The Seattle Times editorial page (which, BTW, admits to making stuff up) recently chastised Disney Corp. for disputing a UW press release:
Disney has a lot of nerve attacking the University of Washington's scholarly research into the benefits of baby videos, rather than trying to refute it with scholarly evidence...the gratuitous attack on scholarly, peer-reviewed research is disappointing.But the Times wildly mischaracterizes what Disney actually did and why. Read for yourself: The actual research paper, the UW press release and Disney's letter to the UW.
From the research paper's conclusions:
The analysis presented here is not a direct test of the developmental impact of viewing baby DVDs/videos. We did not test through experimental manipulation whether viewing baby DVDs/videos has a positive or negative impact on vocabulary acquisition ... our study has several major limitations. First, the study's correlational nature precludes drawing causal inferences ... "Nevertheless, the press release, titled "Baby DVDs, videos may hinder, not help, infants' language development", does draw causal inferences:
Rather than helping babies, the over-use of such productions actually may slow down infants eight to 16 months of age when it comes to acquiring vocabulary, according to a new studyDisney CEO Robert Iger's letter appropriately identifies several flaws in the study's methodology and misreprentations in the press release, noting:
I would not be reaching out to you if all that was at stake was a poorly done academic study. But the actions of the University have caused much more to be at stake. Wholly apart from the merits of the study, the press release issued by your University blatantly misrepresented what the study was aboutI'm not aware of any research which proves Baby Einstein videos actually benefit children more than any other children video and Iger doesn't cite any. But the videos seem harmless and the study in question in no way supports the theory that these videos are harmful. The study doesn't examine Baby Einstein videos in particular, only baby videos generically. And the results could just as plausibly be explained by confounding factors in the families which tend to choose these products for the children. Further research to explore the developmental effects of the videos is entirely appropriate. But Disney is correct in this instance. The UW press release misrepesents the research. The Seattle Times only expands the misrepresentations and hinders the public's understanding of the subject.
Maybe readers who wish to understand current events should limit the amount of time they expose themselves to the Seattle Times editorial page.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 31, 2007 01:28 PM | Email ThisAt 6 my favorite shows were Green Acres, Star Trek and Get Smart.
If anything had a "for kids" label on it, I treated as the idiocy it deserves.
Right or wrong -- most "for kids" stuff is overly babyish and appeals more to adults how have an distant and overly fantastic view of what a kids life is like.
Posted by: John Bailo on August 31, 2007 02:05 PM
That is what I say about the liberal media and peer-reviewed research disproving AGW.
It should also be noted that "scholarly, peer-reviewed research" is responsible for such winners like the new math, open classrooms, pod learning, and the WASL. The UW really screwed up on this one and once again the Times had a chance to do some decent, fact based resporting and once again has decided to present the moonbat's point of view. And they wonder why subscriptions are down. Maybe they should ask the UW to conduct some scholarly, peer-reviewed research on that.
More reasons not to rely on sources who again and again demonstrate their incompetence in understanding issues, as well as the English language.
If Disney sues, they will win. If I was the UW's atty, I'd put out a retraction and quick.
Posted by: Potbanger on August 31, 2007 04:47 PMCourse you never like it when folks point out your fabrications....so you shouldn't be too surprised at the Times' reaction either.
For those who will clamor for examples, there are tons throughout this blog and comments. Just one is the "will of the voters" posting from a day or so ago.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 1, 2007 05:05 AMPR stunts as this certainly tarnish the credibility of the University and continue to diminish the less then modest influence of the Seattle Times.
The really sad note to this faux passé are the ill informed readers who are influenced by this diatribe.
Posted by: Snuffy on September 1, 2007 06:41 AMOops, duh. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on September 1, 2007 09:17 AMHe even admits it! See Comment #10!
You just can't make this stuff up...
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 1, 2007 03:52 PMI'm curious...Does BBB also rise up in anger & write to the grocery rack tabloids when they also "defame single mothers" in Hollywood who drop b-stard babies by different actor-fathers? who holds THEM to THEIR actions? they also get a pass due to single-motherhood status?
actors insult their fans, they get heat; you insult your customers, you get fired; same rule in any size company; same rule in most industries; too bad too sad; free speech has two sides--rights and RESPONSIBILITIES;