I have the same gut reaction, but as counterpoint, I know some people that grew up with parents that really restricted viewing- not 'no tv at all', but close enough.

Later, the parents conceded that the media blackout backfired, as their kid couldn't relate to a lot of the things their peers were talking about- even if it is 'pointless bullshit'. They weren't like a social pariah or anything, but to this day, they feel uncomfortable in those conversations where you recall tv/movies growing up.

Not really defending tv, but there's probably a good middle ground that lets the kid still participate in their culture.

I suspect Hulu+, Netflix, Amazon' and similar will help. With some configuration it should be possible to control what your kids have access to, while still giving them broad access to media their generation is interested in. Compared to the option from 10+ years ago, which was pretty much all TV or no TV and maybe access to a video rental store and theaters for movies.

My parents had a 'restricted viewing' policy in the sense that a) we only had OTA TV, not cable or satellite; b) there were other things I was supposed to be doing almost all the time and c) we were too poor to go to the movies or rent movies.

I will freely admit that I don't get a lot of references to shows people watched growing up. But honestly, this is such a tiny thing I really doubt it's worth mentioning. If it comes up, you smile, nod, and move on.

I would certainly say I'm better for it - I spent time outdoors actually learning and doing things or reading instead. And sure, I read a lot of relative trash, but even the trash of the day contained references to real things that warranted looking up or learning. And I also ended up reading a lot of literature and nonfiction.

> They can read all the books I read when I was a kid,

Hang on. Some old books sell well and so keep getting re-printed, but they're not very good.

There are some great books for children created each year.

The Kate Greenaway award is mostly (but not entirely) for younger children (because it's an award for excellent illustration) and the Carnegie award is mostly for older children (because it's an award for older children).

This website compares books that are "most read" (eg Roald Dahl) and "most loved" (eg not Dahl). http://whatkidsarereading.co.uk/

When I was a kid I read stuff like Dune or the Foundation series (and everything else Asimov), or the part of the Ender's series that was published back then, or everything Robert Heinlein, or anything Author C. Clarke, or Neuromancer, or Snow Crash, or 1984, or Fahrenheit 451, or H2G2, or everything Philip K. Dick, or A Fire Upon the Deep, or Brave New World, or the Mars Trilogy.

I read all the "good" stuff before I was in high school.

If I have a kid, he/she is reading allllllll of that. If I had a 12th grade reading level when I was in like 5th or 6th grade, so can they.

There's many great modern shows, just like there's a lot of crap from the past. Try watching some steven universe, for example.

Netflix has amazing stuff for kids as well: Bill Nye, Magic Schoolbus, to name a few.

Yes, there is always a mix, and the mix is always mostly garbage. But if you have a TV in the house, the tendency is just to watch whatever crap is on because it is easy.

Any good current show will eventually become a good old show. And if it is good enough and matches my tastes well enough, I'll eventually hear enough about it that I choose to watch it. And I'm OK with that. I have enough going on in my life that I have no need to rush to watch things just because they are currently being released.

So I believe you when you say that there are great modern shows. And I do not see that as a reason to get a TV.

Disclaimer. I grew up without a TV back when that was really weird. As a grown-up I spent periods both with and without a TV. I have no TV by choice. I do have children, but youtube channels seem to fill the place in their lives that TV serves for most kids.