In general, the United States of America spends an amount in excess of $ 158 billion each year in direct and indirect costs related to youth violence. The U.S. high school system has been plagued by an increasing number of violent incidents. The two deadliest incidents include the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 and the Virginia Tech killings last year. These well-publicized incidents, as well as much lower-profile cases, have spawned an increasingly hot debate whether TV violence is a significant contributor to children’s violence in the U.S. The debate began soon after television was invented. The first high-profile study began in 1952 when the U.S. House of Representatives conducted hearings to explore the issue.
The second study was in 1972 by the Surgeon General’s office (Parentstv.org). Since then, there have been a number of studies conducted by medical organizations as well as many social theories put forward on the subject. The controversy still goes on today, with no conclusive evidence emerging from both sides. It is my contention that TV violence does NOT make children significantly violent.
Many arguments have been put forward that support TV violence as a significant contributor to violence in children.
The strong link between TV violence and violence in children is supported by 6 leading U.S. public health organizations who asserted {based on 30 years’ medical research} that viewing entertainment violence can spawn “increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children” (Parentstv.org). Secondly, in the U.S., television is a huge novelty that fills up the days of viewers, second only to work and sleep in terms of viewers’ used up time (Fowles). 85% of homes have at least 2 television sets, and 50% of children have their own rooms and their own television sets. As a result, American children are exposed to a huge barrage of TV programs containing violence such as murders, sexual assault, and other forms of aggression.
Thirdly, scenes of violence on prime time broadcast television have increased in number and graphic detail. This is indicated by some prime examples of leading television networks’ prime-time entertainment programs (Parentstv.org). Example 1: NBC, 3 November 2002. 10 pm (ET/PT Time Slot). Boomtown. Shot by Fearless, Vadim slumps with a gory bullet hole in the middle of his forehead. Example 2: WB, 2002. 9 pm (ET/PT Time Slot). Angel. Charles puts Professor Seidel to death by viciously breaking his back. Example 3: FOX, 5 November 2000. 9 pm (ET/PT Time Slot). The‘X Files. In a torture scene, Mulder’s chest is being sliced open by a metal circular saw, causing blood to splatter everywhere.
Lastly, there has been considerable research and results supporting the strong link between television and violence in children. A study conducted over an extended period of time found that children who passed their time watching TV in excess of 1 hour daily were 400% more likely to indulge in aggressive behavior when they became adults (Parentstv.org); it is estimated that by the time an American child reaches the age of 18, he or she will have viewed television films and programs that contain at least 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of aggression resulting in injuries or destruction (Indiana.edu); a study found the content of violence in TV had increased by 780% since 1982 (Grossman et al., p.18), and in what is seen as the pinnacle since 2 decades, 33 acts of violence are witnessed each day by American children (Grossman et al., p.31); in a poll involving executives from the entertainment industry, 78% admitted the action dramas they produced not conform to governing standards (Fowles); in 1991, 67% of 486 college communication professors polled confirmed that TV “increased aggressive behavior” in kids (Fowles); and in 1993, an APA Commission on Violence and Youth concluded that TV violence is ‘co-related’ with aggressive attitudes and behavior among youth (Grossman et al., p.117).
On the other hand, there have been several arguments put forward posturing that TV violence is not a significant contributor to violence in children.
When the 6 top medical associations asserted that viewing entertainment violence can lead to violence in children (Parentstv.org), they did not define ‘entertainment.’ Besides television, visual entertainment also includes video games and the Internet. Some experts contend that aggressive video games have a more malicious effect than aggressive television programs and films (Indiana.edu) because in addition to the visual influence, a video game “lets you put your hands on it, aim and fire” (Grossman et al., p.59).
One such expert quipped, “We’re not just teaching kids to kill. We’re teaching them to like it” (Indiana.edu). Also, given the wide prevalence of personal computers in American homes, the Internet provides children with easy access to aggression in the form of words and images (Indiana.edu). Secondly, music has a detrimental effect on children. Modern western music {especially heavy metal music} lyrics are heavily steeped in sex, drugs, and aggression against women.
Two quote two examples, the song ‘Big Man with a Gun’ by the rock group Nine Inch Nails revels in describing a sexually violent act conducted at gunpoint, and the song lyrics of singer Marilyn Mansion contain the lines ‘who says date rape isn’t kind?’ and ‘the housewife I will beat, the pro-life I will kill’ (Indiana.edu). Thirdly, also blameworthy are school and peer risk factors such as poor academic performance of a student, participation as members in gangs, treatment of students as social pariahs by peers, and student involvement with delinquent peers {normal students begin imitating the behavioral techniques of delinquents}(CDC).
Fourthly, individual risk factors also play an important role such as the use of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, an unfavorable record of treatment for emotional difficulties or violence involvement/victimization, possession of a low IQ, unfavorable record of violent behavior, subscribing to beliefs and attitudes that are hostile/do not conform to accepted behavioral standards, and regularly witnessing scenes of violence, disagreement, and tension within the family (CDC).
Fifthly, family risk factors also spawn violence in children. These include faulty childrearing by very strict or too lenient parents, low education level of parents, low parental income, and parental addiction to alcohol, tobacco, drugs (CDC), or other vices like gambling and indulging in extramarital sex. Sixthly, community risk factors are also to blame, such as social disorganization and an excessive number of low-income residents in the community, low amount of community participation, the bad example set by a large number of family break-ups in the community, and the high tendency of people to take up temporary residence in the community (CDC).
The seventh reason is a combination of several hidden factors. By finding fault with ‘mass medium’ {television}, the dominant upper classes in American society are in fact using TV as a tool to disparage and suppress the culture of the ‘masses’ {the dominated lower classes}; the ‘class’ factor underlying this issue is best illustrated by the total absence of ‘lower class’ {black or Hispanic} witnesses in the 5 Congressional hearings {1988 to 1995} on the issue of TV violence’s effect on children.
Another hidden factor is well elucidated by Richard Sparks {media scholar}: “The censure of television bears witness to the fear of the future,” and Dick Hebidge {subculture researcher}: “American adults feel threatened by the next generation.” Adult Americans are indulging in an anti-TV crusade that, while supposedly shielding children, are in fact attempting to restrict and dominate them, making them turn to their music, computers, video games, movies, and television programs as a means of escape (Fowles).
The third hidden factor is that the anti-TV crusade is an excuse for the weaker group in society {females} to fight back against the more powerful group {males}. Females perceive male dominance over them emanating from the violence men frequently use against women, making them suspicious of violence in all guises, even if it is assumed a flat, representative form on the TV screen.
The vociferous female protest against TV violence is therefore perceived as grabbing at a convenient scapegoat to fight back against the dominant males. Their flawed viewpoint is well illustrated by the statement of Carol Lieberman, Chairperson of the National Coalition against Television: “More lives are damaged or destroyed by the effects of [television] on-screen violence than any other medical problem.” Either Ms. Lieberman is genuinely ignorant, or she has ‘conveniently’ forgotten there are far more catastrophic causes that ‘damage and destroy lives such as AIDS, cancer, and heart disease (Fowles).
Lastly, there has been considerable supportive research and results. A 1972 study found the percentage of female Americans outnumbered the percentage of males in finding TV had too much violent content (Fowles); a 1982 survey discovered media professors took no extra precautions {as compared to other parents} to limit their children TV watching time (Fowles); a 1997 study conducted by Steve Farkas and Jean Johnson found a majority of 2,000 American adults hostile towards children, degradingly calling them ‘rude,’ ‘spoiled,’ ‘irresponsible,’ ‘wild’ and ‘lacking discipline’ (Fowles); the 5 Congressional hearings on the issue of TV violence’s effect on children conducted between 1988 and 1995 featured 36 witnesses in all.
7 of them were women – all white. The 29 males too were all white; in addition, the males were highly qualified {senators, professors, directors, college professors} (Fowles); it is estimated that Internet Web sites supporting pervasive hate, intolerance, and aggression number more than 1,000 (Indiana.edu); it was found that around 160,000 U.S. students do not attend schools daily due to fears of attack or intimidation by other students (Grossman et al., Back matter); in the wake of the tragic Columbine High School massacre, it was found that its perpetrator had an unnatural penchant for violent video games {and not violent television programs} (Parentstv.org); and it is estimated that as many as 270,000 students carry guns to schools daily in the U.S. (Grossman et al., p.9).
In conclusion, a fair and proper analysis of the foregoing arguments and statistics shows that TV violence is not a significant cause of violence in children. The whole anti-TV crusade constitutes a ‘big lie,’ an undisputed falsehood that Americans like to repeatedly mention to one another, deceiving themselves as they deceive others, all for purposes of convenience. By harping on the ‘big lie’ with increasing vociferousness, Americans are expressing their strong antagonistic feelings towards other, genuine reasons (Fowles) that are increasingly plaguing American children and American society to degrees much greater than TV violence. Instead of haring after improper targets, the government and people would be well advised to concentrate on ALL the reasons perceived to create or increase children violence.
References used
“Children, Violence and the Media”. Indiana. 1999. Web.
“TV Bloodbath: Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV”. Parentstv. 2008. Web.
“Youth Violence: Fact Sheet”. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. Web.
Fowles, Jib. “The Whipping Boy”. Reason Magazine. 2001. Web.
Grossman, Dave. & Degaetano, Gloria. “Stop Teaching our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie & Video Game Violence”. New York: Crown Publishers. 1999.