Media ViolenceJoin now to read essay Media Violence“TV Bloodbath”A viewer watching TV last fall might have found a woman’s decapitated body hanging from a ceiling fan and a man with railroad spikes driven through his eye sockets on CSI or a deranged killer holding a knife to the neck of a kid at a birthday party, urging him to shoot his own mother with a gun on Criminal Minds (Eggerton). It is no secret that there are concerns about the impact of television violence on society. Over the years, TV viewers have examined the connection between media violence and violence in real-life. Six of the nation’s top public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, summarized their results in a joint statement. “The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children” (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV).
The Problem
Although there is no direct evidence to substantiate the media violence hypothesis, TV violence presents a range of health problems. Some, like drug abuse, social violence and alcohol use, may trigger an “alcohol-fueled” response that causes pain and ultimately, can seriously injure or kill others. The Internet is a natural setting to experience some of these health problems. As many as 15 million adults have recently visited the United States and 23 million use our Internet, but most people live in neighborhoods where there are no Internet access. Most schools in America accept students from families. Schools in many cities offer free, high-speed Internet access as well as some type of public Wi-Fi. This means all students can use common Internet facilities.
While a variety of medical conditions may be associated with media violence, it remains to be confirmed that media violence is, in fact, linked to the physical trauma of media violence.
A study taken in 2004 showed no direct association between television violence and any psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia or depression. Instead, the two conditions related to media violence were compared at least 3 times in order to find statistically significant differences in the risk. Only some of the major media disorder associated with TV violence was related to media violence. Researchers examined whether there were different effects for the physical, emotional and social dimensions of media violence. The results showed strong positive, though not statistically significant, consequences for both psychological and physical health.
The Role and Impact of Television Versus Radio Television
The television violence hypothesis is the premise from which media violence is made. Although the first television-based television program was based on a report by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIH), the same report reported that 60% of participants reported having not heard from a doctor on television. The television violence hypothesis has an additional significant role to play in determining whether media violence can lead to greater health outcomes. In the study conducted by the U.S.-based TV Channel Watch Foundation, participants who reported experiencing any or a combination of media threats at school were more likely to report receiving medical care than did participants who did not report experiencing media threats at least every 12 months.
One of the most common uses of medical and social media threats is for the promotion of a disease. This may be used as a way to communicate in order to create public awareness and increase public health awareness concerning the threat and potential effects of media violence in children. In the study, the television stress received at a school, news conferences, and online discussions was significantly more effective in influencing participants to report the illness to the doctor. According to the CBS.com website, Dr. Jeffrey G. Jones, MD, professor of psychiatry at The Icahn School of Medicine and former director of the Institute for Health Metrics & Evaluation of the NIH, believes the CBS.com web site can be used to provide a better perspective on the role of media threats and social problems in children’s health than in real-life situations. “By creating a better understanding of the health effects of media threats or threat media using traditional media to help inform public debate and discussion about media violence, the CBS.com site has enabled clinicians and policy makers, news agencies, and social media groups to better understand the health effects of broadcast-based threats and media threats.”
As media violence is often referred to as ‘TV’ threats, most people perceive these threats as innocuous, or at least as mild or not that they affect children. However, some people see the threat of television as a more serious problem that could contribute to serious health problems. A 2011 study by Dr. Paul M. McElroy found that media violence could result in greater emotional distress, greater anxiety, paranoia or psychosis among the general population, and higher rates of substance abuse disorders and major depressive episodes among adolescents. McElroy, Ph.D., co-author and research
Concerns about media violence date back as early as 1952. A hearing by The United States House of Representatives concluded that the “television broadcast industry was a perpetrator and a deliverer of violence” (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV). The Surgeon General’s office conducted an overview of existing studies on television and in 1972 concluded that it was “a contributing factor to increases in violent crime and antisocial behavior” (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV). However, more recently, as television has become more demented, many shows look to violent acts to intensify attention.
Media violence is somewhat like a drug. Once it is seen, people cannot get enough of it and then are immune. Being exposed to the media violence repeatedly, even the most gruesome descriptions of violence, eventually seem tame. In order for Hollywood to keep making the hit shows and films they must keep pushing for more to generate the same reaction. Lt. Col. David Grossman, author of Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, explains: “Violence is like the nicotine in cigarettes. The reason why the media has to pump ever more violence into us is because weve built up a tolerance. In order to get the same high, we need ever-higher levels…the television industry has gained its market share through an addictive and toxic ingredient” (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV).
In recent years, violent incidents have increased in every time slot across all broadcast networks (Puzzanghera). Shows such as CSI and Boston Public are prime examples of media violence portrayed. One episode of CSI shows a flashback of Amy killing Fay. Fay is thrown into a big fish tank. After Fay falls to the floor, Amy hits her in the head with a pickaxe. Another episode shows Adam shooting at his brother underwater with a spear gun. Blood flows out of the wound. The brother turns on Adam and stabs him in the stomach with a knife, killing him. Boston Public doesn’t fail to show the violence either. One viewing two boys get in a fight in the classroom. One of the boys bites a piece of the other boys ear off. The victim stands up, blood running all over his shirt. The biter spits the piece of ear out of his mouth and it hits Harvey in the forehead. It is TV shows such as these that have people wondering if violence around the world could be partly due to the violence shown to the viewers.
As lawmakers focus on flashes of skin and profanity, they find that TV violence has become not only more pervasive but more graphic (Eggerton). A person is not simply shot on TV anymore. However, the bullet is shown on the camera as it rips through skin and bone, and then lies on the autopsy table. “While the TV industry perennially tests regulators’ elusive definitions of indecency, critics and creators alike say the forces are now aligning for a crackdown on TV carnage” (Eggerton). The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, prompted by the current chairmen of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the Telecommunications subcommittee is making a report two years in progress. Some issues that have been brought to attention are the negative effects on children of cumulative viewing, the limits on the FCC’s power to regulate violence, and the definition of “harmful” TV violence (Eggerton). Broadcasters have an obligation
[…]
To protect children and families:
1. Prohibit, not allow, programming in which children are victimized and are sexually assaulted. Prohibitive in-home programs (e.g. programs that take place directly in or around an abandoned child-care center as a result of abuse) should be eliminated from the television market.
2. Protect children and families by ensuring adequate public hearings about the use of technology for treatment, education, and care.
3. Ensure, that laws addressing the abuse of children, including those relating to gender identity and access to birth certificates, are designed to be applied with the greatest light.
4. Make public education and the legal systems more in tune with the needs of children and families. Education will help children and families better understand their rights, and help make it easier for them to reach their potential.
5. Require the FCC to adopt a national policy on the use of technology in child care, and specifically allow for the use of “safe, high technology” and “automated” monitoring devices, which can monitor children’s behavior on screen if there is a significant risk of exposure.
6. Require the FCC to establish a National Institute on Pedagoguery, which must serve children and families through its website.
7. Require the FCC to develop rules to regulate the creation, distribution, possession, and possession of “safe and low tech” devices that may be controlled and controlled remotely, at home, at school programs, or on the Internet.
8. Expand and expand the FCC’s Access to Research Program to provide technical assistance to U.S. and foreign partners in setting up, operating, and delivering telemedicine services.
9. Require the FCC ensure that only certain states and territories receive the funding to provide safe, high tech Internet access, and to require telecommunications providers that are located in the United States to provide this service at a reasonable cost.
10. Require the FCC establish a Special Administrative Committee to investigate and prosecute any violations of these laws and to ensure that any such violations are investigated, prosecuted, or made public.
[…]
1. Ensure that the Federal Communications Commission, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission comply with all requirements of antitrust laws and all relevant federal law.
2. End the National Childhood Vaccination Program
[…]
When we know of a serious safety flaw, we rely on the Federal Trade Commission (FedC) to investigate the vulnerability of an infant that is not vaccinated and for that reason. We have identified more than 15,000 serious safety deficiencies and thousands of parents, who continue to receive unnecessary, unneeded, unsanitary vaccines. Many parents, who have given their children an unproven alternative, continue to receive unapproved vaccines in the hopes of improving their lives. Although we have provided comprehensive information on the adverse reactions to U.S. vaccines in the past (see this overview), there is absolutely no information available that demonstrates the safety of these vaccines.
According to the National Childhood Vaccination Program, in the 2000–01 academic year (the last two decades), there were 1,077 influenza outbreaks in the United States (1.5 million children died of the disease), or 1.5 percent of all confirmed cases. In total, there had been more than 8,000 deaths in the U.S. during the first five years of this school year since 1997.
The CDC estimated that 1.5 million children who received this vaccine were undiagnosed