The TV Addict 

Common Sense — But the beauty of a democratic country is that you don’t have to watch 24, simply change the channel.

Do we really need the government — who probably should focusing its attention on more important matters (see: Iraq) — protecting us from violence on TV.

What about Izzie’s drill scene on GREY’S… should that have been cut?

The FCC is obviously telling the morons in Congress what they want to hear, as their daft draft is packed full of lies and fear-mongering.

Where is this supposed “evidence that violent media content can impact kids behavior”? The same evidence that’s been so throughly rejected by the federal circuit courts, rejecting attempts in Indianapolis, St. Louis, Washington state, Illinois, Michigan, California, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Oklahoma over the past five years to restrict the sales of “violent” video games to minors?

The rulings against Louisiana and Oklahoma in particular will derail the FCC’s attempt to regulate violence on TV, as those two states attempted to add violence to the Supreme Court definition of obscenity, which is presumably what the FCC and Congress is attempting here.

A poster at gamepolitics.com posted some excerpts from the book “Saturday Morning Fever” by Timothy and Kevin Burke, basically the history of children’s programming.

“Once again, though, the critique of violence in kidvid merely shows the odd durability of that peculiar Victorian invention: the innocent child. The same old moony rose-tinted fantasizing about some past golden age is at play again; whenever people moan about kids are more and more violent these days, they’re usually hallucinating about the lost world of peaceful nuclear families living in the sububs. Never mind that the era immediately preceding the introduction of television - The Great Depression - was one of the peak periods of violent crime in twentieth century America. Never mind, as James Morrow points out, ‘The night he shot Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth had not been watching television.’”

Violence and agression have - at least potentially - creative and socially constructive sides. Understanding and interpreting violence is a crucial objective for any child. If Saturday morning has shown something about the uses and prevalence of violence in daily life, then it is a mark in its favor rather than an indictment against it. Most of those we’ve criticized in this book probably also accept and support some social uses of violence - war, imprisonment and self-defense, for starters. They just can’t admit this fact and instead contsruct a straw man of “cartoon violence” (or more broadly, televisual violence).”

I use the book “Foley Is Good And The Real World Is Faker Than Wrestling” by semi-retired WWE wrestler Mick Foley as a reference. “as one reporter asks, do these studies ‘prove that such shows make people aggressive, or rather that aggressive types are attracted to entertainment matching their temperament?’ These studies also explain why the crime rate in Canada is so much lower than the United States, when their television viewing habts are almost identical. These studies also don’t explain the marked contrast in violence between the United States and Japan.”

I definitely don’t think that the government shouldn’t get involved to this extent. Do I think that tv shows should be showing the type of violence seen in movies like Hostel and Saw? No, but I don’t think that we’re at that point quite yet. And would this stop at censoring violence? Would Friday Night Lights be censored because of underage drinking? Heroes & drug use? just about anything on the CW & minors having sex?

If you think that tv shows like CSI, Criminal Minds, and 24 are too violent for kids, don’t let your kids watch them. If they are too violent for you, turn off the tv.

For an interesting look at a similar topic, watch the documentary “This film is not yet rated”

Are we getting a podcast this week!?!?

the fcc can suck it. ill watch what i want to damn it.

The FCC needs to have it drilled into their heads: leave our programs alone!

I agree, viewers watching for entertainment purposes can simply change the channel.

What I object to is giving evil minds more ideas. 24’s entire premise does that, and I’ll be glad when it’s taken off the air, period.

As a forensic psychologist (though this is not my exact area of speciality), and a UK resident where the Ofcom (our FCC) regulations are both much stricter and much more permissive, I have mixed feelings about this.

Firstly I have to point out the distinct difference between unrealistic fantasy or cartoon violence, which, up to a point, will probably have very little long-term effects on children. Yes, children aren’t innocent and are perfectly capable of seperating fantasy from reality, so it’s unlikley they’re going to try and replicate Tom and Jerry. Furthermore, yes the long-term consequences of seeing graphic violence on TV are debatable, and the majority of people, be they children, adolescent or adult, who are mentally stable, living in supportive loving environments, it won’t be a problem. Of course, these are the one’s who are least vulnerable in the first place and who are most likley to change the channel when something disturbs them or whose parents are most likley to use parental controls.

On the other hand, the glamorization of graphic and over the top violence, with no or unrealistic portrayals of it’s effects or consequences (eg the torture on 24 actually working) is an issue. It presents it as acceptable, which does affect how people consider these things, and will desensitize those watching.

It is a difficult issue and quite frankly TV’s always an easy scapegoat and in a perfect world we would be tackling the underlying problems not attacking the media. But we don’t. I feel that program makers do have a level of social responsibility not to (as we Brits say) ‘take the piss’ and go over the top with their use of unncessary and graphic violence. Good program making doesn’t need to be all about the blood and indeed a bit of subtlety can go a long way.

All this said I don’t support over-the-top censorship, but I personally feel a ‘watershed’ system, like we have in the UK, works increadibly well for both sides. This basically means that before a certain time (9 pm) over here, it is assumed that children may be watching and TV programming should be constructed accordingly (i.e. no graphic depicitions of violence or sex, limited swearing etc…). After the watershed, if kids are watching, that’s the parent’s responsibility, they have been warned and programs can get away with a lot more (for an example, Doctor Who is pre-watershed, things like 24, Lost, or even HBO productions like OZ, Rome or Deadwood will air post-watershed without any censorship). People still get good programming and the sqeaky wheel can’t complain because the regulations are very clear and upfront about it.