FCC Report: TV Violence Should Be Regulated

[choji 0]

As to the positive, inspirational stuff:

Would that include the death penalty?

The US has to have the death penalty considering how sick and violent so many criminals are here. There is no rehabilitation for someone who has killed 10 kids.

Is taking 10 lives worse than taking one, as long as the taking of that one life is state regulated?

The fact that if the police stops the family car the kid inside sees the parent at the wheel trying not to make a "wrong move" for fear of being shot?

You have to ask yourself why is this the case. I think more than enough police has been killed doing their job.

Out of violence grows more violence. If all policepersons assume as a matter of fact that any other person they encounter is out to take their lives and are prepared to defend themselves by killing the "aggressor", the level of violence grows out of proportion in leaps and bounds.

Homelessness, which is taken as a matter of fact?

I cannot see this improving at all considering the number of unlawful immigrants stealing jobs from Americans.

Are you sure that all homelessness has its root in illigal immigration?

Overcrowded prisons, where inmates live under inhumane conditions - "oh, serves them right, they had it coming?"

I do not understand this sympathy for convicts. The more rights we give prisoners the more they abuse these same rights. What about all of the violence occurring within prisons due to them forming gangs and attacking others. I believe that whenever someone commits a heinous crime and is found guilty, their actions should forfeit any rights they have as a civilian or human being..

What about those who live in prison because the system of "law and order" is seriously flawed? They are subjected to the same conditions without being heinous criminals.

Making doubting participation in a war a dishonorable thing? "Support our troups or you're the enemy within?"

Why should the troops be punished for the decisions of politicians. They are people who volunteer 'their lives' to serve and protect all of us..

I am not talking about those who serve. I am talking about those who doubt the cause and are deemed "unpatriotic" and "traitors."

Don't you think that children in the US grow up to accept a level of violence as "natural" or "good" which is unconcivable for someone having been brought up in a different society?

Yes considering most other developed / civilized countries do not have an open-ended anything goes first amendment. There are various groups of people here who are violent yet their cousins overseas in other English nations are not only well respected but extremely peaceful people. How can we explain this..

Yes, you are right, it is surprising how many kids grow up unharmed by the level of violence which is part of daily life in the US, in deed and thought.

This is not intended as bashing. It is just a different viewpoint.

Open discussion is definitely what this nation needs rather than isolating others with differing views..

This is extremly interesting, because you and I are obliously on completely different levels as regards violence - and yet we can discuss the problems we see in a quiet and polite way.

Thank you.

[Heracles 417]

Is taking 10 lives worse than taking one, as long as the taking of that one life is state regulated?

Out of violence grows more violence. If all policepersons assume as a matter of fact that any other person they encounter is out to take their lives and are prepared to defend themselves by killing the "aggressor", the level of violence grows out of proportion in leaps and bounds.

Are you sure that all homelessness has its root in illigal immigration?

What about those who live in prison because the system of "law and order" is seriously flawed? They are subjected to the same conditions without being heinous criminals.

I am not talking about those who serve. I am talking about those who doubt the cause and are deemed "unpatriotic" and "traitors."

Yes, you are right, it is surprising how many kids grow up unharmed by the level of violence which is part of daily life in the US, in deed and thought.

This is extremly interesting, because you and I are obliously on completely different levels as regards violence - and yet we can discuss the problems we see in a quiet and polite way.

Thank you.

All of your points are extremely valid. I agree violence begets violence. The key is to cut it at the source.. Much like weeds, if you attack the outbreak quickly you can contain and control it.

Personally I do not have a problem with people who join the military choosing not to be part of a mission. But they should have to hand back any monetary funds received from the taxpayer..

Through discussion and the exchange of ideas great things can be achieved. Just the other day I was picked on by others (Alex+r and co) for bringing up Australia and their way of doing things. I just never realized so many Americans have the we are right you are wrong and we do not want to hear about any other ideas attitude..

Edited February 18, 2007 by Infidel

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

As far as movies go I'm not a fan of the likes of Saw, or Hostel (which was mentioned earlier). Those movies, along with the recent remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes (there's a sequel to that out this year apparently) are exercises in gratuitousness. As I mentioned with lazy storytelling - which is the main problem I have with a lot of televised drama, there is a tendency in movies to expand that into excessive bloodlust. Resorting to make-up effects and throwing blood and guts around is the mark of a lazy director IMO.

Horror was never about showing the inside of someone's guts but about creating a real sense of fear, tension and suspense. Alfred Hitchcock was particularly good at that. Even the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre wasn't particularly graphic, but garnered the reputation as a 'video nasty' based on the title alone.

That said, there are exceptions - I still like the original George Romero zombie movies, which are still pretty gory even by today's standards. I rented Old Boy, from Netflix last week which is graphically and sexually violent, but is at the same time a tightly scripted revenge thriller which puts Quentin Tarantino to shame.

Of course its all subjective - no doubt others find any or all of these movies I mentioned highly offensive. Similarly there are very many well-adjusted people who like slasher pictures.

When my parents got their first VCR in the 80's I would record late night horror movies and watch them on sunday morning. By the age of 10-11 I'd seen a lot of things that would have been considered "highly inappropriate" for someone under 18. I never had any trouble at school or being socially "mal-adjusted".

I love Guillermo Del Toro's Directing style in Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth - both show some very graphic depictions that made my skin crawl, but I felt it added to the story.

However, with regulating for an audience that is made up of mostly children, it shouldn't be that difficult to maintain consistency with standards. I actually think their should be more regulation beyond just limiting graphic content, but other things such as subversive advertising when it comes to children's programming. The average amount of hours spent in front of TV by children is staggering and they are being droned into becoming indiscriminate consumers.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I love Guillermo Del Toro's Directing style in Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth - both show some very graphic depictions that made my skin crawl, but I felt it added to the story.

However, with regulating for an audience that is made up of mostly children, it shouldn't be that difficult to maintain consistency with standards. I actually think their should be more regulation beyond just limiting graphic content, but other things such as subversive advertising when it comes to children's programming. The average amount of hours spent in front of TV by children is staggering and they are being droned into becoming indiscriminate consumers.

I agree as far as it goes to permit what is shown during hours when children could be watching, but I'm uneasy about any legislation which limits what imagery programme makers can show, and what subject matter they can cover- period. If the violence in a particular movie/programme is justifiable in its specific context (you mention Pan's Labyrinth and the Devil's Backbone - both of which I also like) to what extent should limitations be imposed on the makers creativity? Usually I find that the people who are the ones directly in charge of TV standards are the most uncreative, unimaginative people you can meet. Who are these people to tell me what is suitable for me or my family to watch?

I personally find it highly distasteful that movies show on network TV are subject to any cuts whatsoever. I mean, what is the point? To make a movie that is clearly not intended for children palatable for a general audience? Personally I'd rather they not show those movies at all rather than butcher them the way they do.

The argument is similarly ludicrous when applied to art or books. Just because some people don't like the nudity in a painting - you don't see people covering up the "naughty bits". Similarly, you don't see people wasting their time trying to black the swear-words out of Fight Club, or cut the rape scene out of The Color Purple (which ruins an otherwise uplifting read) ;-)

Not too long ago I read about a 'netflix-like' company which was selling "Clean" versions of Hollywood movies, for the consumption of the easily offended. That sort of tinkering with a person's intellectual property without their permission is generally considered illegal...

Edited February 18, 2007 by erekose

[DeadPoolX 9]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I feel that shielding kids from violence isn't the answer. If anything, I think showing them the full effects of said violence might be the very answer we're looking for in society.

Allow me to explain...

Take practically any children's cartoon (one that isn't too pandering and overall stupid, which unfortunately, many are today) and when there's a violent scene with the bad guy shooting a laser at a building, the building blows up. Okay, so far so good. We understand that the laser is potentially deadly. Then the laser hits the cartoon's hero, and lo and behold, the hero is either stunned or knocked back or both. Wait a minute! Wasn't this the same laser that, just a moment ago, demolished an entire building? Shouldn't the hero be bone dust and blood paste, or at the very least, missing a limb or wounded?

Okay, so now some of you are probably thinking I'm nuts. Some of you are probably wondering just why I'd want a child to see something like that. Well, here's my answer: Seeing the full effects of the violence might deter later potential violence. Hear me out. When a child sees someone get shot in a cartoon, and they aren't hurt, they think to themselves, "Hey, that's not so bad! It looks almost fun!" So when they get ahold of a weapon, perhaps a firearm, and decide to show Dad's gun off to their friends, mimicking the cartoon, they don't expect anything truly bad to happen. After all, it didn't happen to the cartoon hero, now did it?

So if a child sees how much pain and torment a gun (or any weapon) could potentially put an individual through, perhaps they would think twice about picking one up and using it (unless absolutely necessary for self-defense purposes) since they would have some concept, beyond mere words, of just how deadly it is. Now see my point?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I feel that shielding kids from violence isn't the answer. If anything, I think showing them the full effects of said violence might be the very answer we're looking for in society.

Allow me to explain...

Take practically any children's cartoon (one that isn't too pandering and overall stupid, which unfortunately, many are today) and when there's a violent scene with the bad guy shooting a laser at a building, the building blows up. Okay, so far so good. We understand that the laser is potentially deadly. Then the laser hits the cartoon's hero, and lo and behold, the hero is either stunned or knocked back or both. Wait a minute! Wasn't this the same laser that, just a moment ago, demolished an entire building? Shouldn't the hero be bone dust and blood paste, or at the very least, missing a limb or wounded?

Okay, so now some of you are probably thinking I'm nuts. Some of you are probably wondering just why I'd want a child to see something like that. Well, here's my answer: Seeing the full effects of the violence might deter later potential violence. Hear me out. When a child sees someone get shot in a cartoon, and they aren't hurt, they think to themselves, "Hey, that's not so bad! It looks almost fun!" So when they get ahold of a weapon, perhaps a firearm, and decide to show Dad's gun off to their friends, mimicking the cartoon, they don't expect anything truly bad to happen. After all, it didn't happen to the cartoon hero, now did it?

So if a child sees how much pain and torment a gun (or any weapon) could potentially put an individual through, perhaps they would think twice about picking one up and using it (unless absolutely necessary for self-defense purposes) since they would have some concept, beyond mere words, of just how deadly it is. Now see my point?

The He Man cartoons had those kind of moralistic endings at the end of every episode. I found them patronising even as a 7 year old.

Edited February 19, 2007 by erekose

[Caladan 19]

Would make for rather short action flicks, though, Deadpool. There was a cutesy article a while back where the journalist viewed an action film (like Die Hard, or something similar) with a doctor saying: "A fall from that height would have broken his back; he wouldn't be getting up to fight bad guys." Jack Bauer would have been weak from bloodloss (not to mention choking on blood when he BIT the bad guy in the throat.)

One of my friends has talked about making a war movie where they set it up like the typical movie: the crusty sergeant hero, the green kid, the cornfed Iowa boy looking at the pic of his sweetheart, all the types. You *know* the hero is supposed to survive the movie. Instead, the hero dies in the first salvo. Credits.

I see where you're going, but I think the key to the desensitizing is to show the kids less fake violence, not make it more realistic. Especially since real-life violence tends to create traumatized children, not wise adults.

[Heracles 417]

What about shows like Jackass. A lot of kids seem to be trying to replicate those clowns..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would make for rather short action flicks, though, Deadpool. There was a cutesy article a while back where the journalist viewed an action film (like Die Hard, or something similar) with a doctor saying: "A fall from that height would have broken his back; he wouldn't be getting up to fight bad guys." Jack Bauer would have been weak from bloodloss (not to mention choking on blood when he BIT the bad guy in the throat.)

One of my friends has talked about making a war movie where they set it up like the typical movie: the crusty sergeant hero, the green kid, the cornfed Iowa boy looking at the pic of his sweetheart, all the types. You *know* the hero is supposed to survive the movie. Instead, the hero dies in the first salvo. Credits.

I see where you're going, but I think the key to the desensitizing is to show the kids less fake violence, not make it more realistic. Especially since real-life violence tends to create traumatized children, not wise adults.

TV/Movie violence can be quite sickening, certainly if a skilled director knows how to portray it in the right way. Steven mentioned the two Del-Toro movies, which feature a couple of quite sickening scenes that are far more realistic than what you'd usually see in Die Hard or Lethal Weapon.

I agree that there is too much of the throwaway violence - 15,20,50 people get blown away and forgotten about in most action movies, and it goes back even further than that - in westerns you saw people by the hundred clutch their chests and fall over. The violence isn't realistic so the tendency is not to think of death in a real way, nor experience the consequences of it. The characters themselves are almost always forgettable, and there's never much of a sense of loss. Similarly - have you ever seen a war movie in which a fighter pilot gets killed and just keels over his dashboard - when in reality he would be turned into "man-soup" by the size of the bullet and the speed of the plane.

What about shows like Jackass. A lot of kids seem to be trying to replicate those clowns..

The show isn't tellling them to do it. In fact, the programme states explicitly not to try to replicate the stunts. If someone chooses to do so anyway, is the programme to blame?

[Heracles 417]

What about shows like Jackass. A lot of kids seem to be trying to replicate those clowns..

The show isn't tellling them to do it. In fact, the programme states explicitly not to try to replicate the stunts. If someone chooses to do so anyway, is the programme to blame?

Violence on television affects children negatively, according to psychological research.

The three major effects of seeing violence on television are:

* Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.

* Children may be more fearful of the world around them.

* Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others

Imitation is a high human element, especially among the young. Just one publicised school shooting, in my view, leads to imitation.

FACT: The average American child will have watched 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old).

We live in an era where both parents are often working and children have more unsupervised time. It is essential that you make time for children and regularly inform yourself of their day to day experiences, including while they are at school if they attend school.

If you think wall to wall violence on TV has no effect, why would you imagine that one-minute adverts in the breaks do have an effect?

Edited February 19, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about shows like Jackass. A lot of kids seem to be trying to replicate those clowns..

The show isn't tellling them to do it. In fact, the programme states explicitly not to try to replicate the stunts. If someone chooses to do so anyway, is the programme to blame?

Violence on television affects children negatively, according to psychological research.

The three major effects of seeing violence on television are:

* Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.

* Children may be more fearful of the world around them.

* Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others

Imitation is a high human element, especially among the young. Just one publicised school shooting, in my view, leads to imitation.

FACT: The average American child will have watched 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old).

We live in an era where both parents are often working and children have more unsupervised time. It is essential that you make time for children and regularly inform yourself of their day to day experiences, including while they are at school if they attend school.

If you think wall to wall violence on TV has no effect, why would you imagine that one-minute adverts in the breaks do have an effect?

What does any of this have to do with Jackass TV? Do you think that the programme makers should be prosecuted because some idiot decides to copy what they've seen on the show?

[Heracles 417]

What does any of this have to do with Jackass TV? Do you think that the programme makers should be prosecuted because some idiot decides to copy what they've seen on the show?

I wasn't able to delete the reply in time. That was an extract of some research I found..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What does any of this have to do with Jackass TV? Do you think that the programme makers should be prosecuted because some idiot decides to copy what they've seen on the show?

I wasn't able to delete the reply in time. That was an extract of some research I found..

Research which is hardly conclusive.

[Heracles 417]

Research which is hardly conclusive.

How about teachers who have to deal with these kids on a daily basis?

I see it with my wife's niece. She has this "left to right head swing attitude". She definitely did not learn this from her parents. I sat down one day and had a look at the stuff she watches on the kids channels. After an hour, I could see precisely where she was learning, mimicking, to behave this way..

The research is out there. Yet much like smoking, the people who are profiting from the ####### produced as entertainment will deny it until the cows come home.. Like rappers saying their music has no negative affect on kids whatsoever. I must have been born yesterday then..

Edited February 19, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Research which is hardly conclusive.

How about teachers who have to deal with these kids on a daily basis?

I see it with my wife's niece. She has this "left to right head swing attitude". She definitely did not learn this from her parents. I sat down one day and had a look at the stuff she watches on the kids channels. After an hour, I could see precisely where she was learning, mimicking, to behave this way..

The research is out there. Yet much like smoking, the people who are profiting from the ####### produced as entertainment will deny it until the cows come home.. Like rappers saying their music has no negative affect on kids whatsoever. I must have been born yesterday then..

I don't doubt it has an effect - but Television and video games are not the sole influence on children's behaviour, nor should they be.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that violence in the home has a more explicit effect on how kids turn out, rather than what shows or movies they are allowed to watch on TV.