. Reading a webpage, versus watching a
movie, versus playing a MMORPG game, versus listening
to music, are all very different activities with
different effects.

As for your link to the James Potter book on
Media Literacy (2005), he seems to be making 2 points.

1. That kids in Japan watch just as much TV as kids
in the U.S., yet their academic abilities are
much greater.

I searched for any confirmation that Japanese kids
watch just as much TV as American kids, instead I
found this:

"according to the OECD's “Communications Outlook 2007”"
Japanese households watch half as much TV as American
households.

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?sub...

And according to this article Japanese children watch
half as much TV as American children.

http://www.coastal.edu/business/cbj/pdfs/articles/spring2004/gaumershah.pdf

2. Potter's second point is that: "School achievement is
overwhelmingly related to IQ. Also, children with lower
IQs watch more television. So it is IQ that accounts
for lower achievement and higher television viewing."

That's a valid point, one of the studies referenced
by the meta-analysis was the New Zealand study
which took IQ into consideration:

"These findings indicate that excessive television viewing
is likely to have a negative impact on educational achievement.
This is likely to have far-reaching consequences for an
individual’s socioeconomic status and well-being in adult
life.23 Although we cannot prove that watching television
is causally related to poor educational achievement, the
associations between viewing time and educational outcomes
were strong and independent of the known confounding influences
of intelligence, socioeconomic status, and childhood behavioral
problems. Furthermore, this study fulfills many of the other
criteria often used to infer causality in an observational
study, including temporal sequence, dose-response relationship,
and biological plausibility. However, we cannot rule out the
possibility of reverse causation. This is likely to be at least
part of the explanation for the strong association between
television viewing during adolescence and leaving school without
any qualifications. By adolescence, some individuals will be
poorly motivated toward schoolwork and may, for example, fill
their time by watching television instead of doing homework.
This is less likely to be the explanation for the strong inverse
association between television viewing in childhood and attainment
of a university degree. The finding that childhood viewing was a
better predictor than adolescent viewing of not obtaining a
university degree makes reverse causation unlikely and indicates
that excessive childhood television viewing has a long-lasting
association with poor educational outcomes."

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/7/614

Mr. Fischoff, you write that:

"supports these numbers and indicates that the threshold where
trouble begins, on average, is around 30 hours per week. And he
is discussing only TV watching;Trouble because it indicates that
there are already other problems operating which is why the child
(or teen, or adult) is retreating into passive entertainment for
extensive periods of time. Perhaps the motive is escape from
unpleasant realities, escape from depression, escape from demands
and responsibilities or a combination of such motives."

Partly true, but the same can be said about alcohol. Alcohol is
a symptom of deeper problems, but it also makes whatever problems
the person has, worse. Seeing a psychologist is a symptom of
deeper problems, but in that case, seeing a psychologist
helps the person (usually/hopefully) to improve their situation.

You seem to be arguing that TV is a symptom that has neutral or
positive effects. I'm arguing that TV is a symptom that has
negative effects (even at relatively low doses).

You write:

"As for junk food ads, I know of no research which makes the
case that watching junk food ads embedded in programming or
in commercials, unconnected with an already sedentary life
style, produces obesity."

I agree. But, TV does pack a powerful twofer punch, encouraging
viewers to sit on the couch for hours per day, plus delivering
(especially in the case of kids TV programs) large amounts of
junk food advertising.

You write:

"These life style issues and psychological states are all
intertwined, co-occurring, mutually reinforcing. It makes
little sense to pick out TV watching per se or general
videophilia and say,"there's the villain.""

I think that kind of like arguing that drinking alchohol in
vast quantities is part and parcel of bad lifestyle choices (true),
and that it makes little sense to encourage the drinker to cut
back or stop drinking.

"And, of course, Terry, the big problem is not just parents
not setting limits, as you point out, but why the parents
aren't looking into the reasons behind so much escapist
media use. That is often a symptom not the problem."

Again we disagree. I think a big part of the reason
that parents aren't setting limits, is that too many
experts defend TV, and/or don't argue for the APA
recommendation of 1-2 hours per day (maximum).
Public health campaigns against alcohol and cigarettes
have lead to a large reduction in consumption.
Truthful health information does have an impact.

Also, I think that since so many parents are afraid
to let their kids go outside and play, more public
support for after-school programs like the Boys and
Girls Club would make it easier for kids to play and
socialize (like they used to way back in the old days).