Among our friends, Baby Einstein is known as Baby Thorazine, after enough of us had the opportunity of seeing other friends' babies stop whatever they were doing and stare, unblinking, at the television when the parents hit "play." It became a party trick of sorts, since our friends with babies were, thankfully, creeped out enough not to use them under any other circumstance.

Sent by D. | 3:17 PM ET | 08-15-2007

We have had Baby Einstein videos around since my son was 9 months old. He would fall asleep on my chest while we watched. He is now 4 years old and will still ask to watch them every once in a while.
He is extremely imaginative, and we will catch hiim humming classical music to himself while he is playing. I find that amazing and comforting compared to what the radio usually has to offer for music. I feel these videos do what they claim.

Sent by Christoph | 3:44 PM ET | 08-15-2007

what age are they referring to when they say baby

Sent by Sinead | 3:55 PM ET | 08-15-2007

Our daughter watched quite a bit of TV until she was recently diagnosed with autism. After doing some research, we found that there was a study out of Cornell University that showed areas where children watch more TV tend to have more cases of autism. The study was far from airtight, but there were some comprehensive insights. We immediately stopped all TV for our daughter and saw improvement in her within weeks. We were grateful for the information. We were surprised to see other people get very upset over this study and say that Cornell researchers were doing a disservice to families of autistic children. Although they poked holes in the study, they didn't call for a new study that was better. They just seemed annoyed that the idea was even suggested.

Sent by Nancy Naylor | 3:57 PM ET | 08-15-2007

The reason I like Baby Einstein has to do with the way I was brought up. My parents didn't let us watch TV at home. Whenever I would go over to someone else's house and the TV was on, it would (and still does sometimes) absorb all my attention. I know that there were many things that I got from running around outside and making up my own stories, but my son (and soon daughter) are in a very different situation. TV and computers have flooded our society. I know a few people that do not have TV's, but they are involved in the internet. I hope that by having the TV on (with good choices) and also turning it off from time to time, will help my children to have an easier time at ignoring the ubiquitous media and thinking for themselves.

Sent by Heather Gagnon | 4:01 PM ET | 08-15-2007

I think there needs to be much more of a reactionary attitude against tv watching in our lives! Children's developing brains are affected much more that adults. There is tons of research out there about the harmful effects of any electronic medium on developing brains. Content is less of an issue for little ones than the effect of the screen. Seeing an adult go slack jawed and catatonic in front of the tv is one thing, but to watch lively kids stare at a screen should be a once in a while activity. The teachers in my kids school can tell which kids watch a lot of tv and which ones dont, mostly by the quality of their play.

Sent by Rebecca in Tucson Arizona | 4:07 PM ET | 08-15-2007

Our daughter watched quite a bit of TV until she was recently diagnosed with autism. After doing some research, we found that there was a study out of Cornell University that showed areas where children watch more TV tend to have more cases of autism. The study was far from airtight, but there were some comprehensive insights. We immediately stopped all TV for our daughter and saw improvement in her within weeks. We were grateful for the information. We were surprised to see other people get very upset over this study and say that Cornell researchers were doing a disservice to families of autistic children. Although they poked holes in the study, they didn't call for a new study that was better. They just seemed annoyed that the idea was even suggested.

Sent by Nancy Naylor | 4:08 PM ET | 08-15-2007

In my opinion, I think once in awhile showing a child a DVD is okay, but to think that a DVD is going to replace parental interaction and the parents responsibility to teach the child about the world and to stimulate them through hands-on experiences of the world is ridiculous. It's just fancy marketing to earn money off of natural parental fears.

In my opinion I think it's a shame that as a society we are considering the role of 'motherhood' as a disposable and/or replaceable role. It's an important role and one that definately is designed by mother nature and needed by infants and children.

I'm also offended by the Parenting Magazine guest. Just because he writes articles for the magazine he claims that he is some sort of overall expert of child development. When in fact he has no degree to support that claim except being a father and a journalist.

It's one thing to state his opinion it's another to self proclaim onself as an "expert" when you have no degree and hands-on research to support it. This really turned off our parenting group of both men and women when we listened to this story.

Sent by AnneMarie | 4:19 PM ET | 08-15-2007

The rule of thumb I've always heard is that children under the age of two should not be allowed to watch TV. My daughter is 14 months old now, and on a few occasions we decided to plug in a Baby Einstein DVD just to see what was happen. It was like she was hypnotized, and completely weirded me out. So I can't say I'm surprised about the findings.

Sent by andy carvin | 5:03 PM ET | 08-15-2007

I would much rather my kid watch baby Einstein or Thomas & Friends over Sponge Bob or that other crud they play. My child has learned a lot more than just words from this show and it's not really about learning words but rather learning to recognize objects, colors shapes etc.. and from there up to the parent to answer the child's questions. The problem with this study is that it's suggesting that ALL parents just dump their kid in front of the TV and that's where the parent(s) (consider that sometimes it's only answer for single parents!) cease their interaction. This is quite the opposite. When my son watches these shows he interacts verbally and also by playing with his toys to mimic what he is seeing. When I see him just zoning out that's when the TV either goes off or the show changes to something more stimulating. And obviously these people have never had to deal with a wild-child at 8-9 PM where the only answer is Baby-Stein or Tubbies! I take great offense!

Sent by Leon from Everett, WA | 7:39 PM ET | 08-15-2007

My son loved Disney sing a long videos when he was a toddler. As a senior in high school he was a National Merit Scholar.
Draw your own conclusions!

Sent by A.S. | 11:53 PM ET | 08-15-2007

First, I'd like to question the impartiality of Bruce Kluger, DVD reviewer for Parenting magazine, in judging the harmful/positive effects of baby DVDs. After all, without baby DVDs Mr. Kluger won't have as much work to do as he has now. Parenting magazine, Mr. Kluger's employer, is likely to receive a lot of revenue from baby DVD ads, another conflict of interest for Mr. Kluger. Second, in response to a caller whose child does not watch any TV, Mr. Kluger acknowledged that zero TV for kids is a legitimate parenting choice but in his busy household it's just not possible for him and his wife to avoid putting their kids in front of TV from time to time. I believe, Mr. Kluger and most other parents realize that baby DVDs are just babysitters giving them a bit of a break from parenting. However, parents have to pretend that there are some educational aspects to these babysitters to avoid feeling guilty for using them. Sure, TV is a great invention and can have a lot of benefits for older kids and adults. But for babies? Only to the extent that their parents get an occasional break and come back refreshed and ready for more hands-on parenting. The latter can also be accomplished by using good human babysitters who will actively interact with the child.

Sent by Tatiana | 5:56 AM ET | 08-16-2007

I too question the authority and impartiality of Bruce Kluger. Magazines such as Parenting and Baby Talk are quick to point out that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV for children under two, but this statement is nearly always followed by some sort of comment telling readers not to "feel bad" if they let their kids watch. Similarly, when pointing out that the AAP recommends breastfeeding for a year, they follow with a statement telling women not to "feel bad" if they can't or don't want to nurse. The one AAP recommendation they seem to beat everyone over the head with is that they don't recommend co-sleeping. I think it's no coincidence that baby DVDs and formula are potential or actual advertisers in these publications, but co-sleeping has no potential revenue, so no caveats are given.

One aspect of the study that Mr. Kluger neglected to mention was that children who watched these programs typically spent 10-20% of their waking hours doing so, something guaranteed to impact their development because that time is not being used for more stimulating activities.

I would never judge a parent for allowing some TV for their child, although my husband and I have chosen to follow the AAP guideline. Parenting is hard work. I do disagree with the marketing of these products, which claims that they make children smarter, and therein lies my fundamental conflict with Mr. Kluger. I do not believe that the purpose of the study was to attack the Disney Corporation, but rather to help parents become more informed consumers - something that all objective people should value.

Sent by Katie Ball-Boruff | 10:42 AM ET | 08-16-2007

My daughter is 6 mo. old.I don't plan to make t.v. an issue.I believe like my parents before me Sesame Street around 3 or 4 for 1 hour or less.Awide variety of stimulating academics(lots of books all the time),puzzles were always fun,hands on-paper bag puppets,coloring with your child I would request things for my father to draw awesome,hold your child love them at what ever age and teach them T.V. and batteries not included

Sent by mary | 12:09 AM ET | 08-25-2007