Mounting evidence links TV viewing to violence

SAN FRANCISCO - For much of the past half century, the link between watching violence on television and violent behavior in everyday life has seemed an open question – embraced by one study, rejected by another, and largely left unanswered by years of congressional inquiries.

That, however, is rapidly changing. To a growing number of scientists and psychiatrists, the correlation between the two is no longer a point of debate, it is an established fact.

A study released today in the journal Science adds to a large body of work that suggests some sort of connection. Already, six major pediatric, psychiatric, and medical associations have said that the evidence of a link is overwhelming, citing more than 1,000 studies in the past 30 years.

As a result, the debate is increasingly splintering into a fight that echoes the recent antitobacco or global-warming campaigns, as a preponderance of scientists square off against a besieged industry and a smattering of contrarian colleagues.

Many Americans are not yet convinced. On average, children still watch three hours of television a day, and calls to regulate the industry have resulted only in minor tweaks like the current ratings system. But with the scientific community presenting a more unified front – and casting the issue as one of public health, not taste – the pressure for more change is gaining momentum.

"Clearly, with more exposure [to media violence, children] do become desensitized, they do copy what they see, and their values are shaped by it," says Susan Villani, a Baltimore, Md., psychiatrist who has reviewed the past 10 years of study on the subject.

Not even the most ardent critic of TV violence argues that images of gunplay and kung fu are the sole causes of youth violence. Yet they can be significant.

One study last year found a 25 percent decrease in violence in a San Jose, Calif., grade school where kids received classroom lessons in media awareness and were asked to watch only seven hours of TV a week for several months. Another in North Carolina showed that teenage boys who regularly watched professional wrestling were 18 percent more likely to get into a physical confrontation with a date.

Today's study, experts say, is particularly interesting for several reasons. It is the first survey of its scope to provide evidence that violent behavior is associated with television viewing beyond childhood – well into adolescence and adulthood. In addition, it claims a connection even when other factors such as childhood neglect and low family income are taken into account.

"What this study serves to do is remove some of these variables," says Michael Brody of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Adolescents who watched more than one hour a day of television – regardless of content – were roughly four times more likely to commit aggressive acts toward other people later in their lives than those who watched less than one hour. Of those who watched more than three hours, 28.8 percent were later involved in assaults, robberies, fights, and other aggressive behavior.

The study, led by Jeffrey Johnson of Columbia University in New York, followed 707 participants in upstate New York for 17 years, recording their TV viewing habits and tracking their behavior through periodic interviews and public documents.

What it did not do, say critics, is prove that the television viewing necessarily caused the violence. The comment goes to the heart of the debate over the issue: Does TV play a part in making violent people, or are violent people naturally inclined to watch violence on TV?

"I don't think there is any link at all," says Jonathan Freedman, a professor at the University of Toronto who disputes the statistic that thousands of studies have shown a link between television violence and violent behavior.

Members of the broadcasting industry share Mr. Freedman's skepticism of such media studies. "They spark a lot of interest, but nothing definite comes out that can establish a direct link," says Dennis Wharton of the National Association of Broadcasters in Washington.

The industry also touts their cleaner fare: A recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington found a 29 percent drop in TV violence last season compared with 1998-99.

Aspects of the criticism find broader support. It's true that some kids might be able to watch TV all day and not commit a single violent act. But some psychiatrists say that merely begs for more research about who might be influenced by TV and how.

But most also insist that the vast majority of studies support a link. Granted, no study can definitively say that TV caused a violent act – it can only infer. But the results of one of the most researched areas in social science are pretty consistent, says professor Craig Anderson of Iowa State University in Ames. "It doesn't matter how you study it, the results are the same," says Mr. Anderson.

Plus, for many, it's simply a matter of common sense. "If television doesn't influence kids, then why are so many people spending so many billions of dollars to advertise," says Dr. Brody. "It's not the sole cause, but even if it represents 10 percent of the reason [for violence], somebody should look at this."

Why is it that people always want to blame a thing, instead of the person? Parents need to do their jobs, and can't put thie kids on auto-pilot. The fact that now everyone wants an elimination of TV violence, as opposed to taking responsibility tells me that the average American Parent doesn't want to deal with raising their kids. Parents are too involved in their own lives to be involved with their kids. Why is that I wonder???

Well, here's a little light to shine on the mystery.

Liberals want control over everything. The best way to control everything is to become the problem and the solution to the problem. Here's why. The liberal media glorifies everything. Unfortunately it's never anything of moral value, or decency. They promote gay agendas, they glorify drug dealing and criminal behaviors. The Media makes icons of promiscuous men and women. The media paints everyone as a victim, no matter if they were Adolf Hitler.

Then, that's when the Liberal constituency and government takes over. Pretty soon you see people like the Million moron march, or the PMRC demanding that there be rights and freedoms taken away for the good of the children. When things are bad enough everyone, including conservatives jump in the wagon. Pretty soon, you don't have gun rights, you don't have the right to free speech, then pretty soon, you won't have any say in your life what so ever.

Parental controls, monitoring what your children watch, read and listen to, that's a better answer than banning everything. When you people like me what we can and can't read, can and can't think, can and can't say, you are destroying freedom.

I was in the army, and I was trained to kill people. The media only wishes it had that kind of power over people. DO you see me doing what I was programmed to do by our government? No. Why? Because I know the difference between right and wrong. Why is that? Let's see, I had parents that corrected my bad behaviors. That of course was when you could still beat your kids. Did I turn out okay? Yeah I'd like to think so. Do I watch TV? Rarely. Do I listen to music, All the time. Do I read book about things that are violent? I read the bible when I can.

The people who are screaming the loudest for censorship, are the same people who don't take care of their kids. Rather than waste your time screaming to the heavens for change, start raising your kids the right way and it won't matter what's in the media. Liberals want everyone to live in a controlled environment, except them because it hurts their self esttem or infringes on their individuality. It's funny because the definition of a liberal is to be the opposite of someone who wants conformity, and control.

Parents need to do their jobs. If they don't their kids will be influenced by people or things they shouldn't be. If parents were able to be the strong guiding force in their children's lives, instead of having their parental rights neutered by trial lawyers and liber special interest, there wouldn't be any of this nonsense. The liberals are the cause of this problem. They represent all of those things in each one of us that we find to be wrong or distasteful. Not all Liberals are bad, just the ones who are trying to control my thoughts, my ideas, and my life.

The Liberals of this country need to shut up. They need to go back to the homes they have and raise their kids, instead of telling me what I can and can't read, listen to or watch. If you have children, then by God take responsibility for them. If you want to have a kid, but don't want to raise them, then give the kid up for adoption to a REAL family who will love and raise that child to be a decent human being. If you're a parent and are hamstrung by the legalities of raising your child the right way, do something to change those laws. Get a lawyer to keep you safe while you discipline your kid. Liberal media, and liberal government have brought about the decline of the American Family.

Now, the trugh about liberals.

A better word for liberal, is Nazi. An even better word would be Dictator. Liberalism is oppression. If you want to be oppressed, vote liberal. If you want freedom, become a sovereign citizen. Do not let the liberals fool you, they are not about your rights, they do not care about what is good for you. They want to take from you all they can and give it to some lazy moron who doesn't want to take responsibility for themselves, or their actions.

I think violence on TV does desensitise kids to violence later in life.

One thing that being in an audience (real or, as with TV, virtual) does is to accustom you to reacting emotionally but not physically. Thus no matter how many times you watch a horror you cannot intercede in the imaginary (in the case of journalism real) event. You can only attend so many plays; it is the movies and especially TV journalism which really mass-produces that effect.

I also think the government has no buiness regulating television.

You and I are thrilled to be able to type text and have some hope that others--in principle the whole world--will pay attention. There are however thousands (millions?) of web sites, and we have to find one which

a) will publish what we want to say, and
b) attracts a significant readership.

By formatting the wireless spectrum--strictly speaking, by censoring radio transmission by we-the-people--the government created radio and television broadcasting. The few teachers' pets to whom the government grants and renews broadcast licenses are empowered to try to get our attention on a highly preferential basis. That is highly discriminatory, and "freedom of the press" does not describe it--not at all.

I have been preaching for years that kids are better off without TV. That is what we need to convince parents of. If you are going to use TV as a baby sitter, at least don't use TV and movies with a lot of graphic violence.

At best broadcasting allows you to get timely weather and traffic reports, and to indulge your passion for sports. Broadcast entertainment is an attractive nuisance like the neighbor's unfenced and unguarded swimming pool, and journalism is nonfiction entertainment.

Journalism is also politics. Books, newspapers, magazines, signs, bumper stickers, and the INTERNET are entirely adequate to conduct political discourse--and they have never been subject to government censorship. True Campaign Reform would simply ban politics from radio and TV. Thus eliminating any governmental preference for anyone to propound their political viewpoint--and slashing the importance of $$$ in politics.

Same crap every day from this crowd. Where are the parents? It's the parent's job to instill morality in their children, nobody else's. When I was 6 I saw the Godfather (mom couldn't find a babysitter, we had long talks before and after about it), I've love mob movies ever since. But I haven't whacked anybody, there are no holes in the desert that I've dug. Why? I was raised with morals. I know that killing and violence are wrong unless in defense of yourself or loved ones.

Meanwhile on the other side of the planet we have people raised largely sans TV strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up teenagers for the crime of eating pizza. Why? Because they weren't raised with morals, they don't understand when violence is appropriate.

This is a world made by adults for the consumption of adults. We should gear all our entertainment to what's "appropriate" for kids. We should actually raise our kids, limit their exposure to that which we think is inappropriate and help them have the emotional and moral grounding necessary to deal with that stuff when they do encounter (eventually they always will, sometimes you can put it off until adulthood, but eventually they always find out what goes on in the real world). If you use the TV as a baby sitter you're gonna get a screwed up kid, whether they watch Goodfellas or Barney, doesn't matter. Kids need parental involvement much more than they need sanitized entertainment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.