Television Violence and Its Effects on Children
Television violence affects all who view it, but its biggest effect is on children. Children’s minds are like a blank page. Television is writing violence on that page. Television violence is one of the causes of aggression and violent behavior in children. This problem is not new, but in recent years it has gotten worse. In the last few years, violence in television programs has increased greatly. A study in 2000-01 compared to a study done in 1998-99 showed that violence is, in fact, on the rise. Verbal violence, coarse language, alone increased by a staggering 78% (Lavers). How did violence become so prevalent on television? Sadly, violence is what the people wanted to see; it sells. Society has slowly put its guard down allowing violence to creep in. Now we are faced with this detrimental situation which we have created.
Young children, starting at about age three, begin to really watch a television program designed for their age. They will begin to imitate what they have seen on the television. Children ages six through about ten often do not fully understand the difference between reality, and what they see on T.V. (Ledingham). With that in mind, consider the violent content in television programs. A recent content analysis, The National Television Violence Survey, had several interesting findings in regard to violence in television programs:
1. 61% of television programs contain some violence, and only 4 percent of television programs with violent content featured an “antiviolence” theme.
2. 44% of the violent interactions on television involve perpetrators who have some attractive qualities worthy of emulation.
3. 43% of violent scenes involve humor either...
... middle of paper ...
...iolence”. Mar. 1995. Media Awareness Network. 30 Oct. 2002 <http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/issues/violence/resource/articles/chasefx.htm>
Kirkey, Sharon. “Violent TV, Video Games Don’t Make Kid Kill.” 20 May 2002. CanWest Global Communications Corp. 30 Sept. 2002 <http://libdb- 1235.letu.edu/universe/document?-m>
Lavers, Daphne. “The Verdict on Media Violence”. 13 May. 2002. Regional Business News. 30 Sept. 2002. <http://web10.epnet.com/delivery.asp?tb=1&-u>
Ledingham, Jane. “The Effects of Media Violence on Children.” The National Clearing House on Family Violence. 13 Sept. 2002 <http://media- awareness.ca/eng/med/home/resource/famvlnc.htm>
Office of the Surgeon General. 13 Sept. 2002. U.S. Government. 28 Sept. 2002 <http// www.surgeongeneral.gov>
Virtue Media. 2002. Virtue Media. 28 Sept. 2002 <http://virtuemedia.org/home.html.>
Williams gives us insight into Lincoln’s thought process into who Lincoln really was. Williams superbly supports this with various examples and...
An important aspect of Abraham Lincoln’s overall performance is his personal and political background. Concerning his opinions on slavery, his personal background shaped his ideals in a very unique way. James McPherson, author of the short biography Abraham Lincoln, provides some insight into Lincoln’s background, writing that Lincoln’s fathe...
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo completely shatters the illusion of the 16th President as the liberator of the slaves. DiLorenzo provides convincing evidence for Lincoln’s overt racism as expressed in his documented views on racial supremacy as stated in his desire to colonize all American blacks outside the United States (p. 4); Lincoln’s views were matched by the majority in the North who used such tools as state constitutional amendments to prohibit the emigration of black people into Northern states like Lincoln’s home of Illinois (p. 4); and that the Presidents war which killed 620, 000 Americans and destroyed 40% of the economy, was a singularly terrible, unjustified conflict given the proven success in the 19th century of the peaceful end to slavery through the policy of compensated emancipation (p. 4). DiLorenzo accordingly notes that, “Between 1800 and 1860, dozens of countries, including the entire British Empire, ended slavery peacefully; only in the United States was war involved (p. 4). DiLorenzo documents that history’s claims that the abolition of slavery as the leading motive behind the Union’s aggression against the South is untrue. He states that Lincoln’s motives were economic and political and in no way altruistic. Lincoln did oppose slavery, but his opposition did not stem from any moral motive. He wished to preserve white labor, and to avoid artificial inflation of Southern representation in Congress under the three-fifths clause of the Constitution, under which every five slaves counted as three free persons for the purpose of allotting number of congressional seats.
...he former. Also, Lincoln shows a remarkable change in character from his ambitious ante bellum days, to his later years concurrent with the civil war, which are drenched in solemnity and even a little bit of religious zeal. It is interesting to watch his growth as a politician, from what could be considered a firebrand, insensitive to the issues at hand, to the unforthcoming fresh president fearful of civil war, to the previously mentioned zealous patriarch. As one can see, his personal and political growth goes hand in hand; being very difficult to separate. Ultimately, by examining Lincoln’s major speeches, one can arrive at a variety of conclusions, being that one can trace the changes of Lincoln’s character and political personality over the years, and determine as to what extent was Lincoln a democratic autocrat; the answer to the latter conclusion being hardly.
Everyone’s seen the classic cartoons. Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner around a bend, only the Roadrunner turns, but our comedic--and usually stupid--villain doesn’t. So, he falls from a height of what looks like about 500,000 feet, only to become a small puff of smoke at the bottom of the canyon. After all, if what happens to you when you fall from that height were to have happened to Mr. Coyote, that would have been a very short lived cartoon series. Maybe this example is an exaggeration, but the idea is the same: violence comes streaming into our homes every single day through our TVs not to be viewed, but to be devoured. It’s been proven that sex and violence sell. For those of us who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, the effect of TV violence is miniscule. But for our children--who think when the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers come to the local shopping mall, that it’s the biggest event since Bert told Ernie he snores too loud--the violence seen on TV seems like a logical reaction to life’s problems. And that’s a problem within itself. The impact of televised violence on children is only a slice of the pie that is the problem with the endless stream of violent acts on TV.
Abraham Lincoln is perhaps the most revered American that has ever stepped foot on United States soil. Countless books have been written about him, and even today there are still authors who write their own take on his fascinating and unique life. Yet, for as famous and significant as this man was and continues to be, he is still a tremendous enigma. Historians have sought to know who the real man was ever since his life was prematurely ripped away by an actor whose heart was with his “country.” Of the many intriguing aspects of Lincoln’s life, there is one that has taken up steam almost immediately after April 15, 1865.
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 colonial relationship between Australia and the ‘Mother Country’ Britain, had a profound effect on the decisions made by the thousands of young Australian men during 1914 at the onset of the First World War (WWI). Fervent nationalistic ties to Britain undoubtedly contributed to the deluge of youthful, enthusiastic men eager to render themselves available for overseas service. However, the reasons for their enlistment cannot be attributed to a single factor — the war spirit and the general belligerent enthusiasm within Australia certainly prompted some, while others were driven by the almost inherent glory associated with fighting alongside the all-powerful British
Furthermore, the secondary source chosen for the final project is a study regarding Abraham Lincoln’s interpretation of the United States Constitution and the impact he had on the Constitution during and after the Civil War. Also, Dr. Dirck masterfully details the chronology of Abraham Lincoln’s role as an antebellum politician, how he became a fervent opponent of slavery and as the President of the United States. Additionally, the author also integrates Lincoln’s value system
Abraham Lincoln is often viewed as one of the great heroes of American history, due in no small part to his issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, amidst the chaotic, intense rivalry of the Civil War - the battle between North and South, between freedom and slavery. However, prior to the Civil War, Lincoln had given a speech proclaiming that he, in fact, had never been in favor of equalizing whites and African-Americans. Seemingly contradictorily and inexplicably, he had then elected to free all slaves in United States territories. Yet, there exist several viable explanations for Lincoln’s course of actions. Namely, he had harbored moral arguments, and a general character, against slavery, he had primarily aimed to accomplish the implicit goals of the Republican party on which he sided, and he had established an “official duty”, which could only have been accomplished via the abolition of slavery. Clearly, despite having taken a remarkably contrasting viewpoint from the perception of the public, Lincoln had considered other factors as well, which
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. “Media Violence Causes Youth Violence.” Mass Media. Ed. William Dudley. Farmington Hills, MI: Thompson Gale, 2005. 121-130.
Sometimes, children think that is a normal thing in our real life, by watching only a single violent program, which can increase aggression on children and become violent, aggressive, and vicious. Usually, U.S. children begin watching television at a very early age, sometimes as early as six months, and are eager viewers by the time they are two or three years old. The amount of time that children spend watching television is very interesting because like four hours a day, 28 hours a week, by the time they graduate from high school, children spend more time watching TV than any other activity, besides sleeping. However, children that watch many programs in which violence is very real, parents show no affinity toward violence and that is why the child thinks that violence is not bad. Normally children cannot tell the differences between real and unreal, that is why young viewers are unable to realize that when a character attacks someone it is real and should not be imitated by them.
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...
Furthermore, television violence causes aggressive behavior in children. Many people believe that children who watch violent television programs exhibit more aggressive behavior than that exhibited by children who do not (Kinnear 23). According to the results of many studies and reports, violence on television can lead to aggressive behavior in children (Langone 50). Also, when television was introduced into a community of children for the first time, researchers observed a rise in the level of physical and verbal aggression among these children (Langone 51). The more television violence viewed by a child, the more aggressive the child is (“Children” 1).
Ledingham, Jane E., Ledingham C. A., & Richardson, John E. (1993). La violence dans les médias: ses effets sur les enfants. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H72-21-91-1993F.pdf