Televised Violence

[Charaxes]

I had a great discussion in one of my classes today about violence on TV. I have always been one that said that those who are naturally violent gravitate towards violent programming, and those are the ones that allow the violence to influence their behavior. After the discussion, I realized that even if the violent content on TV can be explained by saying that America is a violent society, and TV only reflects that point, the important question then becomes "Isn't possible that the violence on TV that cause for the violence that is in our society?"

It's not only probable, but logical that TV reflects the culture, but the culture came to this point because of the televised violence. Think about it, the televised violence perpetuates the stereotype that America is a violent place, and therefore creates violent people. I read a statistic that 10% of all of the violence that happens in America is the direct result of television. So, it's obvious that TV does have some effect, but it's hard to determine exactly what that the effect is.

I was wondering others felt about this issue. Do you think that TV violence causes violence in the real world, violence in the real world causes TV violence, and that some third unknown factor is responsible for both?

[Conchizzie]

I don't know what to say except, I'm elated.

I never really thought of it that way, I always said that violence on TV had no effect, moreso along the lines of your initial argument.

But after what you say, I may have to reconsider some ideas.

[Charaxes]

After thinking about this, I think I might have come up with the event that first caused the acceptance of adult material on television (and media as a whole): the Vietnam War.

Before the Vietnam War, fictional television programs were sanitized to the point where no unpleasantness could be present whatever. However, when the average American turned on the Five O'Clock News, they were greeted with the most recent footage from Vietnam that depicted the latest atrocity that occur overseas to America troops. However, if the same person tried to watch fictional programming or listen to popular music that was availble at the same time, they when see (or hear) messages of flowers, bunnies, and other lovely things. It was only a matter of time before Americans realized that there was a huge contradiction between reality and what was chosen to be topics of the popular television and music at the time. Sales of popular music and rating to popular TV programs waned, and marketers were hired to try to find out why. They found out that the audience wanted more realistic topics in their music and TV. Wanting to give the audience want they want in order to gain more ratings/sales gave the ability for music and TV to first truly reflect just how violent society is.

However, over the years, I do believe that this continued violence in media has perpetuated a stereotype that the world is violent, which in turn, causes even more violence. Even if the start of televised violence started as a reflection of society, it has now given a role of keeping our society violent.

I still do hold that one must be violent in nature in order for televised violence to appeal to them or to cause them to be violent. I think that these individuals would be violent on their own, even if seperated from such programming. Does that mean we should allow the level of adult content that we allow on our airwaves to continue? Well, it is my stance that I'm not qualified to make that decision. I know what shows are appropriate for me, and I show restraint by not watching the shows that aren't. But does that mean that the shows I deem inappropriate should be thrown off the air? Of course not, because I'm adult enough to know that I'm not the measuring stick for society. That in which I label inappropriate may be suitable for someone else, and who am I to say that they shouldn't watch it? I have no authority over that person whatsoever, and to pretend that I do, I would have a borderline God-complex.

[Flarizzie]

WARNING: THOUGHTLESS POST

I'm a member of the regressive party, so my stance is that we need more of it.

www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

[Charaxes]

Maddox owns. My personal favorite entry is here,

[Paj Meen Ah]

Talking of parties, why do the republicans represent themselves as an Elephant, and the Democrats themselves as a vague deer of some sort?

[docdoom187]

pashy said:

Talking of parties, why do the republicans represent themselves as an Elephant, and the Democrats themselves as a vague deer of some sort?

Dems are Donkies, not Deers.

IDK why though. Kind of weird to be honest.