Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
S., Canada, and in South Africa. He chooses South Africa because TV was banned there from 1945 to 1974. Homicide rates increased enormously in the U.S. And Canada (93% and 92%, respectively) in those time periods -- but homicide rates declined by 7% in TV-less South Africa. Is that really empirical evidence to support his case? Hardly.
Meantime, Centerwall asserts that because minority households didn't all have TV at a time when Caucasian households did, the white homicide rate increased much quicker than minority homicide rates. Again, it would be very difficult to verify such a strange juxtaposition of assertions. Centerwall injures his case by saying things like "…every violent act" is the result of "forces coming together" (drugs, poverty, crime, booze, stress). But what about sports-related battles, domestic violence, bullying in school? Going way out on a limb, Centerwall insists that if there were no TV then there would be 70,000 fewer rapes, 700,000 fewer "injurious assaults," and so on. That is the most ludicrous argument of any that were made in these two articles.
Using hot button phrases like "broad scientific consensus" and "every independent investigation" to prove his points about violence and TV -- without empirical data to back it up -- weakens Centerwall's argument. It should also be pointed out that Centerwall's attempt to discredit the TV industry is ineffective when he asserts (123) that the industry "routinely portrays" those who object to TV violence as "un-American haters of free speech." While of course there were unkind things said during this period vis-a-vis TV violence and the influence on children, it is patently unfair and untrue to assert that the media corporations see every protest as coming from a person who hates free speech.
John P. Murray's take on TV violence and children: Meanwhile Murray provides several studies -- including briefly presenting the same study (Eron) that Siano mocked and Centerwall championed -- objectively, without any editorial critiques, which is helpful to the reader searching for calm, reasoned data. Murray offers a far more poignant, pragmatic solution...
Murray asserts that parents need to take charge at home. Parents need to talk to their children about violence, he explains. He doesn't go far enough though. He should have emphasized that parents can and should determine: a) how much TV their children should be allowed to watch each day and each week; and b) what programs are appropriate and what programs are not appropriate for their children to see. Murray also suggests that "intervention" at school would be helpful (media literacy courses could be taught), which is a bit vague and teachers might not agree to that.
Real world implications and my opinion: The truth of the matter in 2010 is that violent video games (in mesmerizing, hauntingly realistic 3D) are probably a bigger threat than TV in terms of children being affected by violence. Yes, these videos are rated for parents' protection, but older kids are happy share with younger kids when mom is at work. "Manhunt" (stalking and bloody killings), "Resident Evil 5" (using chainsaws, swords and guns the player produces "copious" amounts of blood in killing people), and "Dead Rising" (zombies creating bloody mayhem) are extremely, hideously bloodthirsty and violent video games. When it comes to violent TV and violent video games, parents are either in charge of their children's viewing habits or they aren't. All the pointed arguments presented in this paper -- pro-or con as to TV violence influencing kids -- are just that, pointed arguments. The real issue is parenting. It always has been and always will be a matter of what leadership parents and families offer to their children. Smart, alert, informed parents will assert their authority and control what TV their kids watch and which video games they play.
Works Cited
Centerwall, Brandon S. "Television and Violent Crime." The Public Interest, No. 111 (1993):
56-71.
Murray, John P. "Television Violence and Its Impact on Children." (1995)
Siano, Brian. "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed: Chasing the Monster of TV Violence." the
Humanist, (1994): 127-135.
Works Cited
Centerwall, Brandon S. "Television and Violent Crime." The Public Interest, No. 111 (1993):
56-71.
Murray, John P. "Television Violence and Its Impact on Children." (1995)
Siano, Brian. "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed: Chasing the Monster of TV Violence." the
Children: Exposure to Violence Through the Media The extent to which exposure to violence creates violent children and/or aggressive behavior is a subject which has been debated in a comprehensive manner. However, the fundamental research findings are consistent. The research continues to demonstrate that exposure to violence creates negative manifestations in the behavior of children. "While violence is not new to the human race, it is an increasing problem in modern
Children and Television Television may be an almost universal feature on the domestic scene, however it is not sued I the same way by everyone who has access to a set (Gunter 1). The television set has become an integral piece of the household furniture, and practically every house has at least one set, if not more, which means that children are born into a world in which television is present
There was also significant risk of increased attention problems associated with watching nonviolent television for the same age group, but no risk was associated with viewing educational programming. Older children ages 4 and 5 showed no increased risk five years later for attention problems from watching violent or non-violent programs. This second study was based on data collected from parents of 933 children and shows that the effect of
In fact, the relationship between academic performance and television is not clear cut. Research has shown that children who watch a large amount of television typically do poorly in school, yet those who spend a moderate amount of time in front of the television do better than non-viewers. There is a small negative relationship between television viewing and a child's IQ. However, there are significant subgroup differences. There are
It seems that violence on television does contribute to aggressive behavior, yet it is important to note that television is only one of many causes of aggression (Gunter and McAleer, 1990). Many other factors unrelated to television influence violence, and the specific impact of televised violence is dependent upon age, sex, family practices, and the way violence is presented. One statement is often repeated: television has major effects on
Television and School Performance brief glance at the publishing history of books about the effect of television on academic performance makes one thing clear: there was a boom in interest in the topic in the 1970s, and a lot less now. Information about the subject seems much more extensive in recent and current periodicals, however. There are two possible conclusions this dearth of academic research, along with a relative wealth of