INCREASE SCREEN TIME = GOOD PARENTING

BIRD IS TO DINOSAUR AS SMARTPHONE IS TO TELEVISION

OR:  CAPTAIN KIRK AND THE 16-YEAR OLD

When I was younger my parents called the television in our house the 'idiot box.'  I had the impression that watching TV resulted in loss of brain cells.  Although this scientific fact didn't stop me from watching the original Star Trek series, it probably had something to do with why I enjoyed it so much.

In a recent study of UK media consumers, television takes the biggest hit in reverse proportion to age -- a swing of 56% between 13% of 16-24 year-olds who would miss television to 69% of those 75 and older.  The popularity of smartphones cannibalizes the decline in television with 0% of those 75 and older who would miss them compared with 47% of those aged 16-24.  This study did not include children younger than 16 years old.  If it did it is safe to assume the trend away from television and toward smartphones would be even more pronounced.  Read the story here.

So the future is in small screens.  However, I take the opposite view from my parents about my children's interaction with their phones.  I may be fighting the tide here, but there are two main distinctions between 'old' screens and 'new' screens that make me a generous parent when it comes to 'screen time.'

The first difference relates to the nature of content.  Traditional print and broadcast media were uni-directional, meaning the message was sent one way from the broadcaster to the consumer.  As a child, I sat in our den, unmoving, being spoon-fed everything those three networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) at the time were sending my way.  Today, communication is responsive, enabling consumers to provide feedback that stimulates thought and certain written communication skills.  In my empirical research, the ratio of phone calls to texts has an inverse relationship to age; younger people almost exclusively text preferring that two-way communication to phone calls.

The second difference concerns the relationship to content.  My parents disliked us watching television because to them it stifled imagination and did not improve critical thinking or vocabulary.  Reading was everything that television was not.  When a favorite program came on, everyone had to sit together and watch it from beginning to end with no interruptions, no talking and no distractions.  In those days, it was as easy to believe you could read a book on television as you could watch television from a book.

Today of course, most people from 16-34 do just that and more from their smartphones.  They watch a movie or program while they access a browser to conduct research on an actor or learn more about the program topic or subjects.  When reading print articles, they can automatically look up word definitions, origins and write a comment directly to the reporter.

My parents' misgivings years ago about me spending time in front of screens have largely been addressed by technology and have been converted into my own screen time philosophy as a parent that reflects our time.

To my mind, technology does not replace the stimulation of the printed page.  There is nothing like burying my head in a good book.  You just don't need ink any more to accomplish that.

Increasingly, younger generations will not see this as a societal change.   For them, it is simply the way that things are.   I imagine the developments they will conceive and I think that the Star Trek future probably isn't too far away after all.