"There was murderers going around killing lots of people and stealing



jewelry." This quote comes from the mouth of an eight year old girl after



watching the evening news on television. The eight year old girl claims



that she is afraid "when there is a murder near because you never know if



he could be in town" (Cullingford, 61). A recent report from the National



Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) pools evidence from over 2,500 studies



within the last decade on over 100,000 subjects from several nations to



show that the compiled evidence of television's influence on behavior is so



"overwhelming" that there is a consensus in the research community that



"violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior" (Methvin, 49).



Given that the majority of scientific community agrees that "the research



findings of the NIMH publication support conclusion of a causal



relationship between television violence and aggressive behavior" (Wurtzel,



21), why is it that "the Saturday morning "kid vid ghetto" is the most



violent time on T.V." (Methvin, 49), and that "despite slight variations



over the past decade, the amount of violence on television has remained at



consistently high levels" (Wurtzel, 23)? Why is it that, like the tobacco



companies twenty years ago, the present day television broadcasting



companies refuse to consent that violent films and programming can and do



have harmful effects on their viewers (Rowland, 280) What can be done to



combat the stubborn minded broadcasting companies and to reduce the amount



of violent scenes that infest the current air waves?



The television giants of today, such as ABC, CBS, and NBC continue to



air violent shows, because they make money off of these programs. In



general, society finds scenes of violence "simply exciting" (Feshbach, 12).



Broadcasting companies argue that "based on the high ratings, they are



giving the public what it wants, and therefore are serving the public



interest" (Time, 77). Michael Howe states: "We have to remember that



children and adults do enjoy and do choose to watch those programs that



contain violence" (48). At the same time, however, we must also remember



the undeniable truth that "there is clear evidence between television



violence and later aggressive behavior" (Palmer, 120). Because violent



television has been proven time and time again to play an active role



toward inciting hostile behavior in children, the level of combative



programming must be reduced. The media argument that high ratings



correspond with the public's best interest is simply not valid. Even the



American Medical Association agrees that the "link between televised



violence and later aggressive behavior warrants a major organized cry of



protest from the medical profession" (Palmer, 122). The issue of the



public's infatuation with television can be paralleled with that of a young



child and his desire for candy and "junk foods." The child enjoys eating



such foods, though they produce the harmful effects of rotting away at his



teeth. With a parent to limit his intake of such harmful sweets, however,



the child is protected from their damage. Similarly, the American public



desires to view violent programs at the risk of adapting induced aggressive



behaviors. Because the networks refuse to act as a "mother," and to limit



the amount of violence shown on television, there are no restrictions to



prevent television's violent candy from rotting away at the teeth of



society.



Harry Skornia claims that "it is naive and romantic to expect a



corporation to have either a heart of a soul in the struggle for profits



and survival" (34). But who, then, is to take responsibility for the



media's actions if not the industry itself? Because there has not been any



sufficient answers to this question so far, "television violence has not



diminished greatly; nor have Saturday morning programs for children, marked



by excessively violent cartoons, changed much for the better" (Palmer,



125). One may ask: "Why can't the government or the Federal Communications



Commission (FCC) intervene to control the amount of violent programming



that currently circulates during most broadcasting hours?" Edward Palmer



states: "The FCC's reluctance to regulate - especially directly about



violent content - is consistent with that of many other groups. Because



the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, no direct censorship



os programming has ever been advocated by responsible groups concerned with



the problem of television violence" (124). The American Broadcasting



Company (ABC) holds fast to its claim that there are no scientific findings



that show a link between television violence and unusually violent behavior



in children (Rowland, 279). The network executives at ABC express the



ideals that "they are self-confident about the lack of both a serious case



against them and of any sincere willingness by Congress to pursue beyond



the heat of rhetoric the matters of broadcasting profitability and



commercial purpose" (Rowland, 280). One can derive from this statement



that the networks are clearly not worried about any form of government



intervention or even the slightest bit concerned about the barrage of



scientific data that correlates violent television and hostility among



children.



Because of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the government and



the FCC are rendered virtually ineffective in the pursuit of limiting the



current amount of violence on television. Public action is the only other



option if society wishes to create a stronger programming schedule for



today's children. Several organizations such as the National Parents and



Teachers Association (PTA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have



urged their members to lobby public force against advertisers on



high-violence programs (Methvin, 53). The public must dictate its feelings



by not lending support to those companies that advertise during violent



television shows. "The viewer has a right to declare that he is not going



to help pay for those programs by buying the advertised products (Methvin,



52) To aid public, The National Coalition on Television Violence (NCTV)



publishes quarterly lists of the companies and products that sponsor the



most mayhem, and also companies that allot the largest portion of their



television budgets to violent programming (Methvin, 53). Public boycott of



companies who advertise on violent programs seems to be the only way to



inform the networks and syndicators that "a public health problem exists



with which they must deal" (Broadcasting, 92). Michael Howe claims that



"over many years, little more than lip service has been paid by the



television networks to the expressed need to protect children from the



injurious influences (46). History shows too, that "cries of protest, even



when accompanied by rigorous data, have had little influence on the



television industry in the past (Palmer, 177). A public boycott of violent



television, apparently, is the only way to make the "production staff



accept television violence first and foremost as potentially damaging,



rather than regarding it principally as potential entertainment" (Belson,



527). Only when the public is able to change the current attitudes of the



media on the topic of aggression and television, can a plan to engender



more beneficial and useful forms of television content be implemented



(Brown,259).



Despite the continuously mounting evidence that violent television has



harmful effects on its young viewers, the three major broadcasting



companies, ABC, CBS, and NBC, refuse to acknowledge these findings. One



may find it ironic that out of over 2,500 reports on television violence,



only seven do not indicate a link between the violence on the screen and



aggressive behavior in young children (Chaffee, 33). Even more ironic is



the fact that one such report was heavily funded by The National



Broadcasting Network (NBC). The NBC funded report claims that their study



"did not find any evidence that, over the time periods studied, television



was causally implicated in the development of aggressive behavior patterns



among children and adolescents" (Milavsky, 489). In a CBS study, the



network "succeeded in reducing the amount of violence reported by excluding



a significant (and unreported) amount of violent representation" (Chaffee,



33). Studies by the large networks can easily be "rigged" to present



values to support the broadcasters' hypothesis that television aggression



does not influence violent behavior by changing the definition of what



constitutes a violent act. The network studies only count "the use of



force against persons or animals ,or the articulated, explicit threat of



physical force to compel particular behavior on the part of a person"



(Wurtzel, 27). Unlike the NIMH study, the network program did not include



violence from comedy and slapstick, accidents and acts of nature such as



floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes (Wurtzel, 27). By excluding certain



types of violence, the broadcasters are able to manipulate their data to



support the conclusion that television violence does not incite hostile



behavior in children. The networks cannot be trusted to present accurate



surveys of televised violence, because evidence shows that their findings



are the result of "loaded" statistics and data.



The current networks stand, stubborn and deaf, to the cries of the



American Medical Association, suggestions by the Federal Communications



Commission, and the concerns of other public organizations. The networks do



not wish to alter their present displays of violence, because they fear



financial losses and economic decline. To force the media to acknowledge



public opinion against aggressive television programming, society must



create financial distress for the television networks and force them to



recognize the harmful effects of televised hostility on children. Only



when the broadcasters and producers of violent programming admit and



realize the damaging results of violence on children will significant



improvements be made to generate productive and imaginative children's



television.



Work Sited







Belson, William A. Television and the Adolescent Boy. Great



Britain: Saxon House, 1978.



Broadcasting. "T.V. Castigated for Link With Violence in



Children." May 10, 1982: 92-94.



Brown, Ray, ed. Children and Television. Beverly Hills,



California: Sage Publications Inc., 1976.



Chaffee, Steven H., George Gerbner, Beatrix A. Hamburgh,



Chester M. Pierce, Eli A. Rebinstein, Alberta E. Siegel, and



Jerome L. Singer. "Defending the Undefendable." Society



Sept.-Oct. 1984: 30-36.



Cullingford, Cedric. Children and Television. New York: St.



Martin's Press, 1984.



Himmelweit, Hilde T., A.N. Oppenheim, and Pamela Vince.



Television and the Child. London: Oxford University Press,



1958.



Howe, Michael J.A. Television and Children. London: New



University Education, 1977.



Lowe, Carl, ed. Television and American Culture. New York: The



H.W. Wilson Company, 1981.



Methvin, Eugene H. "T.V. violence: the shocking new evidence."



Reader's Digest Jan. 1983: 49-54.



Milavsky, Ronald J., Ronald C. Kessler, Horst. H. Stipp, and



William S. Rubens. Television and Aggression. Orlando:



Academic Press Inc., 1982.



Palmer, Edward L. Children and the Faces of Television. New



York: Academic Press Inc., 1980.



Pearl, David. "Violence and Aggression" Society Sept.-Oct.



1984: 17-23.



Rowland, Willard D. Jr. and Horace Newcomb. The Politics of T.V.



Violence. Sage Publications Inc., 1983.



Feshbach, Seymour and Robert D. Singer. Television and



Aggression. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971.



Skornia, Harry J. Television and Society. New York: McGraw



Hill Book Company, 1965.



Time. "Warning from Washington: Violence on Television is



Harmful to children." May 17, 1982: 77.



Wurtzel, Alan, and Guy Lometti. "Researching Television



Violence." Society Sept.-Oct. 1984: 22-31.