Television Programming Violence that Causes Real Violence - Essay Example

Television Programming Violence Causes Real Violence Dear Mr. Mike Oppenheim and Mr. Holman W. Jenkins Jr My is Tommy Tran and I am an undergraduate student at Santa Rosa College. I would like to present to you my views on television violence and how these programs influence crime rates and parents’ abusive tendencies toward their children, and why I believe they should be censored. I will give examples of how viewers are influenced by positive and negative messages given on television programs. I will also present excellence awarded programs and discuss the importance of television programming changing their outlook in changing the current programming to satisfy the needs for positive modeling. For over thirty years this has been an issue. There have been several advocate groups that have attested to the fact that children will emulate that which they see. They have presented many examples, such as: children believing that they were Superman and threw themselves from roofs, thinking that they could fly; other children using their father´s gun believing they were playing and killing other children; and, other children modeling the behaviors they watch on television and becoming aggressive, thinking that that is the way to have solved a problem, thus violence causes higher crime rates. Today the topic is still fresh. The heated discussion relating to both the youth violence and media has continued to grow. It is still a debatable issue of whether or not television influences the behaviors of the viewers or not. In the media bloc, the public impugns the television networks, which in turn chastise the writers and producers, who sequentially hold the advertisers accountable, who in the end turn to blame the public. In the violence bloc, the federal government holds the youth responsible for their own actions, who charge the commune, which censures the schools, which points the finger at the parents, and who ultimately blame the government (Caldwell, 1995). This is a vicious circle and no one wants to take the blame for it, yet we see violence increasing every day and the advocate groups continue defending their point that television influences the viewers´ lifestyles. These viewers may learn positive models, such as through programs like: Sesame Street, Electric Company, Zoom, 321 Contact, and REBOP. These were programs that taught children how to read and write, how to learn about different cultures, and how to become interested in science. These shows obtained awards for excellence and influenced the youngsters positively. If these shows demonstrated that they were able to influence youngsters around the world (they have been dubbed into many languages), then why should we think violent programs do not influence the youngsters in a negative way as well? According to your perception television programming brings in medical and entertainment programs, but it also brings in cultural aspects. Violence is a cultural aspect. Media is a reflection of the popular culture and serves as engines in the production process. While they may not be the only components that influence the viewers, they are linked to the violence produced on television shows and the youngsters recall these actions. Some of the results of these issues have been characterized in the United States, as population that is individualistic, materialistic, and violence prone (Caldwell, 1995). Surely, you must agree with me that television not only influences its viewers positively and negatively by the examples I have given you. By Matt Damon portraying bloodshed may arise enough curiosity in children to make them sudden murderers. Sudden murderers have been typically shy, non-aggressive people who keep passions and impulses in check (Banks, 2003). Anyone who watches action television programs in the United States is very likely to see scenes in which people are killed or injured in a wide variety of ingenious ways. Even cartoons have lovable but sadistic characters and commercial documentaries have on-the-spot, genuine coverage of wars, assassinations, riots, and crimes on the streets (Caldwell, 1995). It may be inferred that this causes children and child-curious grown-ups to learn that violence is frequent, rewarded, thought to be justified, clean, fun, imaginative, and appropriate for males and females. I believe that reshaping the television programming in America may be difficult but not impossible. You may say that television violence is cathartic and decreases children’s tendencies toward overt aggression but I challenge the credibility of this supposition. Not only are juvenile people like Ben and Sarah more prone to act aggressively after viewing violence, but they also become more tolerant of aggressive behavior in others (Seel, 1998). There is another matter that concerns me and that is: With the risk of inflicting negative morals to the youth culture, should parents then allow their children to watch television everyday? My obvious answer is No. Television is a vital source from which most Americans receive information. “Media messages simply form the bulk of popular culture” (Seel, 1998). As such, pop culture has all the power to glamorize junk food, alcohol, drugs, irresponsible sex, and violence; it can reinforce stereotypes about race, gender, sexual orientation, and class; it can prescribe the lifestyle to which one should aspire to, and the products one must buy to attain it. Psychologists have affirmed that when youngsters are growing up, they will tend to become what their parents were: children with abusive parents will be abusive parents in adulthood; children who grow up with substance abuse adults will have a tendency to become substance abuse users; children who live with parents that batter their spouse/partner will batter their spouse/partner. It may also be inferred that if these models are imitated in real life, then violence in television causes parents to abuse their children, since this is what they see on television programs. Then, why should we believe that what is portrayed in television will not influence the children´s behavior or the parents´ behavior? Are we not sending the wrong messages? I truly believe that people that are in the helm of television production and programming should be made aware and responsible of what they air on television. Does it need to take lawsuits for management to take responsible actions? Television is a powerful tool. You may observe that by presenting what is “beautiful” in television commercials (tall, skinny, and with European features) many girls, especially have become bulimic and anorexic. When television permitted cigarette companies to advertise on television, smokers later suffered of emphysema, lung, and throat cancer. The cigarette advertisements were banned from television without first prevailing lawsuits and making the cigarette companies liable to those affected by smoking (themselves and/or family members). The Mediascope National Television Violence Study found that teens, mostly since childhood, are learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors, becoming desensitized to real world violence, and developing a fear of being victimized by violence (Seel, 1998). It is therefore necessary to warn the youth and advice them of what should be done and what should be viewed, but there is no need to implant fear because this sensationalistic approach either desensitizes or terrifies the susceptible youth. By and large, whatever form they take, youth’s overexposure to the television is a matter of being overexposed to the corrupt reflection of the societal realities, which includes man’s subordination to technology-driven dumbness. Media content coming from the television can be good or bad for the teens. Just as a parent will limit certain foods in the kid’s diet that may be unhealthy, the parent should also limit the media diet of messages. Some people put forward that the government engenders “media literacy education programs” (Kubey, 2000). They should be accountable in constructing courses of action for “media literacy education” which acknowledge critical thinking as a process to meet the end result. Media literacy is more than simply an inoculation against violent, sexual, or other controversial content matter in art and entertainment. The goal is to show media literacy’s superiority to indecency laws, television ratings, and other efforts to bowdlerize the information and ideas obtainable by the young and what better than to start media literacy by practicing it at home with firmer parents. On a larger scale, covering a more diverse cluster of youth, we must consider that the world has 1.2 billion television sets. Currently, CNN is available in 210 countries and 28.5 million households view it in an average week. The power this television network has on global communication is significant. As U.S. News and World Report noted, “Television’s impact on the world community cannot be overstated” (Bower, 2003). With the influence of Hollywood and its impact, I question, are the kids psychologically equipped enough to understand what is real or not, or is it merely on the reel in this crime-infested world? As a powerful influence in society, the issue of violence on television deserves our critical attention. This is where the youth can play a vital role not merely as recipients of information, but as critical and discerning partners in crime which is a socio-cultural development process. I urge you to take a proactive step and be on the frontline on television programming changes. Thank you for your attention concerning this matter. Works Cited Banks, Jack. (2003). “The Globalization of Popular Culture.” The Social Science Journal, Vol.59. Bower, Robert T. (2003). The Changing Television Audience in America. Columbia University Press. Caldwell, John Thornton. (1995). Televisuality: Style, Crisis, and Authority in American Television. Rutgers University Press. Kubey, Robert. (2000). “The Development of Media Education in the United States.” Journal of Communication, Vol. 48. Seel, John. (1998). “Plugged In, Spaced Out, And Turned On: Electronic Entertainment And Moral Minefields.” The Social Science Journal, Vol. 35. Read More