Television violence and its effects on viewers has been a controversial issue for many years. Some viewers believe that there is an increasingly large amount of violence on television and this widespread public concern has "led to calls for stricter controls on the depiction of violence in programmes" (Gunter and McAleer 1990:92). Exactly how much violence is there on television though?
Many cultivation theorists have studied this, acquiring data in the form of content analysis. They agree on a definition of a violent act, for example Gerbner in his study used the definition, "an overt expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against ones will on pain of being hurt or killed, or actually hurting or killing" (Gunter and McAleer 1990:94). This is an objective definition that can then be used to count the number of violent acts in whatever is being observed. Halloran and Croll (1972) used this technique to establish the amount of violence on British television in comparison with that of American television. For one week in April 1971, they observed the news, fictional drama, current affairs and documentaries on BBC1 and ITV Midlands and counted the number of violent incidents using Gerbner’s definition of violence. It was found that on average, 56% of British programmes contained some violence with four incidents of violence per hour. This was in comparison with American television which contained some seven incidents of violence per hour and where it was considerably more prevalent than on British television (Gunter and McAleer 1990:97).
Focusing now on British television and violence, we can analyse Guy Cumberbatch’s research on television violence in 1987. He looked at all types of television programme focusing on four separate weeks between May and September 1986. All four channels were reviewed, totalling 1412 hours of television (930 BBC programmes and 1146 ITV and channel four programmes). He found, using his own definitions of a violent act, that 30% of all programmes contained some violence with an average of 1.14 acts of violence per programme (Gross 1992:455). It was also found that there was much more violence on television after 9pm and that violence was rare in children’s television programmes other than cartoons. It has been questioned however whether the violence in cartoons should actually b...
... middle of paper ...
...er factors have also shown to be influential in this cause and effect relationship between television violence and violent behaviour. Such factors as age, gender, parental influence and amount of viewing contribute to how influential television violence is on an individual’s behaviour. Findings are still however inconclusive in this debate, although a large proportion of the evidence does appear to strongly favour the hypothesis that viewing violence on television does have an effect on a viewer’s violent behaviour. As a Washington Post article states "the preponderance of evidence from more than 3000 research studies over 2 decades shows that the violence portrayed on television influences the attitudes and behaviour of children who watch it" (Oldenburg 1992 cited at http://maple.lemoyne.edu/~hevern/ericdig.html).
Bibliography
Condry, J. (1989): The Psychology of Television. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gross, R. (1992): Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Gunter, B. and McAleer, J. (1997): Children and Television. London: Routledge.
Van Evra, J. (1990): Television and Child Development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaplan, R.M. & Singer, R.D. (1976). TV violence and viewer aggression: A reexamination of the evidence. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 33-70.
According to the article, Violence in the Media, written by the APA, it provides information on how ferocious television episodes can affect a child’s senses, feelings, and attitude. To be more specific, it can make them become numb, frightened, and more pugnacious due to the amount of violent TV they watch. Furthermore, according to the same article, the APA also wrote, “By observing these participants into adulthood, Huesmann and Eron found that the ones who'd watched a lot of TV violence when they were 8 years old were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults.” Psychologists L. Rowell Huesmann and Leonard Eron held a study that concluded that the result of watching violent television can lead to jail and criminal actions. This will also cause a child to become more aggressive and therefore will become a nefarious person. All in all, the American Psychological Association decided that violent television can shape a child’s disposition. In fact, it can also encourage a child to execute bad deeds and crimes when they become
Does entertainment influence society's attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one's powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another; examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, music, and novels. Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come to a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored.
For a long time now the debate has been, and continues to be, as to whether or not violence on television makes children more violent. As with all contentious issues there are both proponents and detractors. This argument has been resurrected in the wake of school shootings, most notably Columbine and Erfurt, Germany; and acts of random violence by teenagers, the murders of two Dartmouth professors. Parents, teachers, pediatricians, child psychiatrists, and FCC Chairmen William Kennard and former Vice President Al Gore say violent TV programming contribute in large part to in violence in young people today. However, broadcasters and major cable TV providers like Cox Communication say that it is the parent’s fault for not making it clear to their kids as what they may or may not watch on TV. The major TV networks and cable providers also state it is the TV industry’s fault as well for not regulating what is shown on TV. So who is the guilty party in this argument of whether or not TV violence influences of the behavior young people in today’s society?
Television plays a big role on violence. Most of us watch television daily. And what do we see daily on television? The news, about our world surrounded by violence? Movies, that only show shootings, death, and more violence? Even cartoons are violent, like the Simpsons, south park, and even Tom and Jerry, shows specially for our young audience. ...
When we think of violence, we automatically picture guns and knives being used to kill people. Although this is a part of violence, it’s not the only way a violent situation can arise. Violence can be any harm done to a person through physical contact. Along with guns and knives, this can include one’s own bare hands or any object within proximity. On television, we see every type of violence carried out, whether it be a simple punch or a serial killer who finds pleasure in the violence he causes. Any form of a violent situation that you can think of has most likely been acted out on a television series or movie. TV is written to blow scenarios out of proportion and create unrealistic versions of different scenarios. Instead of a decent conversation to solve a problem, a punch is thrown or a gun is pulled. By portraying these types of solutions, television is promoting violent behavior. The characters in the action, crime or horror shows are actively encouraging these types of behavior. Although these scenes are needed to produce a captivating plot, there needs to be awareness as to the fact that these scenes are being idolized to the wrong audience.
One paramount debate that truly highlights the two sides of this controversy occurred in July of 1997. As George Gerbner, the former dean of the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Communications, argued that, “Formula-driven media violence is not an expression of crime statistics, popularity, or freedom. It is de facto censorship driven by global marketing, imposed on creative people, foisted on the children of the world” (“Is Media” 1). Critic Todd Gitlin responded to that argument by stating, “Television violence is mainly redundant, stupid, and ugly,” it does not cause violence in its viewers, and the biggest problem is that the profiteers of television have to produce this “formulaic stuff” (1). Personally, I agree with George Gerbner’s view on this subject. In my opinion, the overabundance of violence in American media has caused adverse effe...
addition the average American child will witness over 200,000 acts of violence on television including 16,000 murders before the age of 18 (DuRant, 445). Polls show that three-quarters of the public find television entertainment too violent. When asked to select measures that would reduce violent crime “a lot”, Americans chose restrictions on television violence more often than gun control. Media shows too much violence that is corrupting the minds children, future leaders of our society. In a study of population data for various countries sh...
the Gaia theory was also well put into the film.It showed that all species in the movie had an equal share in what the pandora had to offered.It also showed that they all had an equal responsibility for its safety and health.That showed when the whole jungle of the pandora started fighting
The hypothesis that screen based media violence consumption has a detrimental effect has been widely researched and the American Academy of Paediatrics recognises exposure to violence in the media, including television, movies, music and video games, as a significant risk to the health of children and adolescents (Committee on Public Education, 2001). It has been fairly well documented in our society that children become ‘purposeful TV viewers’ by the age of three (Murray, 2008) and by the age of sixteen, the average child has witnessed more than 20,000 murders on television (McGinnies, 1994). There is general agreement that violence exists on tele...
The study only looked at British television programs that were the most popular among adolescents at the time. The study excluded less popular programs which may have portrayed aggression differently than the popular programs did. Similarly, the study only looked at one type of television program, soap operas, that might actually appeal to an adult audience. The violence which may have been shown in these types of programs could be vastly different than shows gaged towards younger
The government should not control the content of television shows and limit the amount of weekly violence shown. The responsibility of controlling the viewing of television shows expressing acts of violence should specifically be in the hands of parents. Parents are becoming too reliant upon governmental provisions with respect to raising their children and television violence is becoming an excuse for criminal acts. Children, especially younger children, are impressionable, but with proper guidance from a parental source in regards to television viewing, kids are not likely to act out violent television images.
Society has been bombarded with violence from the beginning of time. These concerns about violence in the media have been around way before television was even introduced. Nevertheless, there have been numerous studies, research, and conferences done over the years on television, but the issue still remains. Researchers do acknowledge that violence portrayed on television is a potential danger. One issue is clear though, our focus on television violence should not take attention away from other significant causes of violence in our country such as: drugs, inadequate parenting, availability of weapons, unemployment, etc. It is hard to report on how violent television effects society, since television affects different people in different ways. There is a significant problem with violence on television that we as a society are going to have to acknowledge and face.
Television violence causes destructive behavior in children, however; television can be a powerful influence to young viewers in our society. Unfortunately, much of today's television programming are very violent. Many researchers like scientists, pediatricians, and child researchers in many countries have studied to find out what it is about television violence that makes it such a big affect on the way kids act and behave. Sometimes, children think that is a normal thing in our real life, by watching only a single violent program, which can increase aggressiveness on children and become violent, aggressive, and vicious.
Television violence, and media violence in general, has been a controversial topic for several years. The argument is whether young children are brainwashed into committing violent real-world crimes because of violent and pugnacious behavior exposed in mass media. In his article “No Real Evidence for TV Violence Causing Real Violence”, Jonathan Freedman, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and author of “Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence”, discusses how television violence, claimed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), does not cause real-world aggression among adolescents. The FCC determined to restrict violent television programming to late night hours only because their “scientific research” proves of increasing aggression among young viewers (Freedman Par. 2). Freedman goes on to explain that the FCC has no substantial scientific evidence stating that there is a correlation between fictional violence and real-world aggression among young audiences. He has completed research in 1984 and 2002 on the relationship between media violence to actual acts of violence on the street. Because he has completed research projects related to this topic, Freedman’s statistical evidence shows that there is a reduction in youth violence and it essentially does not cause real-world crimes (Freedman Par. 1). The FCC continues to claim that exposure to media violence does in fact increase aggression, and yet their readers continue to believe their fabrications. Freedman argues that people who research media violence tend to disregard and omit the opposing facts. No one type of violence is more effective on aggression than another type. There is no evidence showi...