In chapter 37 of the Reader, McQuail correlates violence in television and violence by children. McQuail begins the chapter by rocking our worlds, by stating that us “Americans live in a violent society.” He then claims via some nice statistics that Americans watch a lot of television, “98 percent of Americans have televisions in their homes” and that “the television set is on more than seven hours in the average American home.” With some help from the NTVS, The National Television Violence Study for those of you who were too lazy to read the chapter, McQauil shows us that “the majority of American television shows have at least one act of violence in them.” He then claims that because of this extreme amount of TV consumption by Americans and the enormous amount violence shown in television programs that “by the time the American child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have seen over 8000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence.” McQuail then turns to his scientific buddies, the American Psychological Association who state that, “there is absolutely no doubt that those who are heavy viewers of the violence demonstrate increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased behavior.” To wrap up McQuails argument, the great amount of violence on television results in the violent behavior of children.
I agree with McQuail and believe that it is this desensitization toward violence which results in more violence. Television and furthermore media have become social teachers in our society. They create our social constructions and with the enormous amount of violence portrayed by the media, as a society we begin to become disenchanted by the negative effects of violence. With the youth of
Here is an article I found online that agrees with Mr. McQauil and me.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186670,00.html
I was wondering what your views on the subject are? And if negative how can a society so entrenched by violent media, fix the problem?
10 comments:
Not that I don't agree somewhat to what the book argues, I just wanted to pull out a quote from that article Logan found that I take some issues with.
"Rich studied reactions to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and found children much less upset than their parents, perhaps because they couldn't distinguish it from what they saw on TV regularly, said Rich, who endorsed the study."
Whoa. Okay, maybe the fact that he studies kids under the age of 8 years old has something to do with it. I don't know about you guys but I don't think that a child under the age of 8 has the emotional capacity to understand exactly what happened on Sept. 11th. I don't think it has anything to do with 'what they see on tv' because as far as I know, no children's shows are highlighting terrorists flying planes into buildings.
I know that violent tv leads kids act violently, I think everyone here has seen that video of the kids going nuts on the Bobo the clown doll after they watch a video of it getting beat up. I completely agree that maybe kids shouldn't be exposed to violence on television 24/7.
However, I am just taking issue with some of the claims made in the article. Like that its an age of utter innoncence for kids. Yeah okay. I remember having to do current events articles in elementary school, and someone always did something about crime or violence. No kid is going to be completely sheltered from seeing violence unless they live in a hole.
To end, I'm going to quote one of my all time favorite movies, Clueless, because I think Cher says it perfectly:
“Until mankind is peaceful enough not to have violence on the news, there's no point in taking it out of shows that need it for entertainment value.”
bI have and always will oppose the notion that violent TV creates violent people, and all likewise. It is such a slanted argument that is only applied and supported on the negative of the media effects teeter totter. If the effect of TV is so strong that it turns viewers into desensitized robots who act on what they see, shouldn't it be said for both the negative AND positive effects? What I mean by this is that people love to claim violence on TV causes children to be violent. They love to claim that sex on TV makes kids on TV want to have sex. But have we ever heard anyone claim volunteering to build houses for the poor on TV has made kids want to build houses for the poor? Or the Iron Chef turns kids into asipring cooks? I don't think so. Critics use this TV cause and effect ploy as the blamed sheep for the negative outcomes of irresponsible, misguided children.
Also, it is said that watching violence on TV turns children into violent monsters because they are sooooo pure and impressionable. If these kids are so pure and impressionable then who is to say that violence in the playground at school can’t turn these kids into violent monsters? We have all seen little boys scuffle and wrestle over an argument about whose power ranger is the coolest. Is that not violence? Is that not being seen by our impressionable, young children. Mind you, I am not in any way implying that playgrounds are dangerous or lead to violent upbringing. Rather I am suggesting that if children are so impressionable and so effected by simply “seeing” violence, we cannot be so ignorant as a society to say that TV is the sole provider of violent models these kids are witnessing. Violence is everywhere. Is it reasonable for us to point the big finger at TV? That is like an unhealthy obese person pointing the finger at Taco Bell. No way, Jose. These kids who are turning to violence have a lot more to blame than just TV. I found a quote in McQuil’s chapter that supports my stance: “There can be many affects without any overall pattern or direction. The media are rarely likely to be the only necessary or sufficient cause of an effect, and their relative contribution is extremely hard to assess.” (pg 416 in 4th edition book)
I've done a lot of research on violent television and the effect it has on children. I've written so many papers on the subject and I still believe the same thing: I don't think it's television that makes kids violent. It sure can contribute to it, but children are more influenced by their peers or families than the media, I believe.
Parents should watch their kids more closely, and take initiative when it comes to children's television. Some parents just don't care enough to turn off the television, or stop their kids from watching something. So in the long run, I think it's more the parents fault than anything else. The media is being blamed for everything...school shootings, violence among kids, etc...but what about peers or families? They have to be blamed for something, right?
Violence is everywhere. I don't think a kid bringing a gun to school has anything to do with a violent tv show. Some people are just born violent, or they come from violent backgrounds. People just like to blame the media because they have nothing better to do, and it's better than blaming themselves.
I definitely have to agree with everyone who has commented on this article so far. I also am one of the people who believe that violence on television has little or nothing to do with violent behavior in children. I agree with Mal when she says that it is a slanted argument. This is true, no one credits the media directly for the positive things that children do today.
I also believe that parents, family, school, friends and social surroundings have everything to do with violence in children. My parents did not allow me to watch Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or even MTV until I was about 13, and they enforced these rules strictly. I can safely say that I have not shot anyone or gotten into a karate kick fight with anyone in my life. On the other hand, children who are surrounded by friends and family who watch violent television without any rules or restrictions can be a different story. McQuail says in chapter 18 that cultivation involves "first learning, and secondly the construction of a view of social realtiy dependent on personal circumstances and experiences and also on reference group membership". What I can take from this particular quote is that McQuail is saying that there is not a straight arrow direct effect between violence on television and violent behavior. A child who sees a murder on the television will not immediately go out perform the same act that day. Rather, they collect information over time from familiy, experiences and social situations.
I believe that this collection period is the crucial period when violent behaviors can be nipped in the bud. For a parent to turn off the television, or to say "no" when a child asks for a toy gun for his birthday is not difficult. Punishing a child for getting into fights on the playground or taking away television privileges when they disobey set television guidelines is not difficult either. The lack of this discipline is what I believe leads to children becoming violent beings. The media may be a beginning source of this negative information for children, but what comes after is important, the act of controlling the construction of violence in their minds after they visually experience the violence on television. Granted, children shouldn't be watching violent shows in my mind anyways, but if they do, it is controlling what comes afterwards that is important to keeping them from becoming violent people.
I agree with everyone that while in some cases it may be a contributing factor, television does not solely cause violence. This theory just seems like an easy way for people to blame something for the inexcusable violence committed by children. It is more convenient to blame the media then deal with what the real issue is, which, like Pam, I think is lack of parental control.
In Chapter 18 of McQuail, it says that undesirable effects of media on children include: social isolation, reduction of time and attention to homework, increased passivity, reduced time for play, exercise, and reading, undermining parental authority, premature sexual knowledge, unhealthy eating, promotion of anxiety, and depressive tendencies. In my opinion, most of these effects are things that can and should be prevented by parents. I know that when I was a kid, my Mom wouldn't have let me get away with watching T.V. of doing my homework or allowed television watching to undermine her authority. I think this is same problem that exists among the parents who give their kids whatever they want and spend unbelievable amounts of money on them. In today's society, parent's don't know when to say no, whether it's about what clothes to buy or what media to consume. Overall, children are being corrupted by their parent's lack of concern and involvement in their healthy development.
So while television is excessively violent sometimes, it is the parent's responsibility to monitor and shield their children from content that could harm them. If children were not allowed to watch television shows that show murder or any other kind of violence, they would be less likely to commit such crimes because they wouldn't be as aware of them.
As a child I watched Road Runner drop those anvils on Wile E Coyote, I watched Ren smack Stimpy sohard that his face nearly fell off his head. I watched shows that involved action like Ninja Turtles and Transformers, but is that considered more violent nowadays than it was then?
I was exposed to plenty of activity like this, but I do not consider these shows violent shows. And sure, we would pretend to fight and mimic what we saw but I believe children who are more violent to others either have a violent background or parents who are not monitoring what they watch and teaching them right from wrong.
There is accessible violent media that a child, without supervision can easily get to. If a child watches enough violent programming it will reflect in their behavior. It can provoke the violent behavior, but if it is THE cause...it could be, depending on the amount of violence, how violent the violence is, and how young the child is. The parents have to know what is appropriate for kids and be willing to say no. The media is providing entertainment for all viewers. It doesn’t force anyone to watch it.
For children who are constantly exposed to television, this can definately shape their lives, which is sad. If the programming is very violent it sure can elicit violent behavior. It doesn’t mean it will, but it can. In regards to the socialization theory, the McQuail text states, "media can teach norms and values by way of symbolic reward and punishment for different kinds of behaviour as represented in the media. The media are continually offering pictures of life and models of behaviour in advance of actual experience" (McQuail, 494).
I believe this is true. We watch something and relate it to our lives based on situational circumstances and may even learn from what we see. In children, this can be very extreme and lead to violence if they are exposed to enough of it. Someone has to step in and show the child what is right.
According to article 37 in the McQuail Reader, “Over time, even those viewers who initially react with horror at media violence may become habituated to it or psychologically comfortable such that they view any given act of violence as less severe and they may evaluate media violence more favorably.”(page 403) I agree that there is an overall desensitization when it comes to violence and the media. When reviewing the television shows that I like to watch the most today, such as CSI, Law & Order, and the like, it occurred to me that a great majority of the shows revolve around violence. A violent act is at the center of the plot line for any crime drama, there are no two ways around it. Ever since I was young (at least as far as I can recall), I’ve loved mysteries such as Perry Mason, Columbo, Murder, She Wrote, and Diagnosis Murder, but what drew me to them wasn’t the violence but the intricacies of solving the cases. What probably affected me more was watching the nightly newscasts at dinner with my family and seeing violence rip through the headlines in the real world, alongside witnessing my parents’ reactions to it in their comments.
If children are watching so much violent TV that they themselves are acting out, it's time for the parents to step in and take responsibility. Monitor their content intake with the V-Chip, don't watch R-rated movies when they're around, anything is better than nothing. The media do not cause the kids to become violent, it's when they are exposed to content of this nature without being properly counterbalanced with a sense of acceptable social behavior from adults and guidelines on how to distinguish right from wrong, reality from fiction, that violent behavior in kids gets out of hand.
I think the appeal of the shows that I watch stems from their entertainment value and the fact that I can appreciate their technical merit, from a production standpoint, along with their overall effects on and reflections of our culture. To this day, I do not have cable at home, and I’m glad that my parents chose to go that route (even though as a kid I felt cheated when I didn’t know what the heck my friends were talking about at school). One way to fix the problem (though it’s not even realistically feasible) is to not get cable. Who needs 500 channels, when you can only watch 1 at a time anyways?! Who even needs 100? Ok, I can understand the handful of news and educational channels (hold on to those), but the other 95% of cable is mindless drudgery (no offense meant to those who find MTV and VH1 scintillating). People would have one less bill to pay, and their children would probably be closer to a normal weight after increasing their time spent off the couch (yeah right, like that would happen). A slightly more reasonable alternative would be to increase the amount of public television.
In terms of the three forms of media discussed this week (film, music, television) I would have to say that television can have the most damaging cultivating effects on not so much our behavior, but on how we view and perceive our social realities. While I would never go as far to say that violent television, or the exposure to such, makes individuals behave violently, I think McQuail's assessment that "viewing television gradually leads to the adoption of beliefs about the nature of the social world which conform to the stereotyped, distorted and very selective view of reality as portrayed in a systematic way in television fiction and news" (497). To this degree, I whole heartedly agree. I feel that television has a whole lot to do with our expectations, our values, and our perceptions - whether helping to shape those, or distorting them seems beside the point. I also feel as though through continuous violent depictions we as a society have become exceedingly desensitized to both violent and sexual behavior. I think it goes without saying that the idea that children are the most vulnerable to the threat the media pose in the socialization process is a valid one. With young impressionable minds that lack true life experience to help them discern fiction from reality, it is without question they are the most vulnerable to media effects. That is not to say however, that I'm overly concerned with today's youth in respect to how much violence they witness in prime time. In my own upbringing I was hardly censored or prohibited from watching anything that many of my peers were strictly withheld from. From a very early age I was exposed to explicit portrayals of violence, sexuality, aggression, and intense language. While I can say that early introduction has had slight effects on who I am today as far as my development is concerned, I'd like to think I've turned out alright.
This seems to be a popular post, and I can't say I disagree with anyone here. I also have done quite a few papers on the effects of media violence on children and have come out of my research feeling unsatisfied. For me the most important factor in all of this is desensitization, which McQuail talks about it chapter 37. He says "...prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward real world violence and the victims of violence which can in turn lead to callous attitudes toward violence...etc, etc." (403) This is one of the only parts of his research that I agree with, for several reasons.
Take the show 24 for example (R.I.P. 2008 season). People are not normally exposed in their everyday lives to torture of terrorists, broken arms and legs and nuclear explosions. When I first started watching the show, I had to look away every time Jack would casually coerce information out of someone by shooting them in the leg. By the sixth season, I was standing up cheering when Jack was able to take out an entire terrorist sect with one silenced handgun. While this may seem asinine, I have become desensitized to violence on this show just over a couple of years- and I'm not a 10 year old kid!
I don't think that becoming desensitized will make children go out and try to torture a a kid on the playground, but it's scary to think that these kids thinks it's normal to see someone being tortured on television.
The other element of McQuail's discussion in this section is fear. He says that heavy viewers of violent television often tend to see the world as a "fearful and crime-ridden place" (404). My parents watch every crime show on television, and have a new scenario in which I could be kidnapped and murdered after every episode of CSI. While most children probably aren't scared of these specific occurrences, the fact that they are exposed to them is pretty sad. The fact that their parents let them watch is even sadder!
Basically I think that television violence does affect kids because it is so prevalent, but it's the parents' responsibility to make sure their kids aren't watching shows they shouldn't be.
Post a Comment