Americans Must Give Up Tv Violence For The Kids, Or Else Essay, Research Paper

Americans Must Give Up TV Violence For the Kids, Or Else

To the unsuspecting eye, this nation s response and reaction to the rise

in number of violent acts committed by teenagers could be described as

appropriately overwhelming, but when examined more closely, does America

really care? When examined in a general sense, violence has declined overall

in the US but has risen among teens (Hunt 651). Who is to blame and how

are we trying to prevent youth crime and teen promiscuity? A New York

Times poll in 1995 reported only 21 percent of those who were surveyed

actually put the blame on television (Hirschorn 643). Both those who cite TV

and popular music as the source of teen aggression and those who disagree

have reasons to do so. There is valid proof behind both points of view but I

firmly believe there is a direct cause/effect relationship between what children

view on TV and how they act in the real world. Research, which I will

discuss, conducted in both England and the US proves to me beyond

reasonable doubt that violent television programs either directly or indirectly

effect children and I think the government should take a more active role in

youth crime prevention.

Though some of the evidence that supports my beliefs has been viewed

as circumstantial, it is too valuable to be ignored. Brandon Centerwall, a

professor at the University of Washington, summarized some of the evidence

in an article in the Spring 1993 issue of The Public Interest. His research

findings focused on instances circa 1975 when television was introduced to

rural Canadian and South African communities. In both countries, there was

a significantly noticeable increase in violent crime committed by the young

(Kristol 641). Professor Centerwall also notes that when TV was introduced

in the United States after World War II, the homicide rated among whites,

who were the first to buy sets, began to rise, while the black homicide rate

didn t show any such increase until four years later (Kristol 641). Such facts

highlight the probability that what children watch, they copy. It is

unadmirable to count such evidence as circumstantial, but those who examine

the facts in a broad sense, look over the specific fields in where the increases

or decreases occur. According to Centerwall, if television was never

invented, the United States would have 10,000 fewer homicides (Kristol 642).

A study conducted in England also supports that violent television has

an effect on children. English Parliament introduced legislation to limit the

availability of violence-rich videos in 1994 after the study, conducted by a

professor from Nottingham University, was released. The professor, named

Elizabeth Newson, cited evidence that proved the effects on children from

violent TV programming. The report was signed by twenty-five

psychologists and pediatricians. The report can be summarized by the

following quote (from the report):

Many of us hold our liberal ideals of freedom of

expression dear, but now begin to feel that we were

naive in our failure to predict the extent of

damaging material and its all-too-free availability to

children Kristol (640).

This point-of-view about freedom of expression is not held solely by those in

England, for it is in our own country where the first amendment grants us

freedom of speech, or more specifically, that Congress shall make no law

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.1 Yes, control of television

programming and it s violence content does limit the freedom independent

adults in watching what they choose to watch but is it not worth it? Society

as a whole benefits when thousands of children have been steered away from

becoming violent adults (Kristol 642).

The United States government has taken a divided stand when asked

about the source of teen violence and promiscuity in America. The liberals

call for tougher gun control laws while the conservatives place the blame on

pop culture and TV (Hunt 650). The government has taken slight steps

towards intervening in what Hollywood puts on TV but I see these efforts as

minuscule. It is apparent to myself beyond reasonable doubt that after

children view over 200,000 acts of TV violence by the time they graduate

high school (Hunt 652) they become numb to violence. As of 1995, Senate

had passed legislation requiring violence-screening technology on all new TV

sets (Hirschorn 643). Is this all that they are willing to do for our children?

More along the lines of what conservatives promote, it is only appropriate

that prime-time television be declared a violence-and-sex-free zone

(Hirschorn 643). Culture s romanticization of violence — in movies,

television, and music — certainly contributes to a general disregard for

authority (Hunt 651), and when a parent is confronted with a violent,

aggressive, or promiscuous teen, who it the first to be blamed? The parent.

The clich it takes a village to raise a child has never been more meaningful

than when applied to this situation and what the government must do to assist

in the bringing up of our next generation. (Parents) have not been able to do

it on their own. Parents have always relied on churches, schools and popular

culture for help (Kristol 643). The government should fall somewhere

within those lines also.

In conclusion, I, along with other critics of TV violence claim that

violent acts on TV teach children sadism and encourage them to be cruel

(Oppenheim 648). Albert Hunt states in an article in the Wall Street Journal,

the perfect analogy interpreting the effects of violence in music and in the

media on children. He said, If Frank Sinatra songs make people feel

romantic and John Phillips Sousa makes people feel patriotic, then the

obscene violence of (media) shock rocker Marilyn Manson or gansta-rapper

Snoop Doggy Dogg might encourage impressionable and troubled teenagers

to feel perverted or violent (Hunt 652). Is there anything to dispute this

point? Though clean-cut evidence has not been found relating violence in the

media, circumstantial evidence is far too numerous and substantial to be

ignored. In efforts to correct and help prevent youth violence we adults may

give up a part of our first amendment right, but in the long run, all of our

rights, our prosperity, and our lives are protected.

Works Cited

Hirschorn, Michael. The Myth of Television Depravity. Elements of

Argument. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martin s, 2000. 643-646.

Hunt, Albert R. Teen Violence Spawned by Guns and Cultural Rot.

Elements of Argument. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin s, 2000. 650-652.

Kristol, Irving. Sex, Violence, and Videotape. Elements of Argument. Ed.

Annette T. Rottenberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin s, 2000. 640-643.

Oppenheim, Mike. TV Isn t Violent Enough. Elements of Argument. Ed.

Annette T. Rottenberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin s, 2000. 646-648.