Re: Who's the baby?
There are many things I want to say about the hearing Tim mentions below, but we are trying to keep these posts short, so I will try to do that in my response. I must admit that I am not entirely sure what I think about this issue (the effect of media violence on children) yet.
For now I will address the fact that, as someone pointed out earlier, this issue would not be one if American television viewers were not so entertained by media violence. During the hearing on the 26th, audience members in attendance with good seats were able to view examples of the kinds of objectionable material available on television today for children's consumption. As an audience member without a good seat, my only knowledge of the contents of these clips came from the woman next to me, who would summarize in a phrase each of the scenes for me, "Blood and gore... domestic violence... rape." I could only see the faces of the hearing attendees in the audience who could see the screen. I saw a range of reactions - some horrified, some smiling. I am hoping that those people smiling were looking at something outside the window, or that the clip opened with a cute bunny rabbit, or (most likely) that I am terrible at reading facial expressions, but I think that even without this example of people who seem to like these scenes, we can all accept that this kind of violent entertainment does not find itself without an appreciative and large audience. Scenes depicting rapes and murders may be enjoyable and entertaining for some, but I think we would also concede that the same could be said for pornography, and we do not allow that to be easily accessed by children or shown on primetime television. To answer Tim's last question and to be maybe a little melodramatic: if by "speech that is not safe for everyone" and "deal with," you mean "speech that incites violence and brings not only psychological harm to our nation's children but also the harm those children could later inflict on society" and "suffer from the deaths, assaults, and rapes it causes," then no, I am not so sure we should simply "deal with" this violence in media.
If the panelists were correct in their stating that this epidemic of media violence is truly a public health hazard, I think that we would have reasonable grounds for taking action to guard our nation against it, as we do with other public health hazards.
Malin von Euler-Hogan
For now I will address the fact that, as someone pointed out earlier, this issue would not be one if American television viewers were not so entertained by media violence. During the hearing on the 26th, audience members in attendance with good seats were able to view examples of the kinds of objectionable material available on television today for children's consumption. As an audience member without a good seat, my only knowledge of the contents of these clips came from the woman next to me, who would summarize in a phrase each of the scenes for me, "Blood and gore... domestic violence... rape." I could only see the faces of the hearing attendees in the audience who could see the screen. I saw a range of reactions - some horrified, some smiling. I am hoping that those people smiling were looking at something outside the window, or that the clip opened with a cute bunny rabbit, or (most likely) that I am terrible at reading facial expressions, but I think that even without this example of people who seem to like these scenes, we can all accept that this kind of violent entertainment does not find itself without an appreciative and large audience. Scenes depicting rapes and murders may be enjoyable and entertaining for some, but I think we would also concede that the same could be said for pornography, and we do not allow that to be easily accessed by children or shown on primetime television. To answer Tim's last question and to be maybe a little melodramatic: if by "speech that is not safe for everyone" and "deal with," you mean "speech that incites violence and brings not only psychological harm to our nation's children but also the harm those children could later inflict on society" and "suffer from the deaths, assaults, and rapes it causes," then no, I am not so sure we should simply "deal with" this violence in media.
If the panelists were correct in their stating that this epidemic of media violence is truly a public health hazard, I think that we would have reasonable grounds for taking action to guard our nation against it, as we do with other public health hazards.
Malin von Euler-Hogan
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home