Television and Aggression in Children

Television and Aggression in Children

Does viewing violence on television increase a child's aggression? This paper reviews and reports on two points-of-view on the subject. This paper also takes a position on the issues at hand once a thorough thrashing out of the two writers' points-of-view are portrayed.

The controversy discussed in the two articles surrounds the issue of violence in television and particularly violence that may or may not influence children and young people to be more aggressive towards others in their lives.

Brian Siano's position -- his reasoning and analysis: One side, represented by Brian Siano, reflects the view that there is not enough evidence out there to prove that children are indeed influenced by violent television shows. Siano uses the example of former U.S. Senator Paul Simon from Illinois, who tried to get legislation passed to curtail TV networks' showing of violent cartoons and other programs. Siano derides Simon for giving the TV networks an antitrust exemption during the Reagan era, and he also criticizes the U.S. Senate for not holding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) feet to the fire: the FCC had handed out a new ruling saying media corporations can own up to 12 radio stations and 12 TV stations (up from 7 and 7 previously).

In that strategy, Siano puts the onus on the establishment for its failures to come to terms with the problem. He effectively changes the tone of the argument on page 128 in that effort.

Siano cleverly and cryptically uses sarcasm in his arguments -- and not a lot of specific evidence -- to make his points. For example, in deriding those who worry about the effect violence has on kids, he uses the "elitist" card too. His position is that certain "snobbish attitudes" are gaining control of the argument; those snobs he alludes to want high-tone authors like James Joyce to have free speech but not TV because it's not as culturally valuable.

Also, he makes a spectacularly unfair generalization by stereotyping those who would like to have TV tone down the violence as wanting everyone to read Shakespeare rather than watching Bevis and Butt-head. Frequent use of sprawling generalizations harms his credibility, even though he makes some good points. "The bulk of the evidence" he writes (129), that supposedly links violence in children to TV is one research project by Leonard Eron. In truth, there were many more research reports available at that time but Siano chose the one that was the most vulnerable. He uses the word "pernicious" more than once, more tongue-in-cheek than not. Yes he admits, there are examples of kids becoming wildly violent and irrational based on TV, but his narrative too often comes off as a high school student's opinion column, all smoke and mirrors, a lot of thunder but no rain.

Brandon Centerwall's position - his reasoning and analysis: As for Centerwall, he is not as cryptic or sarcastic in making his points; after all, why would he be? Siano's job was to attack the credibility of Centerwall's case and Centerwall's task was to build credibility into his argument. Indeed Centerwall does provide far more research examples than Siano. To read Siano you'd think there were no worthy empirical research studies available. But Centerwall offers the results of at least five research projects -- though not all are necessarily thoroughly believable -- and brings in factors such as economic growth, civil unrest, Apartheid in South Africa among other specific examples to try and make his case. He is trying to show his argument is based on sociology and research that embraces issues across the oceans to other continents.

That said, Centerwall also offers generalizations that are simply not backed up and in fact may be untrue. For example, he asserts that "serious violence" erupts (for adults) during stressful moments and adults will, in those moments, revert to their early "most visceral sense"…that will mostly come from their previous television experiences (118). Really? Where is the evidence for that assertion? Is Centerwall making this up out of whole cloth? In his attempt to prove that television brings violence with it as a matter of course, Centerwall compares the homicide rates in the U.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 to the problem than either of the other two writers presented in their articles. 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.