It made the BBC headline TV News throughout yesterday, and the guidance from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health [RCPCH] on how much time young people should have contact with ‘screen time’ [similar to the recent smartphone-access musings of Education Secretary Damien Hinds] does – if not answer the question about amount of time – demonstrate the gulf between its intelligent thinking on this ‘issue’ and Hinds’ soundbite posturing.
That parents had reportedly expressed annoyance at the RGPCH for not announcing a definitive time ‘allowance’ suggests a lack of their own self-judgement, though not if – as viewers – we gauged what we heard from the thoughtful and sensible observations made by all parents interviewed about the guidance for the BBC News.
The RCPCH research and general conclusions were not a riposte to Hinds or the concerns of others on this matter, but they do represent a measured and still openly questioning platform upon which to further articulate calm and doable adjustments, for example the rather sensible suggestion that screen time is avoided one hour before going to sleep – though this, in the real world and across a colossal spectrum of young people in similarly vast and variable environments, can be little more than the reasonableness of its recommendation.
But rather than explore further that guidance, I just want to reiterate my previous two postings about this where I seriously question the understandings and intentions of the Education Secretary issuing ‘advice’ that is both embarrassingly naïve as well as nebulous.
Additional, 7.1.19: I obviously agree so am referencing here – this article Don’t fall for the moral panic over children’s screen time by Nesrine Malik in today’s ‘Guardian’ is another sensible critique of the sweeping calls to limit screen time, addressing, as I have briefly in previous postings, the socio-economic and cultural complexities completely ignored [not comprehended?] by the likes of Damien Hinds.