First and foremost, why jump straight to banning? Handheld devices are the "Swiss Army Knife" of modern life: a safety device to keep in contact with family and friends, a camera for documenting the world, a window to connect with grandparents across miles.
Stereotypes run rampant in much of our media consumption and children's cartoons are no exception. Our children, no matter what their race or background, don't see enough cartoons with diverse characters in different cultural settings.
The coming years will look like the late '90s TV "gold rush," when companies staked out channel space in the expanding multi-channel universe. This time, though, the prospectors will mine distinctive content that can woo audiences in the "over the top" TV market.
This week, we've seen a prime example of how the race for a catchy headline or the editorial bent of a journal can influence how research is characterized in the press. Depending on which sources parents follow, they can come away anxious or reassured (or, likely, confused) by the same data!
For someone in my field, merely having my name in the same sentence as Mister Rogers is a heady, humbling experience. I'm too old to have grown up with him as a "television friend," but young enough that his work was seminal to my career choice.
It's easy to imagine teens of 2000 bouncing medium to medium, while longing for a connective thread -- a TV-show website that goes deeper than cast bios and "printables"; magazines that explore the worlds of their favorite games; the book-based backstory to the film they just saw.
Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics released the long-awaited update to its 1999 policy statement on media use by children younger than two. I am amazed that with 12 years to work on it, the AAP labored so mightily and brought forth such a mouse.