A new study released yesterday further confirms the negative effects television might have on young children. According to the research, watching television more than two hours a day early in life can lead to attention problems in adolescence. The link was established by a long-term study of the habits and behaviour of more than 1,000 children born in Dunedin, New Zealand, between April 1972 and March 1973.

The children aged 5 to 11 watched an average of 2.05 hours of weekday television. From age 13 to 15, time spent in front of the tube rose to an average of 3.1 hours a day.

The roughly 40 percent increase in attention problems among heavy TV viewers was observed in both boys and girls, and was independent of whether a diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder was made prior to adolescence.

In the report, published in Pediatrics, those who watched more than two hours, and particularly those who watched more than three hours of television per day during childhood had above-average symptoms of attention problems in adolescence. Young children who watched a lot of television were more likely to continue the habit as they got older. Even if they did not, the damage was done. This suggests that the effects of childhood viewing on attention may be long lasting, the report says.

The study offers several possible explanations. One is that the rapid scene changes common to TV programs may overstimulate the developing brain of a young child, and could make reality seem boring by comparison. It was also possible that TV viewing may supplant other activities that promote concentration, such as reading, games, sports and play.

In case you missed it, two new 24-hour television channels aimed at the Canadian under-3 set made their debut last month - the American BabyFirstTV and the British BabyTV. These channels already have millions of diaper devotees tuning in every day, but they're raising a few eyebrows.

As I mentioned in a previous post, child development experts warn against children watching any television during the first two years. Studies show that kids learn much more rapidly from real life. So why are we seeing around-the-clock baby TV channels? The average baby is asleep 15 hours a day anyway.

At best, it's a cheap ($5/month) form of subcontracted parenting - at worst, it's an avenue for corporations to secure your little one as a consumer before he even has a sense of himself or the world around him.

Content is shaped by an expert advisory panel, the Babyfirst company says, and promotes skills such as "colour recognition, counting and imaginative play". At night or nap time, a program of classical music and watercolour shapes is supposed to lull little viewers to sleep. "You should utilize as many resources as possible to help with your baby's growth," reads a pediatrician-endorsed introduction. Case closed - thanks be to baby TV.

There are plenty more companies crowding store shelves and websites, including Baby Einstein, Baby Mozart, Baby Van Gogh, Baby Know It All and Baby Genius. (DVD sales of these "infant-improvement programs" have created a $1.5-billion market in the U.S. alone)

They're tapping the emotional vein of all parents, which is to want the best for their children. To some extent it's a competition, because you not only want the best for your kids, you also want your children to be better than the other guy's children. The implicit promise is that these programs will get your little ones started off on the right foot before they've taken their first steps.

However, a U.S. study released this week suggests the programs' educational claims are largely bogus. Children under 22 months may be entertained, but they don't learn new language from them. In fact, for every hour of TV watched, infants learn 6-8 fewer words on average. Parents have become convinced that their children must learn their ABCs as fast as possible but, according to the research, what's really important is emotional interaction with their families and caregivers. That's something an electronic box will never provide.

BabyFirst emphasizes throughout its literature that parents should watch with their children. To encourage interaction, programs include subtitles prompting adults to ask babies questions about what they see. But why pay $5 a month to point at an electronic bird when you can look out the window and see the real thing? (although I can see the value of such a program in a market like Chernobyl)

There is definitely one key advantage to BabyTV - the kids don't have to take bathroom breaks since they're all in diapers anyway…

[stroh-ler en-tahy-tl-muhnt]

- Noun

1. Aggressive handling of a four-wheeled, chair-like carriage in public places, regardless of all other people on sidewalk, browsing in stores or lined up for coffee.
2. Refusal to leave carriage outside even when entering narrow, crowded spaces full of breakable merchandise.
3. Allocation of space, right of way and deferential treatment expected by anyone pushing a child in carriage, calculated exponentially according to cost of said carriage.

Usage

"Did you see that yuppie chick try and run me down with her Bugaboo in Starbucks? She's got a mean case of stroller entitlement."