Newspaper Seriously Errs Reporting Videogame Study

I came across an egregious error in the media today, where a newspaper reporter indicated a study showing negative results toward the use of videogames at younger ages. I found the study and read it, and the study does not factor in videogames at all; DVDs and television time were the study’s focus.

I discovered the mistake while reading a story on Gaming Today about a Nigerian Tribune newspaper article referencing a study performed by Frederick J. Zimmerman, Dimitri A. Christakis, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. The newspaper article was headlined, “TV, video games hinder language development, learning ability in children.” The story opens with this (rather breathless) paragraph:

A series of studies conducted over several years by scientists overwhelmingly concluded that early exposure to television, video/computer games, etc, for long hours poses a risk to children as this causes aggresiveness [sic] later in life and may as well affect their health, reports Seye Adeniyi.

The studies in question are not referenced in the article. We’re expected to take the reporter’s word for it that many studies exist purporting to show that the exposure to media holds the alleged risks. Here is a typical paragraph from the article:

However, the general belief among many people, especially parents and guardians that allowing children to watch television, especially the DVDs, VCDs, video and play computer games, cartoons, etc, improves and enhance their learning ability may not be totally correct as scientists have discovered that allowing children to watch TV/video games etc, that many people claim helps to boost infant’s ability to learn new words and improve their speaking abilities may actually have negative effects on them by hindering their language development [sic].

At this point, reporter Adeniyi brings in Dr. Zimmerman, over at U. Washington. He said that Dr. Zimmerman warned against, “…watching cartoons, video games, DVDs, VCDs, etc, as all these cannot enhance educational performance in children, neither can it boost their ability to learn new words, improve their grammar or ability to speak English fluently.” Dr. Meltzoff is also brought into the discussion: “Speaking further, Meltzoff said parents and caretakers are the baby’s first and best teachers and not TV, video or computer games.”

Longtime readers know that I am very interested in any published research dealing with videogames, so I went looking for a copy of the paper in question. I found a PDF of the article that Dr. Zimmerman posted at U. Washington. The paper details research of a telephone survey of 1009 parents of babies, age 2 to 24 months. The parents lived in Minnesota and Washington State. The study was primarily concerned with frequency of television watching, whether broadcast or recorded. Parents were queried as to reasons for allowing their infants to watch, and the frequency:

Our understanding of why young children watch television deserves enhancement. Two recent reports documented the results of focus group assessments of parents’ reasons for having their children watch television, which included the use of television as an electronic babysitter and a belief that television is entertaining for their children. In addition, many parents believe the positive educational claims made for infant videos and television programs.

Herein lies the prime reason for the study. Parents believe that educational television is beneficial for their children. However, at the infant stages, research is beginning to indicate that television is not good for educational purposes. The study goes on to report the data found in the telephone survey regarding time parents allowed their infants to watch television, and for what reasons. But nowhere does the study mention videogames.

This is a great example of how the media takes the most salacious aspects of videogames and runs with it. But, how did a reporter orient a story entirely on videogames when the study in question involves television and doesn’t even mention videogames? I think the answer lies in the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting screen time for infants. Screen time includes anything dealing with computer screens and/or television screens, whether that’s a DVD, live TV, or computer time. When the reporter spoke with Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Meltzoff, they discussed screen time in general, not just television time which was the focus of the study:

According to Meltzoff, co-director of the University of Washington’s Institute for Learning and Brain Science, “there are only a fixed number of hours that young babies are awake and alert. If the alert time is spent in front of DVDs, TV and video games, etc instead of spending time with people speaking in “parentese” that is, that melodic speech we use with little ones, then babies are not getting the same linguistic experience,” he stated.

So the long and the short of it is, from what I can tell, here is what happened: 1. The reporter discussed the study with the professors; 2. They brought up screen time in general and included computer games, even though their study did not mention games but focused on television viewing; 3. The reporter ran with a story that focused on the negative influence of videogames rather than the negative influence of television as would have been considerably more accurate.

Ah, the press. We’ll continue to call them on the carpet when they get things wrong.

References
Adeniyi, S. (2007, October 2). TV, video games hinder language development, learning ability in children. Nigerian Tribune. [Online]. Available: http://www.tribune.com.ng/02102007/hlt1.html

Video games may affect toddlers learning abilities. Gaming Today. [Online]. Available: http://news.filefront.com/video-games-may-affect-toddlers-
learning-abilities/

Zimmerman, F. J., Christakis, D. A., Meltzoff, A. N. (2007). Television and DVD/video viewing in children younger than 2 years. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 161(473-479).