Television programs that generate a great deal of concern among parent and educators are those that contain violence. The questionable violence, sex and language on television have caused the nation to find methods of censoring these problems. Due to television violence, censorship should reduce the ability for children to view violent content. Children have an easy access to violence on television from violent programs through movie channels. The publics concern has been reflected in congressional hearings and massive studies on the effect of TV violence, especially on children.
Dr. James C. Dobson from the Focus on the Family Newsletter says: If you have any doubt about the influence MTV wishes to exert on todays adolescents, watch their popular program Beavis and ButtheadThey use crude words, fondle themselves, do horribly cruel things to animals, and sit around watching heavy-metal videos as bright green stuff runs from their nosesBeavis and Butthead took a trip to a rifle range where they accidentally shot down a plane. They had difficulty opening the door of the wrecked plane, so they left women and children to die inside.
This is the fare served up to preteens and adolescents by the company that seek to shape an entire generation (Hendershot 13) In 1994 a small child burned down his trailer house, killing his baby sister. His mother responded to the accident by saying that he learned to do so by watching Beavis and Butthead. Instead of legal issues, MTV responded by moving the program to a later time. (Hendershot 14) There are many reasons to be concerned about violence. Television violence is more frequent then real violence. Television violence spares the views the suffering of the victim and the disorder of the killer.
By the time a child is the age of 18, they will see 115,000 violent acts on television. (Hefzallah 88) An eleven-year-old child reported, I was scared when I saw Friday the 13th. Whenever the girl went into the water and Jason stuck a knife in her and all this blood was in the water-I got real scared. (Abelman 28) Robert Singer voiced: Working-class children, minority children, unpopular children and children doing poorly in school seem to be the ones more susceptible to imitating the aggression that they see on television.
This may be partly because they watch more hours and are exposed to more television violenceTelevision may or may not contribute to their aggressive behavior, but their aggressive nature does play a major role in what they choose to watch. (Hefzallah 87) Action for Childrens Television (ACT tried to make childrens television better; it was often accused of making it worse. Peggy Charren, cofounder of the ACT says: People criticize ACT for lack of creativity today. We never asked for that. They dont remember what it was like before we were around. There was no Sesame Street or Electric Company.
It was never our idea to sanitize the superheroes and reduce the art of animation to its present standards. The broadcasters are responsible for whats on the air today, not Action for Childrens Television. Were trying to see that the product is improved, not worsened. (Hendershot 61) A way to help with the problem of violence on television is censorship. In the United States the design and development of program rating systems plan to be used in connection with supposed v-chip technologies. (Price 23) In February 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which included the v-chip.
The v-chip allows parents to shield out shows that have been rated for violence and objectionable content (cnn. com. ) The legislation requires insertion of the v-chip in new television sets allowing parent to have some control of what their child watches. The v-chip provision requires television broadcaster and cable companies to voluntarily develop a rating system on violence, sex and obscenity. The law requires that if networks establish ratings, they must transmit these ratings so they may be recognized by the v-chip. There are a variety of myths that come with the v-chip.
Some believe that the v-chip is censorship and violates the First Amendment. In fact the v-chip is not in violation of the First Amendment. The parents decide what to block, not the government. Others believe that it will be expensive to add v-chips to their television. But in fact it will only cost less than $5 to add the v-chip. Correspondingly the Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 already requires every new to have closed-captioning electronics. The v-chip basically involves adding the ability to read program ratings to the existing ability to read closed-captioning.
President Bill Clinton looks on the v-chip as giving the remote control back to the parent. In an article written for Business Wire and also in a speech on the floor of the Senate, Senator Paul Simon argues that the v-chip would not be used in areas of high crime. He also points out that teenagers will find a way around the v-chip. Donald Wildmon president of the American Family Association said the v-chip sounds like a good step on the surface, but in the long run would absolve the entertainment industry of their responsibly. (cnn. com)
There are still questions that need to be answered about the chip. Such as if the program is turned on in the middle of the program, will the rating be read by the chip and the program blocked? Would each episode of the show be rated or would shows be given just one rating, regardless of content from week to week? These questions are still to be answered. Though the v-chip will not eliminate all violence, it will help reduce the amount that a child can view. No matter what, parents will still be responsible for what their children watch.