Is the Messenger Killing Us?
In Florida, a thirteen-year-old boy was convicted of murder in the beating death of a young child. The child’s lawyer had attempted to claim that the child was merely attempting to imitate actions he had seen on televised professional wrestling — the defense was rejected. Meanwhile, former Democratic vice-presidential candidate and current Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman announced that he has prepared a draft of legislation that would give federal authorities more latitude to deal with entertainment companies that deliberately market violent movies, TV shows, video games, et cetera, to children. The legislation is in response to a Federal Trade Commission report last year that indicated that media companies routinely test-marketed for and targeted young audiences for works that their own voluntary ratings boards indicated were suitable only for adults.
Also meanwhile, Eminem’s haul of Grammy nominations has caused much protest and hand-wringing among many in the music industry. It seems some critics find his writing and performing talents praiseworthy, but others are less than thrilled at what they consider misogynistic, homophobic and violent lyrics that send a poor message to the kids who are buying his albums and watching his videos on MTV. Some people manage to be in both camps at once, which must make those conversations in the mirror real interesting.
All this is by way of introduction to the fact that complaints about the entertainment world’s effect on society haven’t died down in the years since Tipper Gore made waves with the Parents’ Music Resource Council. The question remains as to how well justified the complaints are, and what we should do if they are. And as strongly as I believe in the First Amendment, I don’t think we can just let the entertainment industry off scot-free.
The Kill Your Television website, which we shouldn’t expect to be non-partial (and which, sadly, is not named after the Ned’s Atomic Dustbin song), cites Nielsen statistics from the early 90s that indicate kids between the ages of two and five watch an average of 25 hours of TV a week. A Journal of the American Medical Association study from 1992 estimates that the average American child will witness 40,000 murders and 200,000 other violent acts on television by the age of eighteen. Another study, the Cultural Indicators project led by George Gerbner, estimates the number of murders a child will see on TV by the end of elementary school at 8000. Studies like this have led the American Psychological Association to declare (in bold type, no less) that “violent programs on television lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch those programs.” If violence on TV leads to violence in society, and we don’t want a violent society, then clearly something should be done — and we should probably do something about all those other forms of media too, just to be safe. Right?
Not so fast. Despite the confidence of folks like the APA, there are considerable doubts about the methods used in these studies and exactly how convincing they are. I heartily recommend reading this friend of the court brief filed by a group of scholars in a case that is currently before the United States Court of Appeals. An Indianapolis court had upheld a law barring minors from access to video games that simulated graphic violence, citing the studies that suggested a causal link between seeing depictions of violence and committing violent acts. The scholars filing the brief argue that the decision was a mistake, based in part on a misinterpretation of the scientific evidence on the connection between media violence and violence in the real world.
I found the review of the scholarship on the subject to be even-handed, and it makes clear that the issue is far from settled. One of the major problems raised by the brief is that too little has been done to distinguish causal connections from correlative connections — to find out whether the violent offenders have some personality trait that also makes them more likely to watch and enjoy a lot of violent media, but which would have led them to be violent even if they hadn’t watched the media. I mean, if you’re the kind of guy that likes to punch people, you’re probably also gonna be the kind of guy that likes to watch lots of fistfights on TV. There’s a good chance that the merits of an evening of quiet meditation aren’t going to appeal to you, regardless of how many times you sit through Ghandi.
Even though the burden of proof is still heavily on those who would claim that violence in media directly causes violence in society, I’m not ready to say that those who complain about the effects of the media are completely hysterical. Think about it: we applaud shows that we think send a positive message. We think that art has the power to give people hope, or encourage them to stand up for what’s right. People still talk of the significance of the original Star Trek‘s ethnically and racially diverse cast, and the popularity of Will & Grace is hailed as an indicator and encouragement of tolerance. Schindler’s List sparked a national conversation about the Holocaust. If the media are truly powerless to influence people’s thoughts, and through those thoughts their actions, then we’ve been heaping all that praise entirely in the wrong direction. But if they do have power and influence — don’t we as a society have a right to demand that, as much as possible, they use that influence for the good of society?
That’s what makes one of the studies I mentioned earlier so fascinating. Gerbner’s Cultural Indicators project doesn’t just track acts of violence. It tracks who commits the violence, why they commit it, on whom they inflict it, what the consequences are, and so on, and has done so for over thirty years. Among the results? For every white male victim of violence there are seventeen white female victims. Minority women are twice as likely to be victims as they are to be aggressors. There’s more — I heartily recommend The Atlantic‘s article on Gerbner.
If Gerbner’s right, and many of us do form our worldview at least partially as a result of what we see on television, the worldview we’re forming is distorted, and what’s worse, it’s in the hands of the ever-shrinking group of media companies that control what we see, and which favor action- and violence-oriented programming because it’s easier to sell overseas. Gerbner does set himself up for some easy attacks — his definition of a violent act is very broad, and includes very slapstick acts of “violence” including pratfalls and the exploits of the Three Stooges. But the larger picture he paints is a fascinating one, and one we should consider before we write the entertainment industry a blank check to give us what it tells us we want.
I’ve spent a lot of time going back and forth here; what’s my solution? Censorship is right out, in my mind. As I said, I’m too fond of the First Amendment to go for that. Part of the solution is going to be voting with the wallet — those of us with access to alternate media and the income to support it should demonstrate that there’s a market for something beyond blood ‘n’ guts. A bigger part, though, is going to be taking advantage of the Net, making sure it doesn’t become solely the province of the corporations the way the cable, satellite, and broadcast channels have. Tuning out isn’t the option — we have to create a new cultural experience for people to tune in to.
I can’t recommend strongly enough that you check out the links in this article — both because they explore different elements of the argument in greater depth than I have the space for here, and because it’s important to see where the two sides are coming from. Here are some more useful links:
- A 1997 Web debate between George Gerbner and cultural critic Todd Gitlin (no longer available)
- The National Coalition Against Censorship
- The University of Oregon Media Literacy Project’s Index on Children, Media and Violence
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.