FCC Report: TV Violence Should Be Regulated

[DeadPoolX 9]

Erekose, there have been studies that demonstrate harmful effects to young children who are exposed to violence on television.

I'm not Erekose, but I take exception to this. There are studies on both sides of the fence. In fact, there are studies for everything under the sun, even the most ridiculous of items. Children who are reared correctly and are in a stable household are in no way harmed by violent television. Case in point, I've watched some very violent TV growing up, and I never acted out due to it; neither did my brother or my friends or his friends.

Perhaps the focus should be on raising children effectively, rather than attempting to shield them from violent TV, all of which they will somehow come to view anyway, given time and some work.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Erekose, there have been studies that demonstrate harmful effects to young children who are exposed to violence on television.

I'm not Erekose, but I take exception to this. There are studies on both sides of the fence. In fact, there are studies for everything under the sun, even the most ridiculous of items. Children who are reared correctly and are in a stable household are in no way harmed by violent television. Case in point, I've watched some very violent TV growing up, and I never acted out due to it; neither did my brother or my friends or his friends.

Perhaps the focus should be on raising children effectively, rather than attempting to shield them from violent TV, all of which they will somehow come to view anyway, given time and some work.

That shouldn't negate the validity of those studies' findings. This is where critical thinking comes into play. It seems that in today's society, people are more inclined to be skeptical of something just to be on the safe side rather than really looking at something critically to form a more educated understanding.

As far as specific studies on the harmful effects of being exposed to violence - I have read about numerous psychological studies and not all of them are specifically with young children watching violence. It's a generally accepted understanding of human behavior that we become desensitized from a constant exposure to acts of violence. It's not really healthy psychologically for any of us. However, I also think that some exposure is appropriate in the right context and that's where it becomes troublesome to regulate.

see below...

...media violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation.

....

...most studies support "a positive, though weak, relation between exposure to television violence and aggressive behaviour." Although that relationship cannot be "confirmed systematically," ... Dutch researcher Tom Van der Voot argues that it would be illogical to conclude that "a phenomenon does not exist simply because it is found at times not to occur, or only to occur under certain circumstances."

....

...researchers report that parental attitudes towards media violence can mitigate the impact it has on children. Huesmann and Bacharach conclude, "Family attitudes and social class are stronger determinants of attitudes toward aggression than is the amount of exposure to TV, which is nevertheless a significant but weaker predictor."

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issu...ia_violence.cfm

[Jenn! 918]

Anyone 21 or over should be able to watch most things. Programs for viewers under the age of 21 should be regulated.. That said, we all know that kids will find a way to watch in anyway..

Two questions:

Outside of obvious children's programming, how are you going to define what is intended for someone under 21?

Secondly, as network TV already has a ratings system, how exactly are you going to regulate programming?

21 is too old IMO. You shouldn't be able to go to war and kill people before you can watch a violent TV program.

[Caladan 19]

If it's okay to regulate sex and profanity, it's okay to regulate violence. Doesn't mean you have to ban it; just push the programming back an hour so 24 (or whatever) has a 10pm start. Keeps the younger kids from accidentally watching it; still allows it for older teenagers and adults.

The idea that a show couldn't mention a condom at 8pm but Jack Bauer can bite someone's carotid artery is a little ludicrous.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it's okay to regulate sex and profanity, it's okay to regulate violence. Doesn't mean you have to ban it; just push the programming back an hour so 24 (or whatever) has a 10pm start. Keeps the younger kids from accidentally watching it; still allows it for older teenagers and adults.

The idea that a show couldn't mention a condom at 8pm but Jack Bauer can bite someone's carotid artery is a little ludicrous.

Exactly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How exactly would you regulate TV? Various countries have tried censorship, imposing watersheds so that particular content is not shown before a certain time, but this debate still continues.

Its a non-issue IMO - if you have cable every movie with graphic sex/violence/profanity is heavily censored, which leaves the "subscription-only channels".

I think we need to start talking specifics here - rather than general blanket statements about the nature of TV violence and its effect on children, which is still highly controversial. It goes without saying that you should have some kind of control over what material comes into your house - but it seems to me that this is already being taken care of by technology these days...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If it's okay to regulate sex and profanity, it's okay to regulate violence. Doesn't mean you have to ban it; just push the programming back an hour so 24 (or whatever) has a 10pm start. Keeps the younger kids from accidentally watching it; still allows it for older teenagers and adults.

The idea that a show couldn't mention a condom at 8pm but Jack Bauer can bite someone's carotid artery is a little ludicrous.

Exactly.

I pointed out 24, against which I have a particular bias. The show utilises extreme violence as a plot device on a regular basis. Guy won't do what you want - lets break out the power tools. Lazy writing IMO.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How exactly would you regulate TV? Various countries have tried censorship, imposing watersheds so that particular content is not shown before a certain time, but this debate still continues.

Its a non-issue IMO - if you have cable every movie with graphic sex/violence/profanity is heavily censored, which leaves the "subscription-only channels".

I think we need to start talking specifics here - rather than general blanket statements about the nature of TV violence and its effect on children, which is still highly controversial. It goes without saying that you should have some kind of control over what material comes into your house - but it seems to me that this is already being taken care of by technology these days...

That is a good question. Are you saying that it's easier to regulate sexual content (as in Caladan's example of not being able to mention the word condom before 8pm)?

IMO, however difficult regulating violence on TV would be, it's still possible, and it should be regardless of whether we can accurately measure the negative effects on children. Parents know there are certain things that we keep from our kids because they just aren't mature enough to handle. With children taking up the bulk of viewership with certain timeslots of TV, the programming during that time needs to monitored for appropriate content.

[KarenCee 3]

Regulating TV will lead to censorship. That's already a hot button issue as it is from a moralistic standpoint. I am NOT advocating censorship at all. I'm not crazy about all the violence on TV (try being in a classroom full of kids who are allowed to watch whatever on TV sometime and listen to their conversations or watch them on the playground). Regulation should be done at home by the parents. And yes, kids will find a way around the blocks and such...they find ways around blocks on our computers at school too! Kids are pretty savvy these days. My personal opinion is that this should fall back on the parents, not the government.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it's okay to regulate sex and profanity, it's okay to regulate violence. Doesn't mean you have to ban it; just push the programming back an hour so 24 (or whatever) has a 10pm start. Keeps the younger kids from accidentally watching it; still allows it for older teenagers and adults.

The idea that a show couldn't mention a condom at 8pm but Jack Bauer can bite someone's carotid artery is a little ludicrous.

Exactly.

I pointed out 24, against which I have a particular bias. The show utilises extreme violence as a plot device on a regular basis. Guy won't do what you want - lets break out the power tools. Lazy writing IMO.

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

[KarenCee 3]

If it's okay to regulate sex and profanity, it's okay to regulate violence. Doesn't mean you have to ban it; just push the programming back an hour so 24 (or whatever) has a 10pm start. Keeps the younger kids from accidentally watching it; still allows it for older teenagers and adults.

The idea that a show couldn't mention a condom at 8pm but Jack Bauer can bite someone's carotid artery is a little ludicrous.

Exactly.

I pointed out 24, against which I have a particular bias. The show utilises extreme violence as a plot device on a regular basis. Guy won't do what you want - lets break out the power tools. Lazy writing IMO.

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

LOL, some of the laziest writing I've ever seen are in those soap operas.

[Heracles 417]

Erekose, there have been studies that demonstrate harmful effects to young children who are exposed to violence on television.

I'm not Erekose, but I take exception to this. There are studies on both sides of the fence. In fact, there are studies for everything under the sun, even the most ridiculous of items. Children who are reared correctly and are in a stable household are in no way harmed by violent television. Case in point, I've watched some very violent TV growing up, and I never acted out due to it; neither did my brother or my friends or his friends.

Perhaps the focus should be on raising children effectively, rather than attempting to shield them from violent TV, all of which they will somehow come to view anyway, given time and some work.

I totally agree with the stable household view. I saw it at school when I was growing up. The kids who did not have stable household or generally had single parents where the most violent ones and would always take any fade to the extreme.. Be it good or bad. Whereas kids from a stable household knew where to draw the line.. Understood the difference between fantasy and what is real.

Unfortunately kids without parents or stable parents will seek guidance from somewhere. If they only watch unregulated ####### on TV, that is what they will use to guide them..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

I agree - but you usually have to watch the show/movie before arriving at that determination. As in that other thread about the "teacher's vampire fiction", knee jerk reactions from people who react to the content regardless of context and without actually viewing/reading the offending material clearly aren't useful.

There's also the issue that what might be gratuitous for one person is not gratuitous for another. Hence I don't believe the FCC has any business here. Rather I would like them to impose some sort of quality control standards on programme makers - we pay $70 on cable and most of what is on is complete rubbish IMO. Too many reality TV shows, too many game shows - more to the point too many ###### commercials. But the FCC don't seem too bothered that you can't watch a clear 5 minutes of a TV show without it being interspersed with 4 minutes of ads.

American Idol is a particularly bad offender in that regards - they run these "Two hour events" which are an exercise in fluff and padding. After the obligatory commercial break you hear one guy sing for two minutes, then Ryan Seacrest says "we'll find out who's out after the break". Considering that programming standards on subscription channels like HBO are significantly higher than those on general network television, why is everyone focussed on violence, language and sex in a few shows and not the generally poor programming quality of the TV schedule...?

If it's okay to regulate sex and profanity, it's okay to regulate violence. Doesn't mean you have to ban it; just push the programming back an hour so 24 (or whatever) has a 10pm start. Keeps the younger kids from accidentally watching it; still allows it for older teenagers and adults.

The idea that a show couldn't mention a condom at 8pm but Jack Bauer can bite someone's carotid artery is a little ludicrous.

Exactly.

I pointed out 24, against which I have a particular bias. The show utilises extreme violence as a plot device on a regular basis. Guy won't do what you want - lets break out the power tools. Lazy writing IMO.

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

LOL, some of the laziest writing I've ever seen are in those soap operas.

Have you seen those "mini soaps" - I forget on which channel but they are purposefully OTT. We get a kick out of some of those.

[KarenCee 3]

Erekose, there have been studies that demonstrate harmful effects to young children who are exposed to violence on television.

I'm not Erekose, but I take exception to this. There are studies on both sides of the fence. In fact, there are studies for everything under the sun, even the most ridiculous of items. Children who are reared correctly and are in a stable household are in no way harmed by violent television. Case in point, I've watched some very violent TV growing up, and I never acted out due to it; neither did my brother or my friends or his friends.

Perhaps the focus should be on raising children effectively, rather than attempting to shield them from violent TV, all of which they will somehow come to view anyway, given time and some work.

I totally agree with the stable household view. I saw it at school when I was growing up. The kids who did not have stable household or generally had single parents where the most violent ones and would always take any fade to the extreme.. Be it good or bad. Whereas kids from a stable household knew where to draw the line.. Understood the difference between fantasy and what is real.

Unfortunately kids without parents or stable parents will seek guidance from somewhere. If they only watch unregulated ####### on TV, that is what they will use to guide them..

Again, not ALL single parents can be blamed for unstable households. I was a single mom for a while and my daughter is very well adjusted and does not exhibit violent tendencies at all. In fact, her life with me is far more stable than when she visits her biological father. However, I do agree when a child has little to no stability in their life, whether it is a two parent household or single, or living with grandparents (as I've seen an increasing trend of this lately) they will seek stability from other sources and not always the best of sources. You also have to remember, households are NOT the way they were when we were growing up.

[Caladan 19]

Regulating TV will lead to censorship. That's already a hot button issue as it is from a moralistic standpoint. I am NOT advocating censorship at all. I'm not crazy about all the violence on TV (try being in a classroom full of kids who are allowed to watch whatever on TV sometime and listen to their conversations or watch them on the playground). Regulation should be done at home by the parents. And yes, kids will find a way around the blocks and such...they find ways around blocks on our computers at school too! Kids are pretty savvy these days. My personal opinion is that this should fall back on the parents, not the government.

We already regulate TV for sex and profanity. If that hasn't lead to mass censorship, then limiting the violence or pushing it back an hour won't, either.

"It should fall back on the responsibility of the parents" is a good point, except that I can only control what my kids watch and they have to go to school with kids who get to watch violence. We're not exactly islands isolated from each other here.

The airwaves (not cable) are already public property. Stations buy airtime from the public. There's no overwhelming reason that I should have to allow a network to show violence on TV and then pay for the privilege of having a V-chip.