Most parents are confused about TV, but many of us display an  ambivalence that borders on hypocrisy. We worry about TV violence, remature sexualisation, materialism, the death of the imagination and TV addiction. Yet in most homes, children watch three to four hours of TVdaily. Is it time to turn off the electronic babbysitter, asks Kathryn Holmquist

Forty years ago the greatest asset a product could boast was the slogan, "As Seen On TV". It seems quaint now. Because today our children are the products. They should have the slogan "As Seen On TV" written on their foreheads. For the accumulated "life experience" in their brains consists as much of things they've seen on TV as it does of "real life" experiences.

The way my children behave, I sometimes wonder if I'm watching repeats on Nickelodeon and Sky.

One moment, my son thinks he's Action Man and assaults me with karate kicks, and the next my daughter is spouting sassy teenage Sabrina-speak. I don't know if it's cute or scary. Are my children behaving the way children do - little boys naturally wanting to be superheroes and prepubescent girls naturally giving lip to their mothers? Or have they been programmed? Are they as much products of TV nurture as they are of parent nurture? And should I ever have let the TV into the house in the first place?

Most parents are confused about TV. Many of us display an ambivalence that borders on hypocrisy. We worry about TV violence, premature sexualisation, materialism, the death of the imagination and TV addiction. Yet in most homes, children watch three to four hours of TV daily.

Let's be honest. Where would parents be without the electronic babysitter? The same parents who wouldn't dream of allowing a childminder to plonk their children in front of TV will immediately switch it on to entertain the children in the evening. We're too exhausted to do anything else. So the TV world becomes our children's world. Physically passive, they travel places in their minds and are confronted with images that we couldn't have dreamed of as children.

This can be enriching. Children today are far more aware of problems in the outside world than we were. Many feel a sense of deep responsibility for issues like environmental pollution and homelessness. We have TV to thank for that. A broad world is a good world. Who wants there child to be trapped in a provincial, claustrophobic mindset? A generation of Irish writers elucidated on that subject.

For today's parents, the core problem is that young children cannot tell what is real and what is not. How many times have you caught your toddler trying to dismantle the TV or video player in an attempt to gain access to that magical world? It's up to parents to explain that TV isn't real.

Unfortunately, many don't bother. The older the child gets, the greater this problem of reality merging with TV-fantasy becomes.

What was childhood like before TV? I imagine long, lazy days clambering through fields, making up adventure games and observing nature. I imagine children being told long, winding stories by the fire. I wonder if Seamus Heaney would ever have become a poet if he'd been nurtured on Pokémon and Nickelodeon.

But the world is different today. Most of us live suburban lives where we're afraid to let our children outside the door.

So Irish children - like American children - have as their greatest source of information a warped lens through which to view "the real world".

They are, like us, voyeurs and entertainment junkies.

Some of this is harmless. A lot of it is not. Unless parents carefully monitor programming, children are exposed to violent imagery on a nightmare scale. Watching violence makes children "immune" to violence and less sensitive to the pain of others, hundreds of studies have found.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that children gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems, imitate the violence they see on TV and identify with certain characters, whether they be victims or victimisers. Watching TV can make children more anxious and fearful than they would normally be, literally fastforwarding the child into the concerns of adulthood.

"Extensive viewing of television violence by children causes greater aggressiveness. Sometimes, watching a single violent programme can increase aggressiveness.

" Children who view shows in which violence is very realistic, frequently repeated or unpunished are more likely to imitate what they see. The impact of TV violence may be immediately evident in the child's behaviour or may surface years later, and young people can even be affected when the family atmosphere shows no tendency toward violence," reports the academy.

Premature sexualisation is another worry. Let your child stay up too late, and before you know it he or she has got access to soft porn. Women on TV are either sex objects or mothers - whores or saints. No wonder schoolboys believe that they can sexually harass their female teachers. TV has desensitised children to sex, just as it has desensitised them to violence.

If many women on TV are nothing but sex objects, then maybe real women are only sex objects too.

Adolescent male fantasy is having a field day. The current issue of FHM, which has pictures of scantily clad "screen queens" from TV shows, features a fashion spread called "Dressed to Kill", photographed in the desert. A sexy young woman is lying dead under a car, having just been run over by a man who is giving the viewer the "thumbs up" and triumphant grimace.

What I don't get is that so many beautiful young girls and women are willing to be portrayed in this way. Some girls seem to be buying into the male adolescent fantasy of the TV world as much as their brothers do. Like the boys, they too have been conditioned by TV, from infancy, to believe that being a paid sex object is the ultimate achievement.

And while the women are becoming more whorish, the mothers are becoming less saintly. We were watching Tucker on Nickelodeon the other day. This "children's drama" is about two mothers who live together with their sons. In this particular episode, the mothers were comparing their parenting styles - one mother saying you have to be consistent and the other arguing that selective lenience was more effective.

"I'm a cool Mom," said the lenient mother.

"There's no such thing," retorted her son.

The moral was, parents cannot set boundaries and expect to be seen as cool at the same time.

This seemed okay, but just when I was congratulating the programme-writers on their insight, a bizarre joke came totally out of left field.

As one of the boys left the house, the mother said "be careful". And the other mother quipped "don't worry, the mayor's mistress lives on this block." My 10-year-old got the joke.

The moral ambiguity was unsettling. On the one hand, mothers were trying to rear sons who studied hard and stayed out of trouble, while on the other hand mothers and children alike knew they were living in a world where moral rules don't apply to the powerful.

But do we blame television for this ambivalence, or do we merely accept that TV is reflecting a world that our children see already?

The programme hit on some complex themes. Single-parenthood and cynicism about relationships is a real experience for many US children, and increasing numbers of Irish children. In the public world, greatness and morality are often in conflict. This, after all, is a world where Bill Clinton is leader despite his peccadilloes and where Mayor Rudy Guilliani - a hero after September 11th - has his mistress standing behind him. Savvy Irish children would know of a local example or two.

Psychologists say that parents should watch TV with their children and help them make sense of what they see. So, like a good parent, I was watching Tucker with the children and discussing the programme with them.

What's the message? I asked. "Don't skip school," answered the child. But what about that joke about the mistress? "Oh, Mum. It's only TV. Don't take it so seriously."

Maybe she's right. TV is a scapegoat for parents who don't spend enough time with their children.

I could blame TV for the degeneration of society - but in reality I should blame myself as much as any other parent. I don't like a lot of what I see - but am I willing to do anything about it? Am I willing to closely monitor the TV and turn it off when necessary?

Do I want a son who sees women as sex objects? Do I want a daughter who sees women as inevitable victims of crimes of sex and violence? It's my choice.

The only thing worth taking seriously, in my view, is parental values.

Control the TV and don't let it control your kids. I can't tell you what programmes are worthwhile and which are not. It's a personal thing. You have to decide for yourself.

My 10-year-old and I bond over Buffy on Sky on Thursdays. Buffy, to me, is no more harmful for a 10-year-old than Grimm's fairytales, as long as a parent watches as well. Buffy's dilemmas make good material for talking about life situations. Other parents wouldn't let their 10-year-olds watch Buffy in a million years.

It's up to you, as a parent, to take control of the TV. Don't let it control your kids. And don't blame it for your own disinterest in your children's lives.

•If you want to tell us what you think about children's television. Email: kholmquist@irish-times.ie