Values,
not viewing habits, are the key to moulding behaviour
TV violence: the good and bad for
our children
Here we go again with a simple-minded answer to a
complex social question. For every hour a four-year-old spends in
front of television, we are told, regardless of what they view, the
odds of his becoming a bully increase by 9 per cent. (The Age, 6/4).
That has to mean every four-year-old is a bully shortly after his
fourth birthday.
The single question that has occupied researchers in relation to
children and the media since the introduction of television is: what
is the impact of media, particularly media violence on children?
Despite the many millions of dollars spent on research, the findings
are spurious.
Two large studies in the 1960s, one in the US by
Wilbur Schramm and his colleagues, and one by Hilde Himmelweit in
Britain, got it right when they reported: for some children, under
some conditions, some television is harmful; for other children
under the same conditions, or for the same children under other
conditions, it may be beneficial; for most children, under most
conditions, most television is probably neither particularly harmful
nor particularly beneficial.
Effects studies have become a self-perpetuating industry for four
decades. Answers have not been found, because the wrong questions
are being asked.
Some British researchers, notably David Buckingham, have pointed out
that effects studies miss the social and narrative context.
The context of violence is what makes it acceptable or unacceptable,
and the depiction of violence in drama is essential for children to
understand the world in which they are growing up, both at an
individual level and a societal level. Yet the belief that media
violence is harmful, and now the suggestion that watching any
television is harmful, remains.
The factors that have been identified as risk
factors for children who are in trouble and who become bullies are
child abuse, family breakdown, unemployment and poverty, isolation,
lack of social success, peer-group pressure. The media are not high
on the list of influences when other risk factors are absent. But
trying to isolate the impact of media alone misses the bigger issue.
While media violence may not be a major factor in explaining
individual acts of violence and bullying, it may be a very important
factor at the societal level. The media depict a very violent world
and the media exploit that violence in news programs as well as in
sport and fictional drama.
In the society we see on TV there are high levels of aggression, and
there is wide acceptance of antisocial behaviour. As a result of
viewing this kind of program day after day, we know that people
(viewers) perceive the world to be a much more dangerous place than
it actually is and fear they will be the victims of violence. This
is particularly true for the vulnerable: those living alone,
children, women and older people. Perpetrators learn that aggressive
attitudes and behaviours are often acceptable, even on the sports
field.
Media content has changed its form in the past few decades. Morality
tales are now few. Remember when the hero drew his gun only when he
was provoked, and always in the service of good? Increasingly the
models of behaviour in films, television, video games and music are
antisocial. Gangsters, drug dealers and psychopaths are often
glamorised.
Right and wrong are no longer clear concepts. This
extends way beyond fictional programs, as we know from the war in
Iraq, our treatment of refugees, and the debate that surrounds these
issues. We don't believe our politicians any more. And the
examination of their manipulation of facts becomes part of the media
environment where conflict is heightened and exploited for
commercial advantage. Altogether this media world presents an
experience where the values depicted are at best ambiguous and
confusing.
Behaviour is a function of social context. If young people are to
grow up to be socialised human beings rather than bullies,
constructive rather than destructive, they have to have hope and
opportunity. They must be offered something to live for, to believe
in, to value. And our media with its emphasis on conflict, violence
and sensationalism, its exploitation of bullying in sport and other
arenas consistently undermines that process.
We know the importance of a child's early years. If children are not
given the stimulation and support they need in those early years,
they will grow up to become marginalised adults. Their health,
literacy, and physical skills are all-important. But just as crucial
for their social wellbeing is the development of their emotional and
moral intelligences. Children require healthy bodies, educated
minds, and an understanding of their social purpose.
We won't reduce bullying by the impossible task of
stopping four-year-olds watching television. Rather television can
have a positive role to play. It can be a wonderful medium to
inspire and inform as effectively as it now promotes antisocial
values.
In 1995, Nelson Mandela, then president of South Africa, sent a
message to the first World Summit on Television and Children in
Melbourne. In part, he said: "The future of our planet lies in
children's hands. All of you involved in television, which is one of
the most powerful influences on children, have an awesome
responsibility on your shoulders."
At a time when it appears that the moral and the cultural fabric of
our society is disintegrating, it is ever more important that we
instil in our youth and children a strong sense of values, a
compassion and understanding of one another's culture and humanity,
and offer them knowledge about the world.
Dr Patricia Edgar
11 April 2005
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/TV-violence-the-good-and-bad-for-our-children/2005/04/10/1113071849363.html?oneclick=true
