Mounting evidence links TV viewing to violence

Christian Science Monitor ^ | Friday, March 29, 2002 | By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

government regulations created the television and radio networks.

How long did it take you to figure that out? I was (blush) already 60 when it sank in . . . amazing what a propaganda campaign will do, isn't it?

Hoover or Roosevelt?

One or the other . . . and historically there is little enough to choose between them; FDR after all ran on a balanced-budget platform--and Hoover pushed through radical public works spending during his administration.

I am, however, willing to cut the creators of the FCC some slack--the FCC might easily have seemed merely cute when radio was in the "early adopter" phase . . .

[marktwain]

How long did it take you to figure that out? I was (blush) already 60 when it sank in . . . amazing what a propaganda campaign will do, isn't it?

I believe I was 42 or 43. Thanks for correcting the spelling on Roosevelt.

[EdReform]

Bump

[GailA]

I too grew up in such a house hold with guns. Rifleman, Rin Tin Tin, Man from Uncle, Paladin, Roy Rogers, John Wayne movies, etc. I love westerns when they are of that generation. Today's movies are just one violent scene after another, with NO or little consequences for the bad guy.

My boys watched the same type things I did. They like those violent movies. THey are not violent kids. MMMM must be cause I taught them MORALS.

[VOA]

My boys watched the same type things I did. They like those violent movies.
THey are not violent kids.

Probably the most interesting interview I've seen in the last couple of years was with
forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, on Sixty Minutes II.
Dietz gained fame for destroying Jeffrey Dahmer's insanity defense...and Dietz is often
seen as a "prosecution witness" as he often picks apart the mental rationalizations
of accussed killers.

What got me about his interview was that he said that if he could do one thing to reduce
societal violence, it would be to forbid scenes of violence appearing with scenes of
sexual content in movies, etc.
He said that his opinion was that the linking of these two volatile subject
seemed to activate too many of the killers he'd met.
All I can think is that shows like Bonanza and the like didn't have sexual content
(OK, maybe subtly with Miss Kitty on 'Gunsmoke'), but had a moral message instead.


I also was stunned by his blunt assertiont that one other problem is that our country has
something like 5 million sociopaths, but only 3 million of them are locked up in jails!
(I don't know if I recollect those numbers exactly, but it was something along that line.)

[GailA]

Interesting. I think he is right. All the old shows were devoid of sexual stuff. Kissing, hand holding were about all you got. Even sleeping in the same bed was taboo for the longest time. I think I remember reading somewhere about the sex drive got keyed up after a battle. Viewing violence would produce the same thing I would think.

[RightWhale]

I don't watch TV anymore, but from what I remember, and from what I hear about it, TV is attracted to violence like a shark to blood in the water. If I want to see violence, I can sit on my porch and watch my neighbor's cat go after songbirds and baby rabbits, no commercials, no editorial comments.

[MadRobotArtist]

I actually wasn't talking about the FCC, That's already censored. There is far too much censorship in books, video games, and other media. All the games for your computer or playstation, or game cube, are all censored. The people at the FCC seem to think that we Americans can't cope with what we see.

There's too many people trying to eliminate free thought as it is. Why do we need more controls??? It's all a big lie. This study is a lie. Nothing more than that. This study is being used to facilitate the necessity for more governmental controls in media, as well as potentially medicating more children for their own good.

It's about control pure and simple, and if you can't see the agenda, then there's even more problems in this country.

[IsItTimeYet]

Let's see here: Cigarette ads on TV cause kids to smoke, violence on TV leads to violence in kids but sex on TV doesn't affect kids at all. Got it.

That puts the "duh" aspect of this whole "revalation" rather eloquently.

It seems to me that if they can establish clearly that the people will change their behaviour to mimic behaviours and attitudes seen on TV, then it's stopping just a tad short to say only "well, we had better stop showing the guns then" ...but all the rest of the PROVEN behaviour modification is OK?

Television is the tyrant that rules from our living rooms and the gorgeous but insulting house guest that we invite back every night for more beautiful lies and subtle insults. It's the reason the majority actually believe "everything is fine, nothing to worry about...everythings ok, here.....that trustworthy man on the TV said so".

...people need to look out the window more and through the fun-house mirror less.