Children's television has been a playground for memes for as long as it's existed (much longer than "meme" has been a word!). Most are light and from pop culture -- from Davy Crockett coonskin caps to rumors of gay Teletubbies. Others grow from more dire murmurs about media's effects on children -- sit too close and you'll ruin your vision, short segments decrease attention span, digital kids can't write standard English.
Recently, I've noticed an emerging meme -- "a screen is a screen is a screen." This or similar phrases suggest that only total time matters in children's relationship with media, not what's being viewed or used by whom, nor how and why. As used, it's a facile way to tar all media and absolve parents or activists from doing the hard work of addressing specific content or context.
For example, last month the American Academy of Pediatrics released its updated policy on children and media. Not surprisingly, the AAP's new guidelines reiterate its "no screen time for under twos" position; dismayingly, they also treat enormous technology evolution almost coincidentally and entirely negatively (the "new technology" section addresses only sexting, porn and pro-anorexia websites). In a New York Times article on young children and mobile media, a member of the AAP's Council on Communications suggests the current landscape was just too difficult to parse in its revisions, saying "at the moment, we seem to feel it's the same as TV."
Around the same time, an article on the trusted content review site Common Sense Media advised parents that "as long as you limit the total screen time and choose age-appropriate shows, games, and websites, a screen is a screen is a screen." Quality content depends on far more than being age specific, but more important, it's absurd to suggest that one platform could be "better" than others, agnostic of content.
Back when children's media options were primarily storytelling delivery systems (TV, CDs, VHS/DVD, movies), equating screens might have been acceptable. Today, by contrast, kids encounter "lean back" media like TV and "lean forward" platforms like the web; touch, tap and tilt mobile media and the new sine qua non of active, whole-body engagement, the Kinect (the New York Times' David Pogue says, "You can't play Kinect sitting down, and that's a plus").
This is why it's frustrating when a blogger for Kidglue, a site that claims to help parents "engage their kids through popular culture," not only says all screens are equal (and none necessary), but also that electronic devices only "frustrate" small children. She would need only to see this remarkable video of toddlers with iPhones/iPads (compiled by Children's Technology Review editor Warren Buckleitner) to understand that, in tiny hands, the direct response of a multi-touch screen is day and night from the hand-eye coordination required to wield a mouse.
Debates about whether "a screen is a screen is a screen" range and rage, from marketing to early learning. Moving beyond the hyperbole, though, here are a few thoughts that might help parents make smart use of the many media options available.
There's no transitive property of screens. You can watch video on an iPad, but you can't run apps on a TV, so while young people's TV viewing increasingly is time-shifted or done on devices other than the 42-inch flatscreen, many other gratifications young people seek from media can exist only on specific screens. Given the findings of the Kaiser Family Foundation's "Generation M2" study -- that young people multi-screen, multi-task and add new devices without displacing old ones -- they themselves appears to view different screens as having unique and parallel, not identical, functions.
Context is as important as content. Time, place and purpose matter. Screens can be fixed or mobile; some excel at storytelling and others at gaming; different media are solitary or social; devices may be self-contained and may around the world. A PSP to relieve anxiety at the doctor's office is different from taking pictures with an iPhone on a walk, which is not the same as channel-surfing, which is unlike illustrating a story with "KidPix."
Screens aren't inimical to reading, outdoor and imaginative play. Most often, messages to parents about "screen time" are bundled with cautions about it displacing more valued activities. This was disproved in the Kaiser study; even so, careful choice of screen and content can be a facilitator -- interactive eBooks may help children catch the reading habit; innovative apps like "Google Goggles" or the augmented reality game "Hidden Park" can add adventure to outdoor play. Smart parents use these as supplements, and not replacements for books, neighborhood exploration or free play.
Different screens, different levels of control. Even for today's "digital native" parents, keeping up with the constant introduction of new devices and flood of content can be daunting. This is another reason not all screens are equal; each offers unique ways both to find the best content and to avoid what you don't want. Parents can choose among levels of gate-keeping and curatorial oversight, from television's limited channel menu offering pre-selected content scheduled or on-demand, to the iTunes and App stores with nearly unlimited bandwidth but an editorial team deciding what to sell, to the "wild west" frontier of YouTube and the Internet.
Like parents, content creators are also struggling to make best use of the various screens. The best producers resent the "screen is a screen is a screen" meme because it frees those who are less scrupulous to throw "shovelware" into a scary, fast-changing market. Happily, it seems that the industry is transitioning from "360 commissioning" (wanting one's stories and characters to be on all platforms regardless of fit, for fear of leaving eyeballs or money on the table) to "transmedia," which emphasizes each screen's unique contribution to a coherent whole.
Worldwide, there is a movement afoot to employ media as a growth and learning tool -- from serious games and deeply educational apps, to kids TV that enlightens and entertains, to production tools that turn young people into creators. Growing attention to media literacy training encourages young people to read screens as deeply as they read text. The truth seems self-evident; all screens are not created equal.
Follow David Kleeman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@davidkleeman
"..bundled with cautions about...displacing more valued activities...disproved in the Kaiser study" The Kaiser study is about 8-18 year olds, and this article is talking about toddlers on iPads. Different populations, in a myriad of ways.
"Hidden Park" can add adventure to outdoor play". Hidden Park is a wonderful app. But just as many adults know the disappointment of taking endless photos on vacation, only to find that they spent so much time recording their experience that they missed the actual experience, what about missing the wonder and spontaneity of nature as a result of focusing on a screen?
Most to the point... "Smart parents use these as supplements, and not replacements for books, neighborhood exploration or free play." Ah. Smart parents. Sorry to say, a LOT of parents plunk their toddler down with the iPad (or TV) for hours on end. We can talk all we want about what "smart parents" do, but we have to look at how actual parents are using "screens".
I think we're asking the wrong question. Ok, a screen is not a screen. Similarly, a child is not a child. A toddler is not a 9 year old is not a 15 year old. They cannot be "bundled" as we discuss the influence of screen time.
The piece is not only about toddlers, but refers throughout to different age groups and specific devices and content suited to them. In fact, it's the "screen is a screen is a screen" promoters who fail to take age (and other equally important contextual elements) into account. I do note, though, that your first paragraph says children who make their own choices use screens to displace other activities, but your next paragraph rejects Kaiser's disproof of this because it was with those same older children.
Regarding parental involvement: since media are not going away, we have the choice to throw up our hands and say it's all become overwhelming, or do what we can to encourage, bolster, cajole parents into sharing responsibility for what their kids see and do with screens. I was trying to send a "you can do this" message (what parent doesn't want to be seen as "smart") accompanied by logical starting points about age, child development, control mechanisms and such.
Which do you think would have a better or worse effect on your child?
a) Six hours watching Sesame Street.
b) Six hours playing Call of Duty.
c) Six hours of watching a Saw marathon.
d) Six hours reading Dickens on a Kindle.
Unless your answer is "it doesn't matter, it's all the same", then all screen time is NOT equal. As you say in your article, the problem is that the thinking that a screen is a screen is damaging because it removes responsibility of the actual content. And, when we're creating content for children (whether books, games, TV, anything really), I think we have a massive responsibility.
All screen time is not equal.
A more apt example, in my view, would be:
a) Six hours watching Sesame Street
b) Six hours playing preschool games on an Ipad
c) Six hours watching Hannah Montana.
d) Six hours playing Nickelodeon games online.
In this case, I would inded say "it doesn't matter, it's all the same"....with some caveats.
Not all who say "a screen is a screen" are talking about content, and/or its value--this is why comparing content begs the question. Some who say "a screen is a screen", particularly as it applies to children under two, are saying that we do not know the effect, particularly longitudinally, on brain chemistry and development that results from extensive interaction with 2D (and yes, I know that it's possible to see video images in 3D, that's kind of beside the point) in early childhood, a time when learning and development is very linked to manipulation of objects, multi-sensory exploration, and social interaction.
Even taking your choices, however, I wouldn't possibly say that watching Sesame Street is the same as watching Hannah Montana. Sesame Street has been shown many times to be an effective learning tool. Playing games is an entirely different experience altogether, engaging different skills and requiring an active involvement with the material, understanding of instruction, problem-solving and hand/eye co-ordination just to carry out the tasks. Very little of that is required for watching something like Hannah Montana.
I believe it does matter and it's certainly not all the same.
I understand that those who say "a screen is a screen" aren't all talking about content. I believe the point here is that they should be. Certainly more research is needed in terms of the effects of television content, gaming, etc. in children under two. But results for one will not necessarily apply to the others.