Abstract
The title of this book by French neuroscientist Michel Desmurget reveals the author's rather biased stance straight away. He is persuaded that digital media are damaging for children and without presenting any novel research, tries to convince the reader that this is indeed the case by enlisting a range of ‘dangers’ and ‘damages’ in a rather predictable way by focusing on three categories of ‘impacts’ – on academic success, development and health. While Desmurget claims that he has ‘carefully weighted up the scientific evidence’ (blurb), he also admits that his book ‘does not meet the formal criteria of scientific writing’ (p. 3). It is not just the writing that does not meet the ‘scientific’ criteria but the so-called evidence is weighted up in a rather biased way without considering the numerous studies conducted over the years refuting the hypodermic media theory, which the author seems to be fully supportive of. In fact, Desmurget dismisses ‘most media experts’ accusing them of complacency. In reality, he does not really engage with any of the key works on the topic or the many studies refuting some of the main claims he is so boldly making. The language used is rather manipulative at times. A key term Desmurget uses is ‘recreational digital consumption’ (blurb), which in his view, is the predominant form of media use for young people. While he recognises there are some benefits to media use, he does not really explore them in any depth. The four conclusions are: (a) ‘When it comes to digital uses, the information offered to the general public is singularly lacking in rigour and reliability’. (b) ‘The recreational digital consumption of young generations is not just “excessive” or “exaggerated”; it is wildly out of control.’ (c) ‘This all-consuming digital frenzy is seriously impairing the intellectual, emotional and health development of our offspring.’ (d) ‘If the effect of screens for recreation is so damaging, this is in large part because our brains are not adapted to the digital fury that is devastating them’ (pp. 204–205). The recommendations are highly dubious as well. All in all, this book should be read with the utmost caution because despite the claim that it is written ‘in good faith’, the structure, ‘evidence’ used and conclusions drawn are outrageously biased.