i was pretty excited to read this, but started to feel a little hoodwinked by the headline writers about mid-way through. with an article titled "TV Really Might Cause Autism -- A Slate exclusive: findings from a new Cornell study," i was hoping for info from a new study by scientists and physicians with experimental data and brain scan results and chemical analyses and whatnot. instead it’s set of correlational stats produced by a business guy and an econ guy. it’s interesting, but not terribly groundbreaking. i showed this article to a couple of developmental specialists i work with, and they said that dozens similar studies have been published in the last 10 year linking all sorts of things (diet, age of parents, air quality, etc.) to the rise in autism. hopefully some scientists, physicians, and developmental specialists can follow this up with more substantive research that proves or disproves causal relations between TV and neurological problems.

but please don’t consider my skepticism a defense of TV. kids younger than 3 should have no screen time (TV, film, or computer) whatsoever. thereafter, even into adolescence and adulthood, we should probably all spend less time in front of the teleputer and a lot more time in what was once quaintly referred to as the “real world”. frankly, i’d be surprised if TV didn’t do weird things to the brain. i just wish slate hadn’t teased me by overhyping the study’s results.

now if you’ll excuse me i have some… ahem… children’s television to write.
mr. perkins | 10.17.06 - 1:16 pm | #