We've talked a lot on this program about violence, specifically torture, in movies and on TV. Now the FCC is getting involved, issuing a report last week on "Violent Television Programming and Its Impact On Children." In a nutshell, it recommends that the government should assume a greater role in regulating content on TV. Nick Gillespie, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, disagrees (unsurprisingly: Reason is a Libertarian magazine). He makes a pretty good argument... most convincing to me, is that there are already so many parental controls on TV sets, from the V-chip that all new television sets come with, to that darn setting on the cable box (I accidentally blocked PBS the other day) which allows parents to custom block channels and content. Giving the FCC more power over content is simply redundant, he says. Of course, on the other hand, his argument is less convincing when it comes to a proposal to un-bundle cable packages...even easier then the V-chip would be getting exactly the channels you approve of for your kids. What's your feeling about the FCC report... should we police the TV ourselves, or let the government do it?
Blog Of The Nation
Forget about using a la carte to try to reduce violence, let's just have it because the way cable companies now run is a crock.
If I want to buy a pair of pants, the clothing store doesn't force me also to buy a coat, shirt, tie, belt, socks, and shoes. How can cable companies get away with this?
I'm curious to know what the generations think about TV and violence. When I was a teen, someone came out to say Looney Tunes were so violent. Now, Looney Tunes seems very tame compared to other cartoons offered to children. And how some so many TV shows become PG or worse when they go to the big screen?
YES! it has to be a relationship between consumer choice and some govt responsibility. I believe we do not need "studies" to make links..simple common sense will suffice. It wont give children cavities or decrease their educational experience by having this partnership regulating or informing consumers of violent content, much like the warnings on music. Its in the best interst of all.
Not too long ago I heard a story. An old man said to a young boy, "There are two wolves inside you. One is evil, one is good, and they are fighting for control of you."
The boy asked, "Which one will win?"
The old man answered, "The one you feed."
It reminded me of something I read by St. John Chrysostom. He told parents to make sure that household servants are not a corrupting influence on children. When I read it I felt confirmed in our decision about no television in our house.
So what do I do with television, perhaps the most powerful servant in most houses?
I do not trust the FCC or the programmers to do what is best for my kids. Feeding the bad wolf attracts a larger audience, and having a large viewing audience is the raison d'etre for the broadcasters an the FCC.
I do not allow television in my house.
I would just like to point out that the world is a violent place by nature.
The human species has lived through the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition
& various other wars & battles.
Violence in the media as a form of art or as a movie or television show used to just make money should be a personal discretion to view it or not.
If you don't want you children drinking liquor you put a lock on the cabinet or don't purchase any to begin with.
Parents need to take responsibility for their children & realize the FCC is not their baby sitter.
It is easier currently to park your kid in front of a television rather than find something constructive to do.
Point being the biggest influence in a child's future is the individuals who provide their home life.
Television or no television a strong positive influence is needed in order for any young mind to flourish.
Seeth Mc Gavien
No!!! This is yet another example of my freedom being compromised for the sake of "the children". Let the parent do the policing. That is what the on/off switch and channel selector are for.
I cannot believe we are still talking about limiting the viewing of individual children. We should be talking about the increased violence of ALL CHILDREN, and ALL SOCIETY! I can limit my own children's viewing, but I can't prevent a classmate from bullying, violence or worse.
Please explain to me because parents are too lazy to monitor what their children watch, that I, as a 40 year old with no children, have to told what is and isn't appropriate for me to watch. If you, as a parent, are so concerned about what your children watch, turn off the television.
The whole argument today is nothing more than reruns from the 60s. We've been through all this before, and the conclusion will be the same: the blasted boob tube has an on-off switch, and it is the parents' responsibility to monitor what their kids are watching. It is also their responsibility to discuss with their children what they're seeing -- not just the violent stuff, but all of it. I have raised two responsible young ladies, and my husband and I talked with them about what they saw on TV -- the violence, the good stuff, and the commercials -- and they are intelligent consumers (or ignorers) of the medium. Now we have a 2-year-old grandson, and he, too, will be brought into discussions about the tube.
But government getting into it? No, thanks!
Skip more FCC control over children's programming -- take the TV out of the house. My husband and I haven't had a TV in the house for more than 30 years -- we raised 4 kids without it. It's the easiest way.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for your guest. I can't help but feel joy in hearing a parent stand up to the nanny-state parents who want all of us - including those without children - to change our lives because they're unable or unwilling to manage the media habits of their own children.
To those parents who are worried about their children's viewing habits - please just shut off the television, and get your kids active outside, or with art or music. Your child will grow more than in front of the big, glowing babysitter, and will grow up as more intelligent and learned adults.
As a married woman with the intent to have children some day, the amount of pressure these nannies and their FCC counterparts are putting on the government to stifle freedom of expression on paid networks is disgusting.
I believe that there is too much violence on TV, but I also believe that there is something much more fundamental:
The 1st amendment.
You are responsible for all that you do.
Parents-- YOU ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN CHILDREN!!!
If you do not want them to see something, turn off your TV.
You do not have the right to regulate the content that others view, or more fundamentally, what others do.
I agree that the parent should be more involved in regulating TV. The caller that was concerned about appropriate TV for her 4 year old should consider the wonderful children's programming for young children on public TV, and limit the overall viewing time at that age to what she has time to supervise. By the time that children are older, they are able to distinguish cartoon violence. I also feel that the age recommendations already available for TV shows should be used as guidelines. And again, the best censor is the parent and the on/off button.
If we were discussing censoring books instead of censoring television would we be having this debate?
I think my only concern on this arguement is that it continues to give advantage to children born to responsible parents. Those that want to and are able to censor their own households will continue to do so, but those that can not or choose not to will have children exposed to whatever they get thier hands on. Isn't it the government's reponsibility to look out for our most vulnerbale? Or is it a survival of the fittest issue? Maybe the V-chip should work in reverse, and if you don't mind violence or bad behavior you have to manually allow those programs rather than disallow them.
I feel that the government's role in this situation is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. As a mother, I intend to raise my son in celebration of beauty and life. I do realize however that not every parent is willing or available to take measures to preserve their child's innocence. Is violence for the sake of entertainment something we want to preserve?
CSI is a violent, sadistic and murderous program. That evil wolf inside all of us can and is fed by CSI and its counterpart Law and Order.
I have wondered who is watching the horrors presented on these programs? Graphic details of murder.
My grand-daughter and her friend accidentally flicked by CSI and were scared and horrified about the ....sewing the bodies of 2 people together program.
Who wants this kind of violence and why? Could we have some "research" on this?
As a mother I disagree with the FCC trying to control what we watch. I mean really, The only show my son has ever seen is a Mommy and Me musical dvd, and if I find out that someone else has over-ruled my parenting and let him watch tv, well heads would roll.
I think we're missing the wider picture with the violence factor. Nobodys in a hurry to talk about suffacing studies that show "new age" passive parenting is causing unruly and rude children. There's also daycare, the daycare I just removed my son from actually promots aggression. Where if a child takes anothers toy it wasn't the "you don't do that." it's "that's right take your toy back".
Anyways the FCC is doing a lousy job at regulating the radio content, or the just "accidently missed" artists like buckeyed cherry.
As was pointed on on the air today, parents already have tools at their disposal to monitor and control what their children watch on television. What is considered to be appropriate for children to watch varies from person to person. What I would consider to be too violent is going to be quite different than that of an Amish farmer in Pennsylvania. I certainly would not want my television viewing regulated by the farmer, and should the farmer watch television, I have no doubt they would not care for my taste either. Television is labeled based on content, and all televisions come with a switch that controls what content is allowed into homes, and more importantly into heads. If you don't want it in either place, turn it off. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: It is a fine idea if a man decides that he needs to give up sweets or drinks in order for his health or teeth. That is fine. It is a problem if the man thinks that because he gives it up, everyone else should give it up too.
Fist, I'm strongly on the side that says parents, and no one else, must be ultimately responsible for the content exposed to their children.
That said, I've resigned myself to the sad fact that far too many parents will not be responsible. They have so many good reasons for this. They both work more than full time. They watched Tom & Jerry too, but didn't become violent. They saw Bugs Bunny wear a dress, but didn't become promiscuous or sexually confused. They can't watch everything. And in the final analysis, they don't have the resources to monitor; the government and the corporations do.
I'm a veteran, but I've had enough of fighting for ideals only to watch an overwhelming number of poor parents fail their kids and society. I'm ready to let it go. Go ahead and regulate the living snot out of cable. Let some ultra-conservative programmer decide what should be on TV. Make it so that if you order the Disney channel or Noggin, then you can't order HBO or Spike without risking jail time. Require all subscriptions to include a religious channel. Whatever.
I call myself a responsible parent. Like you, neither I nor my children need the TV to have everything freely available in order for me to take care of my responsibility, nor for my children to learn all they need to become responsible parents and citizens. I can get my job done with or without a TV. So can you.
Face it. You really don't care enough about your freedom to choose to expose your children to things on TV that might be seen by some as violent or sexual enough to do whatever it might take to compel enough parents to be responsible so that nobody even suggests regulating TV. They will win; all they have to do is nothing. You have to fight hard to keep it free. They will win because they can sustain doing nothing far longer than you can fight to make parents more responsible.
I generally agree with Nick Gillespie and feel that parents bear the principal burden for monitoring what their children watch on television, but do feel there is a role for limited government regulation. For example, I was recently watching a Sunday afternoon baseball game with my 5 year old (which seemed innocent enough and well within the scope of what even the most prudish parent would consider acceptable viewing for a child of that age) when, between innings, an ad for a very violent movie was aired. Here's a situation where no V-Chip or monitoring (short of an absolute prohibition on television in our home or a constant hand on the remote) could have helped me filter out this content. Very limited, sensible regulation in this area, especially with respect to commercials that are intended for a much more mature audience than the likely viewers of the corresponding program, would help parents perform their role as final arbiters of appropriate television programming for their children.
I'm generally in the same camp as Mr. Gillespie on who is responsible for permitting or denying a child access to TV programming.
I am a parent who doesn't permit his five children to watch television without supervision, and we've taken advantage of our Dish Network receiver's features to provide a short list of channels which we've permitted the kids to watch. We've also instructed them not to watch programming on those channels we don't approve of, and largely, they obey us. So, this approach works, by and large.
However, I note two things about the content provider industry: The first is that content providers leverage new channels into the lineup by requiring their subscription in order for a Comcast or Cablevision to get the popular channels, upon contract renewal.
The other is that even if there is a V-Chip in my TV, it's nearly impossible to use to my satisfaction. The user interfaces are notoriously difficult to set, they still depend on the content producer's judgment to set the rating, and don't always stay compatible through the satellite systems or between slightly different implementations.
Content providers, and their cable company middlemen should be required to offer channels a la carte, at prices which are not prohibitive. I really only want to pay for six or seven channels total, and am not interested in the rest.
I wish that there had been an historian on the program to review how and why children were separated from adults. Children were recognized as not little adults but children who are developing into adults and thus required different treatment. Child labor laws were inacted to keep children from working 10 12 hours per day, some in dangerous jobs. The juvenile deliquent was defined and children were tried in separate courts and sent to separate facilities for punishment or rehabilitation. Remember that children were hung in the first half of the 19th century for pick pocketing.
Today children have a special status so they may not use alcohol, gamble or smoke cigaretts. They may not be the subject of pornography nor may consenting adults look at child ponography because children cannot legally give their consent to be the subject.
Therefore, protecting children from harm is a strong tradition within western and US society. To my mind the question is not whether children should be protected but whether entertainment with violent images harms children and society. If it does, then society, not parents, has a responsibility to protect children fron these images.
And if it changes the 'if it bleeds it leads' news, so much the better.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.