This is our newest channel????

Discussion in 'DirecTV TiVo Powered PVRs & Receivers' started by newsposter, May 6, 2006.

  1. Rkkeller

    Rkkeller Well-Known Member

    1,420
    45
    May 13, 2004

    Advertisements

    I can see DirecTV adding this before any other channels. They seem to be adding every nitch, religious, shopping and foreign channels they can. I guess it looks good on paper, for the news and to attract new subscribers.

    Who cares what channels might actually interest the majority as after all we are already paying subscribers.
     
  2. willardcpa

    willardcpa QUASI-OMNISCIENT

    2,686
    0
    Feb 23, 2001
    Eugene, OR USA
    Hell, everybody else is ganging up on you. :eek: I might as well too. :D
    This struck a raw nerve. Having recently seen another example of this on a local TV commercial hyping music programs in schools (band, orchestra, chorus, etc). They purported that music students did better at other subjects too, so their conclusion was that studying music made you smarter.

    The more you read - the smarter you are? - No, now if you said "the more educated you are" I would concur.

    Observations that smart people read more and take music programs in school is not necessarily indicative that these two activities made them smart. They were smart to begin with, I think that the correct observation is that smart people are more likely to read and take music programs than those not so smart.

    This logic is about as bass-ackwards as saying that "Being a NASCAR fan will make you an idiot". :p :cool: :D
     
  3. Directvlover

    Directvlover Go Huskers!

    213
    0
    Apr 12, 2004
    Trust me man..once you have kids...you'll love the kids programming and wish there was more.....thanks to channels like pbs kids, nick, noggin...etc....my wife and i actually get a half hour or hour to sit and talk about our day.
     
  4. i_be_broke

    i_be_broke New Member

    28
    0
    Feb 16, 2006
    Chicago, IL
    Fluffybear,

    No offense, but you walked right into this one! Not only has the American Academy of Pediatrics said outright that TV should be avoided by children under 2 years of age(http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/augdis.htm), but current studies are showing that the 'Baby Einstein' videos are a scam (http://blogfromthepond.blogspot.com/2005/12/are-educational-baby-videos-scam.html).

    As a parent of a preemie (70 days early, now 7 months old), I sympathize with the desire to turn on the 'tube'. Heck, while playing an audio CD on the DVD player (to listen to songs while we play together), my daughter's eyes become 'glued' to the Apex DVD logo on the TV set!

    I received a couple of those Baby Einstein videos and, I have to be honest, have you watched those things? They're so freaking repetive and inane, with no opportunity to interact with the image. To my way of thinking, Baby Einstein is the adult equivalent of Pink Floyd's DSOTM after you've ingested some illicit substance. Is it entertaining...Yes! Is it educational...No! To make matters worse, Sesame Street is getting in on the action with their latest crop of videos (Sesame Street Beginnings). With products like these, the job of parenting is going to get a whole lot harder.

    The whole 'pro vs. con' argument about infant TV viewing and ADD (with research supporting both sides) reminds me of the argument about whether or not smoking causes cancer...no matter what the outcome, it's not a good idea.

    As Chris Rock once said (drawing a parallel about single parenting), "Just because I can steer my car with my feet, that doesn't make it a good idea!"
     
  5. Directvlover

    Directvlover Go Huskers!

    213
    0
    Apr 12, 2004

    Advertisements

    That's your opinion...and you're entitled to it.....i disagree though. Baby Einstein and things like it are very good in moderation.....We never let the tv just baby sit our toddler....but a little doesn't hurt....in fact i think those videos stimulate their brains in ways you couldn't. They get exposed to animals and the sounds they make. They get exposed to different languages. Numbers, colors....the list goes on. You're viewing them through an adults eyes...so naturally they are repetitive....but to a child they are so much more.
     
  6. hefe

    hefe Rebus Philbin

    38,238
    2,735
    Dec 5, 2000
    CO via Chi-town
    I do...
    ...but I don't. ;)
     
  7. Fluffybear

    Fluffybear New Member

    704
    0
    Nov 10, 2000
    Georgia
    I am not going to debate this with you as it really is off-topic but I will say that I completely disagree with you, Baby Einstein is very much an educational product and yes, I have sat down and watched them with my child.
     
  8. rigs49

    rigs49 Member

    67
    0
    Mar 30, 2005
    People everyone has their own way of parenting. I am a father of 2 and they love whats on tv for them. The important thing to me is that if they are happy then I am happy that is all that matters. They do not watch hours and hours of tv but they do watch it.
     
  9. dtremain

    dtremain New Member

    1,665
    0
    Jan 4, 2004
    New Jersey
    You're fun to argue with.
    If you are so easily insulted, I would recommend you avoid internet forums in the future.
    One way I might respond would be to point out the latest innovations in surgery. For the past several years radical prostate removal and single heart bypasses are often done using the DaVinci robotic system. The system makes the surgery much less invasive (avoiding the cutting of the sternum in the bypasses) and greatly lessesn side and after effects and radically shortens recovery time. The surgeon sits at a console that looks like a big video game with his/her hands in two control grips. Almost everyone who is able to master this skill is young. Can you guess why? One learns from everything. Play a game of baseball and you have greatly improved your spatial skills. Reading is not the only source of learning, nor does it, in and of itself, make you smarter. As another poster points out, you have cause and effect confused.
    I didn't write, "anecdote;" I described your use of your brother as an example as "anecdotal." You might want to find out what the word means before you take such umbrage. It merely means that one example cannot be used to make a general statement. If one child drinks grape juice and becomes a genius, I would not necessarily run out and buy grape juice stock.
    Nothing so-called about them; I'm referring to the mainstream research on the subject.
    Only from your perspective. Televsion, well used, is quite capable of informing and educating. To say otherwise is to make an unfounded blanket statment. I agree, of course, that it should not be used as an unguided babysitter. No one here has said it should be. I do not deny, by the way, that some people use it that way. Happily you do not have to. In fact, there is no requirement for you to so much as have one of the dreadful devices in your home.
    Not at all. One can read like the dickens and, unfortunately, be of a pretty low intellectual ability and one can read little and be quite smart. The world is quite full of examples of both. Reading is certainly an important way of becoming informed but that is not the same thing as being smart.

    As another poster has pointed out, the more likely cause and effect is that people who are already smart are therefore more likely to enjoy reading.
     
  10. Hodaka

    Hodaka New Member

    699
    0
    Mar 12, 2005
    Rolla, MO
    so does anyone know what channel this will be on? After all, it's supposed to debut Thursday..
     
  11. Dodge boy

    Dodge boy New Member

    99
    0
    Apr 7, 2006
    Who cares.... I need only 2 channels 24 hour sports and 24 hour girl on girl networks :p seriously good question though.
     
  12. dtremain

    dtremain New Member

    1,665
    0
    Jan 4, 2004
    New Jersey
    Channel? What channel? :D

    Oh, yeah. No idea! Haven't had a "toddler" in 11 years.
     
  13. newsposter

    newsposter Poster of News

    35,616
    65
    Aug 18, 2002
    SE PA
    yes, what channel...must....find...out
     
  14. newsposter

    newsposter Poster of News

    35,616
    65
    Aug 18, 2002
    SE PA
    http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060511/D8HHCIDG0.html?PG=home&SEC=news


    NEW YORK (AP) - Escalating an already heated national debate, a first-of-its-kind TV channel premieres Thursday designed specifically for babies - an age group that the American Academy of Pediatrics says should be kept away from television altogether.

    The new, round-the-clock channel is called BabyFirstTV. For $9.99 a month, it will be available initially by satellite through DirecTV and later through cable TV providers as well.

    TV offerings already abound for older toddlers, and a lucrative - though controversial - market has developed for baby-oriented videos, attracting the Walt Disney Co. and the makers of Sesame Street, among others. But until now there had been no ongoing TV programming aimed at infants.

    "This is the first channel dedicated to babies and their parents - transforming TV from its original purpose into a way for them to interact," said Sharon Rechter, BabyFirstTV's executive vice president for business development and marketing.

    "The fact of life is that babies are already watching TV," she said. "That's why having BabyFirstTV is so important - what we want to offer is completely safe, commercial-free and appropriate content."

    A 2003 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 68 percent of children under 2 watch TV or videos daily and 26 percent have a TV in their bedroom. Nonetheless, the pediatrics academy recommends that children of that age not be exposed to TV or videos, saying that learning to talk and play with others is much more important.

    The academy's guidelines were cited last week in a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission, challenging claims by leading makers of videos for babies that their products were educational.

    Seattle-area pediatrician Donald Shifrin, chairman of the academy committee that studies television and children, urged parents to exercise prudence and to view the new TV options skeptically.

    "Sesame Street has opened a Pandora's box by legitimizing the idea that TV needs to be developed for this demographic," Shifrin said. "We're not the nation's nanny, but we do want to provide a little balance - we don't want to make TV the default entertainer for children."

    Critics of TV for infants also are skeptical of assertions by BabyFirstTV and other companies that their products are designed to be watched by babies and parents together in an interactive manner.

    "Experience tells anyone that it's not going to be used that way," said Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. "Parents use it to park their kids in front of the TV so they can get things done."

    Rich said the companies "are basically letting parents off the hook from their guilt by saying, 'This is educational,' so parents can justify it to themselves."

    Rechter said BabyFirstTV is not claiming that its programs - designed for viewers from 6 months to 3 years old - will make babies smarter. "But having babies and parents interact helps children's development, and we give them that opportunity," she said.

    Asked about the possibility that parents might simply use the new channel as a baby sitter, Rechter replied, "We could speculate as much as we like about what parents should do."

    "If a baby is watching TV, let's put them in front of appropriate content," she said. "At the end of the day, parents make the decisions."

    BabyFirstTV's advisory board includes Dr. Edward McCabe, a pediatrician who is physician-in-chief at UCLA's Mattel Children's Hospital.

    "I was skeptical when I first heard about it," McCabe said. "But I became convinced that this is a major evolution in media for kids."

    Rechter said BabyFirstTV will start with 250 hours of content, 80 percent of it original. Some of its programs will come from baby DVD companies, including Brainy Baby and First Impressions, and it has an agreement with Sterling Publishing, a Barnes & Noble subsidiary, to use children's books in a "Story Time" program.

    By the end of 2006, Rechter said, BabyFirstTV also will be available in Spanish.

    The three companies behind BabyFirstTV are Regency Enterprises, a film and TV production company that is a partner of Fox Entertainment; Kardan N.V, an investment group based in the Netherlands and Israel; and Bellco Capital, a private Los Angeles-based investment fund.
     
  15. dtremain

    dtremain New Member

    1,665
    0
    Jan 4, 2004
    New Jersey
    Well, if they are going to charge ten dollars a month for it, it is obvious that it is not going to be around very long, making much of this discussion moot. They have to be crazy. :p
     
  16. Dodge boy

    Dodge boy New Member

    99
    0
    Apr 7, 2006
    Yeah I know! Playboy $15.00 or kiddie crap $10.00....... Choice is simple, "Dear get the kids, I'm watchin' porn!" :D
     
  17. dtremain

    dtremain New Member

    1,665
    0
    Jan 4, 2004
    New Jersey
    I know you're joking (saw the smile face), but I wouldn't do either. However, yes, I'm afraid that your equation adds up.

    One factor, however, is that there are lots of "free" ways of getting kid tv. Free porn is just...uh...oh yeah, all over the internet.
     
  18. davidmin

    davidmin Member

    467
    0
    Dec 3, 1999
    Oakland, CA USA
    Sometimes even doctors can be full of baloney. See http://www.slate.com/id/2136372/ (linked to serious academic paper), there's no evidence that watching TV harms kids or makes them dumber.

    Although $10 is wacky. Unless my 2yo wants to fork up the cash for it...

    David
     
  19. Dmon4u

    Dmon4u Unresponsive User

    2,163
    0
    Jul 15, 2000
    PA
    Sales slogan for the new channel:

    " Come see the future of TV now. It's good enough for the whole family ! "

    Fine Print:

    " * PTC approved for all Adults and Children and a prime example of the only type of programming that will be available once we get our way."
     
  20. Daytona24

    Daytona24 New Member

    60
    0
    Jun 7, 2005
    Wow I got tired of reading the responses to the guy who dosent yet have kids. But my boy is only 3 months old and while I hate sticking him in front of the TV you do whatever works. I look forward to playing with him and we do read to him but sometimes you need what the TV can do. Its actually quite cute when your feeding your child and they seem to be intently watching the same show your watching (mostly its just the light or images from the TV).

    I too always thought no TV, then when my boy was born I came to the realization that those that report that TV is bad for children and parents shoudnt let thier kids watch TV, well, THEY DONT HAVE KIDS!!!

    And no I dont use the TV as a babysitter, I spent my childhood actually playing with toys and being creative and having fun without TV and video games. I'll let my child play games (hopefully together) and watch TV, but I also hope he has as much fun being a kid as I still do today!
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements