“Keep violence in the mind … where it belongs”
Brian Aldiss
During a recent appearance before the House Telecommunications Sub-Committee, Ted Turner made an impassioned plea for Congress enact legislation to curb what he sees as the primary cause of violence in our society.
While his testimony provided sound bites for CNN, he was wrong both in his premises “television violence is the single most significant factor contributing to violence in America”, and in his proposed solution to have Congress step in and “ram” a voluntary rating system “down the throats” of the television industry.
While a constant barrage of violence permeates broadcast and cable programming, its effect is one of desensitizing its audience rather than spurring people to commit violent acts. The violence he condemns is rooted in a variety of causes, none of which will be eliminated by a rating system, voluntary or otherwise.
Leading this list is domestic violence in all its manifestations. The problems and frustrations which frequently bubble to the surface between family members are generally by-products of alcohol abuse, the personal economic situations, stress and jealousies rather than the playing out of a fictional television drama.
Close behind is crime … more specifically, offenses associated with illicit drugs. Despite billions spent on enforcement, drug-related crime is growing and has become responsible for more violent crime than any other illegal activity. Left in the hands of our government, drug trafficking has become America’s most lucrative and most dangerous industry. Television merely borrows from this real-life tragedy … it did not spawn it!
As for how to address the issue of violence in America, we need first look in a mirror. The cartoon character Pogo, paraphrasing Admiral Oliver Perry, said it best, “We have met the enemy, and he is us!“
Years ago, the movie industry instituted a voluntary system to rate its output … a guide to viewers and parents. Today, however, “R” rated films, frequently packed with gratuitous violence, are broadly advertised and easily accessed by even young teenagers.
The system neither reduced film violence nor kept it from young viewers. Instead, it has evolved into as much of a marketing tool for the film makers as a means of regulating audiences.
Rather than encouraging Congress to become embroiled in yet another program for which it neither has the funds nor the competence to administer, attention needs to be focused concepts of individual responsibility and personal accountability. We must understand in a free society we enjoy many liberties, including the ability to make personal choices in life. But, with such freedoms, we become responsible for the consequences of our actions and will be held accountable for them.
If television violence is perceived as a significant problem affecting children, it is their parents, not the government, who need to assert active responsibility. It’s easy … turn the set off! If they’re unsure about a specific program, don’t let the kids watch it!
For those who aren’t always be around when their kids are at home, a variety of blocking devices are on the market with which their children’s access to certain shows can be denied. Parents might also set personal examples and limit their viewing of the types of violence- filled shows they find objectionable for their children. Besides, television is a lousy baby-sitter.
In the end, the public still retains the ultimate weapon if the television, or any other, industry fails to react to its concerns … a boycott of their product. Without viewership, sponsors will quickly withdraw their financial support and the offending program(s) will disappear!
And, while a voluntary rating system might be helpful and is worthy of serious consideration, if one or more networks choose not to participate in such a program, it is still not the place nor the responsibility to the government to step in and coerce them to do so. Aside from the philosophical premises that a smaller, less intrusive
government is best … there is always the threat the politicians and social engineers who seem to know “what’s best” for the public may eventually decide to inject themselves into the rating process, itself.
Had Ted Turner, normally a courageous individual, demonstrated the strength of his convictions concerning violence on television, he would have curtailed the violence he laments is “creeping into programming” on his own networks. His justification of being forced by his competition to include more violence-oriented movies is as shallow as wife Jane’s silly remark concerning struggling actresses who must appear in violent films until they become stars.
As Americans, we must assume responsibility for our own destinies, stand by our convictions and stop asking government to solve all society’s ills!
