Seniors driving increase in television time at the expense of reading

[DoctorOhh]

TL;DR: The Washington Post's article seems to jump to conclusions not inferred by the PEW study.

The PEW study referenced article starts with this paragraph.

"The amount of time that Americans ages 60 and older spend on their TVs, computers, tablets or other electronic devices has risen almost half an hour per day over the past decade, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, even as screen time among younger people has more or less held steady."

This PEW study doesn't compare reading to TV it compares reading to screen time. I do all my reading from a screen. From ebooks to articles most of my screen time is reading. The article goes on to say.

"This rise in screen time coincides with significant growth in the adoption of digital technology by older Americans. In 2000, 14% of those ages 65 and older were internet users; now 73% are. And while smartphone ownership was uncommon at all ages around the turn of the 21st century, now about half (53%) of people 65 and older are smartphone owners."

The Washington Post's leap that this might mean increased risk of cognitive decline may not be quite accurate since the article they linked to was only referring to TV not computers, tablets or other electronic devices.

I'm not going to comment further on what seems like sloppy reporting.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

TL;DR: The Washington Post's article seems to jump to conclusions not inferred by the PEW study.
...
I'm not going to comment further on what seems like sloppy reporting.

It's only sloppy if you expect journalists to be accurate and understand what they're reporting on. For grabbing eyeballs and entertaining readers it's undoubtedly top-notch reporting.

See my previous rant, my first response in this thread.

[drofgnal]

My dad died 5 years ago at 84. He had dementia. He was an avid reader. He'd get up in the morning, have coffee, breakfast, read for a while, then go back to bed for a while. A therapist told me that for people with dementia reading is one of the last things to go. She suggested to remind him of things that I use sticky notes in his assisted living place. It seemed to work. Reading was a morning thing for him. Evening was TV.

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I feel that my life would be a lot poorer if I didn’t watch some of the excellent documentaries broadcast by the BBC. Documentaries and news account for 95% of my 1-2h/day TV time.

Agree, some of those make it across the pond. I also liked the recent BBC production of Les Miserables that was broadcast on PBS over here. My dad, rest his soul, loved british comedies. His two favorite were Benny Hill and Fawlty Towers

[AnotherCat]

My wife and I have this well in hand with our aged parents; how to do so lies in realizing that they are all just going into their second childhood and so need guidance from us caring younger ones. It is very satisfying for us to know that some others and the Washington Post are just as caring about keeping our elderly attuned to safe entertainment.

So we make them conform to a routine of only one hour TV per day and they must read for a minimum of 3 hours each day. They are also allowed 1 hour internet time a day. The rest of the time is made up of them doing their chores.

Their reading must be from E-Ink ereaders so that they do not go blind (but we have some doubts about the veracity of that claim as after all these years they do not seem to have been blinded by THAT other thing ). We also make sure that they take part in only those social activities of which we approve, mix with caring people like us, and go to bed before 9pm. If they do not conform to these rules we, for minor offences, make them stand in the naughty corner but for worse cases we have grounded them for a week or more and denied them use of their mobility scooters.

We are sure that our caring for their intellectual lives in this way, rather than letting them do what they may and so go astray, will stand them in very good stead when they mature from second childhood into their nextworldhood in a couple of years.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

My wife and I have this well in hand with our aged parents; how to do so lies in realizing that they are all just going into their second childhood and so need guidance from us caring younger ones.

Sounds like you'll be well prepared for changing their diapers when they become incontinent.

[barryem]

I'm 78 and my sister, who lives nearby, is 10 years younger. She also wants to assume the parent role whenever I let her. She tries to determine what's best for me in a lot of areas. I'm a fully competent person and I do what I want to do and let her stew about it.

The time may come when I'll need that but I'm not even close to it yet. I handle my finances very well. I'm in a HUD subsidised retirement home living entirely on Social Security along with a lot of other people below the poverty level. They're always teasing me about being the rich tenant, not because I am or have more money than them, but because I'm more meticulous in handling my finances.

It's one thing for younger siblings and children to be there when they're needed, and sometimes they are needed. It's entirely another thing when a competent elderly person becomes the victim of a sibling's or child's power trip.

I had a neighbor whose daughter wanted to run her life and tried to for years. My neighbor didn't need it and resisted for years till her daughter wore her down. She moved her into a nursing home even though she was fully able to care for herself and she was miserable. But she was stuck.

Barry

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by barryem

...It's one thing for younger siblings and children to be there when they're needed, and sometimes they are needed. It's entirely another thing when a competent elderly person becomes the victim of a sibling's or child's power trip...

I quite agree. Unfortunately it seems to me that there are also those outside of the immediate family who seem to want to take power trips, one does not have to look far to see what negative assumptions some busybodies make regarding the abilities and preferred activities of the elderly (or indeed of the non-elderly too). For example, I really cannot see that it is anyone else's business or needful of concern whether a person of any age, let alone elderly, prefers TV or reading. I would have thought the place for concern would be if the person for some reason was not able to exercise their preference.

[4691mls]

Maybe they have lived so long they finished their TBR pile and so they switched to TV

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I would have thought the place for concern would be if the person for some reason was not able to exercise their preference.

Says the person who dictates how much minimum reading must be done each day for a maximum timeslot of TV.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Says the person who dictates how much minimum reading must be done each day for a maximum timeslot of TV.

I hope we are both on the same sarcasm channel

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I hope we are both on the same sarcasm channel

I didn't see any smileys on your first post. It is safer not to judge.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I hope we are both on the same sarcasm channel

I'd rather not have to use smileys but no matter how over the top I think my sarcasm is, there's always someone who doesn't realize it's sarcasm.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

TL;DR: The Washington Post's article seems to jump to conclusions not inferred by the PEW study.

The PEW study referenced article starts with this paragraph.

"The amount of time that Americans ages 60 and older spend on their TVs, computers, tablets or other electronic devices has risen almost half an hour per day over the past decade, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, even as screen time among younger people has more or less held steady."

This PEW study doesn't compare reading to TV it compares reading to screen time. I do all my reading from a screen. From ebooks to articles most of my screen time is reading. The article goes on to say.

"This rise in screen time coincides with significant growth in the adoption of digital technology by older Americans. In 2000, 14% of those ages 65 and older were internet users; now 73% are. And while smartphone ownership was uncommon at all ages around the turn of the 21st century, now about half (53%) of people 65 and older are smartphone owners."

The Washington Post's leap that this might mean increased risk of cognitive decline may not be quite accurate since the article they linked to was only referring to TV not computers, tablets or other electronic devices.

I'm not going to comment further on what seems like sloppy reporting.

Originally Posted by lumpynose

It's only sloppy if you expect journalists to be accurate and understand what they're reporting on. For grabbing eyeballs and entertaining readers it's undoubtedly top-notch reporting.

See my previous rant, my first response in this thread.

I think the charge of "sloppy reporting" is an overreach; perhaps the real problem is hasty reading. The links in the articles reference several different studies, not just American Time Use Survey and the PEW analysis. The specific "cognitive decline" suggestion came from a study analyzing data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Likewise the list of other possible ill effects of increased screen time came from other studies linked in the WaPo article.

I think it's apparent that the term screen time does not include reading books on e-reader or tablet, since the PEW study, for example, contrasts "reading and socializing" with screen time. But, yes, the term could have been better defined.

I don't see the article as "sloppy"; I see it as an attempt to synthesize several studies, each with its own conclusions and parameters.

[Paperbackstash]

Interesting discussion. I'm glad the majority here didn't use this article as a chance to mindlessly bash any TV watching. I've seen countless articles about reading where TV is mentioned and the comments just fill with people acting like all TV is mindless or that they are superior because they don't watch it.

As others have pointed out, there's no way to know what is actually watched. My parents have always been TV addicts, yet for some reason my brother and I grew up not really into TV. They leave the TV on all day at their house, although my mother is on the computer at the same time if she's sitting, she leaves it on for the white noise and background stimulation rather than sitting there staring at it. For my dad it's the only hobby he's ever been into other than golfing. Neither of them ever liked to read, so of course they would not increase their reading habits now that they've gotten older.

The older people I know don't like reading and never did. My friends my age all like reading, however, and we have a 10 person book club still going strong. I assumed this generation enjoyed reading more than the last, but it's probably a your mileage may vary kind of situation.