Essay, Research Paper: Violence On TV

Violence on television is an issue that has been around for a long time. Numerous shows contain violent material such as murders or rapes that many people consider inappropriate for adolescents. According to some studies the average child watches about 27 hours of television a week and as much as 11 hours per day. With the amount of violent acts committed on television shows, the same studies also estimates that a typical child will see 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television before finishing elementary school. In 1992, there were over 1,800 acts of violence shown on television each day and over 360 of those acts involved gunplay.
So the question is brought is should we ban violence from television shows or not? Some people believe that it should be banned from stations the children watch to prevent them from exposure. Others believe violence makes television interesting and discourage its removal.
The problem with banning violence is that television networks have the right of freedom of speech. This means that television networks have the right to broadcast whatever material they want including violent material. Television viewers argue that if networks were forced to remove violence from their shows, then they would be denied their freedom.
Television violence is receiving so much criticism because a few children are confusing program content with reality. Sometimes children see a great deal of violence, they begin to think that it is all right to imitate the action of the characters on TV, which is obviously not the message parents want their children to be receiving at such a young age. An example of this is a thirteen-year-old boy who murdered his friend's father and then poured salt on his wounds. When he was asked why he did this, he responded "I saw someone do it on TV". People as a society tends to over react to incidents where children are involved. The problem arises when some demented child who has some serious personal problems and who cannot distinguish reality from the real world does some horrendous crime and blames all his problems on some show he seen where two people kill each other. I realise this is a problem but I strongly believe most children know the difference between what real and what's fake.
The opposing sides of this issue are the parents whose children are viewing the violent material and the television stations that broadcast the shows. Television stations have received many complaints from the public regarding the content of violence in their shows. A poll taken in March, 1993 showed that 72 percent of Canadians believe that TV entertainment shows contain too much violence. Major networks like NBC and CBS have received a great deal of criticism because their networks are viewed the most. However the major networks have said that most of the violence is shown on cable networks and not on their networks.
Some networks are also claiming that violence is not the worst thing on television. They say that sex, drug use, and alcohol abuse on television affect children more than violence. As a result, the networks do not think that limiting violence on programs is as big a priority as limiting sexual content and drug and alcohol use.
The government has the right to force major television stations to edit the amount of violence in a particular movie or show that they are broadcasting. But, they do not have the right to force a network to entirely cancel the broadcast of a movie or show because that would be a violation of their freedom.
Now, because of the pressure of society, networks are becoming diligent in keeping a leash on what is said and done on their stations. I believe mostly because we live in such a politically correct world that hardly anyone dares to separate themselves from a society that demands that certain things, such as violence, sex, and drugs, be kept away from the eyes and ears of "our children."
I'm not sure where I personally stand on the issue. I believe that people should be aloud to do whatever they choose, within reason. Meaning if a company wants to broadcast "Worlds Worst Car Accidents" on primetime, they should be permitted to do so. I also believe though, as large network broadcast their shows and programs to the public they have a responsibility to assure that the material which is shot into our televisions and is watched in our homes is approprate to the viewers who watch them. Although, if parents don't want their children watching certain programs it should be their responsibility to block the TV. Why should a few people ruin it for the people who want to watch it? Shouldn't parents be able to let their kids watch TV alone without worrying about what might be shown or of what they might see? These are the questions being asked. And no one seems to know the answer. What I think is that this controversy is splitting the show content and creating a large gap between the two extremes. You end up getting shows where everyone and everything is completely censored and entirely correct. Then you have people creating shows which are only played on latenight and that are so incorrect and uncensored that a small majority flock to for entertainment they cant find elsewhere. Then again this may be a good thing, it solves both worlds doesn't it? The question is that how far to each limit will people go for ratings?


























Bibliography

1. Merti Students Encyclopedia, P.F. Collier, Inc, New York 1995, volume 19, page 168.

2. NAESP Homepage, http://www.owt.com/chiefjo/qtvviolc.html, 1996

3. AACAP Webpage, http://www.aacap.org/factsFam/violence.htm, 1995