TV CAN BE A GOOD PARENT
-Ariel
Gore, USA (1970)
Summary
ü In
TV Can Be a Good Parent, Ariel Gore responds to guidelines from the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which recommend that children under two, and
especially babies and toddlers, should avoid television because it may harm
their brain development and impede healthy social, emotional, and cognitive
growth.
ü Gore
admits that in an ideal world, direct interaction between parents (or
caregivers) and children is best.
ü But
she argues that for many parents, especially single mothers, poor working
mothers, or those without enough support, the recommendation to avoid TV is
unrealistic and ignores their difficult circumstances.
ü Drawing
from her own life, she explains that when she was a child, there was no TV; childcare
was communal, neighbours and friends helped each other, and rent was low. But
now social and economic conditions have changed: she has to work to survive,
rents are high, and there’s no community support.
ü In
such a context, television sometimes becomes the only “co-parent” possible. On
days when she is away or overwhelmed, she lets her child watch educational or
children’s programmes (for example, shows similar to “Big Bird” or “Barney the
Dinosaur”), rather than leaving a child unsupervised. She claims that TV, when
used responsibly, can occupy some parenting roles and give her the breathing
space she needs to manage life.
ü However,
Gore does not unconditionally support the TV: she criticizes violent or
mindless programming. She argues that what matters is which TV programmes
children watch, and under what circumstances, not simply a blanket ban on TV.
ü Moreover,
she links the debate to larger systemic issues: lack of living-wage jobs,
insufficient welfare or childcare support, the high cost of rent, and the
disappearance of communal child-care networks, all of which make a strict
“no-TV” rule unrealistic and unfair to disadvantaged families.
ü In
short: Gore doesn’t claim TV is perfect. Rather, she contends that for certain
parents under social and economic pressure, TV can serve as a practical and
better-than-nothing co-parent, especially when there is no alternative
childcare support.
In Nepal, many families (especially in urban or
semi-urban areas) struggle with economic hardship, migration (parents going
abroad), nuclear families, etc. As a result, some children grow up with limited
supervision or attention. The question “Is TV always harmful?” might be too
rigid. Perhaps, as Gore suggests, what kind of content children watch, and how
often, matters more than a blanket ban.
Critical Analysis:
I find Gore’s argument valuable and humane because she
draws attention to structural inequality, economic pressure, and social
realities, often ignored in “idealistic” parenting advice. Her personal
experience gives weight to the idea that for many working or single mothers, TV
is not just entertainment but a coping mechanism, a companion, a substitute
when nothing else is available.
However, I also believe that ideals should remain
ideal: children, especially in their formative years, need real people:
parents, caregivers, community, peer play, and conversation. Media and TV
should be considered a support, not a replacement. The goal should be to reduce
reliance on TV through social change: better wages, community support networks,
accessible childcare, etc.
Comprehension Questions (Short Answers)
1. What does the American Academy of
Pediatrics recommend regarding TV for young children?
Answer: The AAP recommends that children, especially
those under two years, should avoid watching television because it may harm
early brain and social development. TV is not a substitute for real
parent-child interaction.
2. Why does Gore believe the "no-TV
rule" is unrealistic for many parents?
Answer: Gore argues it is unrealistic because many
parents, especially single and low-income working mothers, lack community
support, affordable housing, and sufficient childcare. TV becomes a practical
co-parent when no one else is available.
3. What kind of TV programmes does Gore
approve for children?
Answer: She approves educational and child-friendly
shows that teach values, use gentle language, and help learning and
imagination. She rejects violent, shallow, or meaningless programmes.
4. How does Gore compare her childhood
parenting environment to her daughter's?
Answer: Gore grew up without TV but with strong
community care, low rent, and shared parenting support. Her daughter grows up
in a costly, isolated, and busy world where parents must work, and community
support is rare; hence, TV fills the gap.
5. According to Gore, what should be
questioned more: TV itself or the content of TV?
Answer: She believes the content and context of
watching TV should be questioned, not television itself. Responsible and
selective use matters more than prohibition.
Critical Thinking Questions (Long Answer
Questions):
6. Do you agree with the title “TV can be
a good parent”? Give reasons.
Answer: I partially agree. Gore uses the term “good
parent” metaphorically to mean that TV can act as a support system, not a
biological parent. In real life, TV sometimes keeps children safely engaged
when parents are overwhelmed or working. Educational shows can foster language
learning, moral values, and curiosity.
However, TV cannot replace personal care, emotional
bonding, conversation, or social learning that children gain from active human
interaction. Therefore, TV can be a helper, temporary guardian, or co-parent,
but not a complete parent. The main idea is that support systems for working
parents must improve so TV doesn’t become the only option.
7. How does the essay highlight the
relationship between parenting and socioeconomic conditions?
Answer: The essay shifts the responsibility from
individual parents to society. Gore shows that:
· Many
parents work long hours due to financial pressure.
· High
rent and low wages reduce time for children.
· Communal
childcare systems that once supported families have declined.
Because of these conditions, parents may rely on
television. So, the essay suggests parenting decisions cannot be judged equally
for everyone; economic realities directly shape childhood experiences. The
essay becomes a critique of inequality, modern isolation, and lack of
institutional support for parents.
8. What is the central message of Ariel
Gore’s essay?
Answer: The central message is that:
Ø Ideal
parenting is human interaction, but society does not provide ideal conditions
for all.
Ø TV
can serve as a practical parenting aid when used selectively and responsibly.
Ø We
should not shame parents for using TV, but instead improve jobs, childcare
support, and community care systems.
Ø The
debate should focus on what children watch and why, not simply on banning TV.
9. What are the major arguments for and
against children watching TV based on the essay?
Answer:
|
For TV |
Against TV |
|
Helps parents
manage life when exhausted or working |
Can’t provide
real emotional care |
|
Educational
shows can teach language, values, and learning |
Violence and
shallow content harm children |
|
Keeps children
away from danger when no caregiver is present |
Overuse may
affect cognitive growth |
|
Can act as a
temporary "co-parent." |
May reduce real
social interaction |
The essay concludes that TV is not the enemy;
irresponsible content and the absence of support systems are the real issues.
10. How can TV be used responsibly for
children? Suggest any 4 ways.
Answer: TV can be used responsibly by:
Ø Selecting
age-appropriate educational content
Ø Setting
fixed time limits for watching
Ø Watching
together and discussing the lessons/messages
Ø Avoiding
violent or meaningless programmes
Ø Balancing
TV with outdoor play, reading, conversation, and family activities
11. Write a short paragraph explaining the
essay's relevance in the context of Nepal.
Answer: In Nepal, over time, the child-rearing culture has changed. In the past, children were raised in
joint families where parents and grandparents used to have time to look after
the children. But in the later days, many parents work long hours or migrate
abroad for employment, leaving children with limited supervision. In urban and
semi-urban areas, rising costs and nuclear family structures reduce family
support. Hence, the idea that TV can act as a supportive guardian is relevant
here, too. However, unlike some Western settings, many Nepali communities still
share childcare informally, so TV should be a support, not a replacement. This
lesson encourages parents and students to view media use through a lens of
social reality, empathy, and responsible selection, rather than strict judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment