does tv damage children

Does TV damage children?

As television reels from the blows of the Great TV Phone Scandal along

comes Dr Aric Sigman to land another uppercut. The Guardian, the

Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Mirror all cover Sigman's speech to

the MediaWatch-UK event in which he railed against the effects of TV

on children and called for a ban on all TV viewing for the under-3s

(The Times covered the article on which the speech was based back in

February).

Protecting children from the harmful effects of TV is clearly in

fashion. OFCOM have banned junk food ads during children's programmes,

Compass has written a scary report on the Commercialisation of

Childhood in which TV plays a lead role, and the Telegraph is running

a Hold On To Childhood campaign.

But it's odd that so many newspapers should pick up on this story -

and report it so uncritically. Only two mention that the speech was at

an event organised by the campaigning organisation MediaWatch-UK, and

only one refers to Sigman's previous publication 'Remotely Controlled:

How Television is Damaging Our Lives'. The reports refer to other

studies which confirm Sigman's findings, but none which contradict

them, or even those which illustrate the complexity of this issue. The

Guardian refers to 'a growing body of research' and mentions a 2004

study by Cornell University about TV and autism (but doesn't link to

it). The Telegraph doesn't refer to any other studies, pro or anti,

and the Mail helpfully tells us that Sigman originally made his

argument 'In a report in a science journal' (it's in The Biologist and

available online). The only report to find someone with an alternative

perspective is the BBC's (not bylined).

Even if you have sympathy for Sigman's criticisms (which I do) they

are less credible if not questioned or put in proper context. Why is

it that news organisations so often seem to accept what scientists say

so uncritically?