This article, from this morning’s BBC news site, is a prime example of both and has irritated the hell out of me. It leads in with the headline ‘Warning’ yet makes no reference in the article to whatever it is we are being warned about. In fact the whole article seems to just be a description of a situation and a couple of sentences from one researcher who doesn’t like it much, although even he fails to say what the problem is in any way.
This ‘warning’ from ‘researchers’ is also littered with hearsay and anecdotal evidence. If they had titled the piece ‘study suggests’ or ‘possible concern’ I don’t think I would have been so annoyed, it’s just the combination of ‘warning’ and no facts whatsoever that pisses me off.
I have reproduced the article in it’s entirety (it’s short, given little actual content), intercut with my comments, for the purposes of criticism. All copyright to the text remains with the author.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14387637
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning over children's multi-screen viewing
3 August 2011 Last updated at 12:04Parents are being warned of a trend among children of watching television while using other interactive devices.
Researchers found children were often "multi-screen viewing" - watching TV while simultaneously using smartphones, laptops or hand-held gaming devices.
---OK, fine, you found they do that. Why is that bad? Why does it need a warning?
In a paper - I'm on it 24/7 at the moment - academics at Loughborough and Bristol universities said children enjoyed viewing more than one screen.
---Good for them! Why is that bad?
But researchers say families need help to limit multi-screen viewing.
----Now we’re getting somewhere. So tell us, why does it need to be limited?
The study questioned 63 10-to-11-year-olds.
---Oh, I thought you were about to make a point?
The researchers found the children often used a second device to fill in breaks during their entertainment - for example, texting or talking to their friends during advertisements or while they were waiting for computer games to load.
---And this is bad why? I still feel like you’re not telling us something.
They also found television was used to provide background entertainment while they were doing something else - especially if the programme chosen by their family was considered boring.
One of the study's respondents said: "I'm on my DSi and my laptop. On my DSi I'm on MSN and on my laptop I'm on Facebook and then the TV is on."
--Yes, you’ve already told us this. Kids use multiple screens, we get it. Why is that bad again?
Technological advances
Dr Russ Jago, from Bristol University's Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, said: "There is a shortage of information about the nature of contemporary screen viewing amongst children, especially given the rapid advances in screen-viewing equipment technology and their widespread availability.
---Oh right. By saying "There is a shortage of information about the nature of contemporary screen viewing amongst children” surely you’ve have nullified most of your points as anecdotal and made yourself look a bit of a cock for issuing a ‘Warning’ about something there is a shortage if information about? Way to remain impartial and not try to spread panic. BTW, still waiting to find out why it’s a bad thing exactly.
"For example, TV programmes are watched on computers, games consoles can be used to surf the internet, smartphones, tablet computers and hand-held games play music, video games provide internet access, and laptop computers can do all of the above."
---Yes, yes they can. I think the point had already been made. The point about WHY it’s bad, however, hasn’t been made at all yet.
Dr Jago said health campaigns recommended reducing the amount of time children spend watching TV.
---Ahhhhhhh, is this it? Is this why you felt the need to issue a ‘warning’? Unnamed ‘health campaigns’ recommended reducing the amount of time children spend watching TV (and join their subscription based programs presumably). Well of course they did, it’s common sense. Kids need to get out and play more, I think we can all probably agree on that. But where’s the evidence this isn’t just down to shitty, lazy, parenting? Where’s the evidence that multiple screens mean kids sit around for longer? Kids sat around watching only one screen for years, I’m sure they just like sitting around regardless of how many screens are distracting them. Would you mind taking your warning and fucking off until you can come back with some actual evidence and not what is, at best, a well thought about opinion.
"However, the children in this study often had access to at least five different devices at any one time, and many of these devices were portable.
---That’s it? One sentence of hinting possible negatives and we’re back to reiterating the same useless point again?
"This meant that children were able to move the equipment between their bedrooms and family rooms, depending on whether they wanted privacy or company.
---Nice bit of exercise for them then init?
"This suggests that we need to work with families to develop strategies to limit the overall time spent multi-screen viewing wherever it occurs within the home."
---Why??? If you're ‘developing strategies’ to ‘limit’' stuff at least fucking tell me what the problem is!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14387637
See! Here we have a ‘researcher’ and a ‘journalist’ issuing warnings about stuff with nothing to say.
I know this is a pretty trivial point. Kids need to do more, whatever. But this is the same mentality that, when it hits upon something actually important (say, the entirely fictional link between Autism and the MMR vaccine), can do real damage. Cost lives.
Also, multi-screens are awesome! Get with the 21st century daddy-o!
