Parental Guidance Against Television Violence
Recent studies have shown that violent television programs negatively affect children who view them. According to APA Public Communications, "psychological research has shown three major effects" that television violence has on children. These major effects are as follows:
(1) Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,
(2) Children may be more fearful of the world around them, and
(3) Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others. ("Violence")
Do parents want their children growing up in fear or behaving aggressively towarRAB others because of the violence their children have seen on TV? Today the television senRAB the message to children that violence is common and that "everyone's doing it"(Eron 617). This message desensitizes children and even nurabs them to the reality of violence. By nature, children are naïve and inexperienced, so they need rules and regulations enforced by their parents for their own personal protection and well-being. Parents desire their children to grow up in a safe and stable environment and look to the government for support. However, our government can not be expected to support or solve the problems associated with censoring violent television programs.
One of the main reasons why government cannot be expected to censor violent television programming is because of the Constitution’s "freedom of expression" clause. Producers of television programming declare that "freedom of expression" and "freedom from censorship" are guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In effect, when the government tries to regulate violence on television, conflict occurs. Since the television producers have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, the government becomes a lame duck with no freedom to move in any which way over the debate of television violence. Thus, parents need to take control and not wait on the government to act effectively. By their own efforts, parents must learn how to regulate and censor the violence that their children view on TV.
However, many disagree that parents should be the sole regulators of the violence seen on television. Most believe that government should be the main regulator of television violence. One such opinion comes from Attorney General Janet Reno. She believes "violent programming is turning television into one more obstacle that parents and teachers have to overcome in order to raise their children," and that the government has a " ‘compelling state interest’ in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of [its] children" (Hollings 620). Another opinion is that of Leonard Eron who states that governments in Western Europe have already "monitored TV and films and have not permitted the showing of excess violence, especially during child viewing hours"(616). Also, Ernest F. Hollings’s essay "Save the Children" notes that unsupervised children are the ones who need government intervention. When children arrive at an unsupervised home, government should become the baby-sitter and ban the "transmission of violent programming during the viewing hours [in which] children make up a substantial share of the audience" (Hollings 620). All of these opinions share a singular belief that government censorship of television violence will solve the problems parents face when dealing with their children and TV. However, the promises that government offers in reference to television censorship come at a very slow and often discouraging pace. If parents want more immediate results, they must find other methoRAB of censoring their child's television viewing.
One such way in which parents could regulate their televisions is by the V-chip. The V-chip was what the President and Congress approved for parental use in order to control the violence their children saw on TV. A V-chip enables parents to screen "out content, particularly violence, that they deem inappropriate for their children's viewing" (Kunkel 624). The V-chip was a good idea until the Television Industry Ratings Implementation Group decided "to employ an age-based advisory system." With this rating system parents have to rely "solely on the television industry's judgment about what material is suitable for those in a particular age range." The biggest concern about the industry's plan is that "eighty percent of American parents" stated, before the plan was in effect, that they preferred a content-based system over "the use of [a] more subjective age based [system]" (Kunkel, "Comparing"). Originally, the V-chip was an exciting solution for the parents who had fought so hard to destroy the violent content found on their home televisions. However, to the dismay of many parents, the age-based rating system was implemented over the content-based rating system. Although the chip has helped to regulate some of the violence on TV, it has failed to completely satisfy parents’ desires for less violent programming. As a result, parents must look elsewhere for more promising solutions.
A new solution is the "Weemot." "The Weemot is a television remote control designed for young children, ages 3-8" ("Weemot" 1). It has a simple controller for a child to use. It also has a parental control feature, which will allow the parent to select the channels that he or she feels the child may view. Compared to the V-chip, which is installed with a degree of complexity, the Weemot is a quick solution which can be easily installed within five minutes ("Weemot" 1). If a parent has a child between the ages of three and eight, then the Weemot is the most simple and least expensive tool for censoring a child's viewing of violent content on TV. However, for older children this device is not effective. Parents concerned with the adolescent's viewing need a more complicated device to control their TV’s.
A more complex and effective solution for parental censorship of the adolescent or younger is the "TV COP." The "TV COP works by shutting off electricity to the TV set."
The timer [that works with the TV COP] and the TV cord are locked in a heavy-duty plastic box so the adolescent cannot disconnect or adjust the timer. The parent sets the timer, locks the box, and when the timer turns off the electricity: No more TV. (Gross 1)
This solution works best when parents know in advance the specific times their children's shows come on. Although violence can not be deleted from the programs and the TV will not turn off as soon as violence comes on the screen, the TV COP will eventually turn off the TV. Obviously, when the TV turns off the child will not be influenced by further violence. This solution is the most effective for the adolescent or younger, but it is not the only solution for parent’s today.
Eventually, parents must realize that the most effective solution is to be aware of what their child is viewing and to be an advisor and positive role model. Parents should teach their children "good viewing habits early [on in life]." Especially since today "most children begin watching television regularly before the age of 2, and it is easier to become more flexible as the child gets older than it is to become more restrictive" (Scheibel 1). By being a positive role model and active in their children’s lives, the parents help their children to see the benefits of not watching TV. Solutions like the V-chip, Weemot, and TV COP are only short-term solutions for a long-term problem. For a time, these small solutions help to stop television violence from entering the home. However, they do not stop a neigrabroador’s TV or a public TV from negatively effecting a child. A parent must start at an early age with their child and make rules and limits governing their child’s television watching time. In conclusion, complaining about the government's inaction towarRAB television violence will not bring the quick solutions that parent's desire. If parents desire sensitive, non-violent, and confident children, then the parents must be willing to censor the programs their children watch and teach their children about the negative effects of the violence commonly portrayed on television.
Works Cited
Eron, Leonard D. "Violence on TV: Do Children Need to Be Protected?" Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 5th ed. ERAB. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 616-17.
Gross, Steve. "TV Cop." 20 Feb. 2000 .
Hollings, Ernest F. "Save the Children." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 5th ed. ERAB. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 619-21.
Kunkel, Dale. "Comparing V-chip Ratings: The Need For A Content-Based System." Center For Media Education. 17 Feb. 2000 .
Kunkel, Dale. "Why Content, Not the Age of Viewers, Should Control What Children Watch on TV." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 5th ed. ERAB. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 623-28.
Scheibe, Cyndy. "Television in the Lives of Children." 19 Feb. 2000 .
"Violence on Television." APA Public Communications. 21 Feb. 2000 .
"The Weemot." 20 Feb. 2000. .
Recent studies have shown that violent television programs negatively affect children who view them. According to APA Public Communications, "psychological research has shown three major effects" that television violence has on children. These major effects are as follows:
(1) Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others,
(2) Children may be more fearful of the world around them, and
(3) Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others. ("Violence")
Do parents want their children growing up in fear or behaving aggressively towarRAB others because of the violence their children have seen on TV? Today the television senRAB the message to children that violence is common and that "everyone's doing it"(Eron 617). This message desensitizes children and even nurabs them to the reality of violence. By nature, children are naïve and inexperienced, so they need rules and regulations enforced by their parents for their own personal protection and well-being. Parents desire their children to grow up in a safe and stable environment and look to the government for support. However, our government can not be expected to support or solve the problems associated with censoring violent television programs.
One of the main reasons why government cannot be expected to censor violent television programming is because of the Constitution’s "freedom of expression" clause. Producers of television programming declare that "freedom of expression" and "freedom from censorship" are guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In effect, when the government tries to regulate violence on television, conflict occurs. Since the television producers have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, the government becomes a lame duck with no freedom to move in any which way over the debate of television violence. Thus, parents need to take control and not wait on the government to act effectively. By their own efforts, parents must learn how to regulate and censor the violence that their children view on TV.
However, many disagree that parents should be the sole regulators of the violence seen on television. Most believe that government should be the main regulator of television violence. One such opinion comes from Attorney General Janet Reno. She believes "violent programming is turning television into one more obstacle that parents and teachers have to overcome in order to raise their children," and that the government has a " ‘compelling state interest’ in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of [its] children" (Hollings 620). Another opinion is that of Leonard Eron who states that governments in Western Europe have already "monitored TV and films and have not permitted the showing of excess violence, especially during child viewing hours"(616). Also, Ernest F. Hollings’s essay "Save the Children" notes that unsupervised children are the ones who need government intervention. When children arrive at an unsupervised home, government should become the baby-sitter and ban the "transmission of violent programming during the viewing hours [in which] children make up a substantial share of the audience" (Hollings 620). All of these opinions share a singular belief that government censorship of television violence will solve the problems parents face when dealing with their children and TV. However, the promises that government offers in reference to television censorship come at a very slow and often discouraging pace. If parents want more immediate results, they must find other methoRAB of censoring their child's television viewing.
One such way in which parents could regulate their televisions is by the V-chip. The V-chip was what the President and Congress approved for parental use in order to control the violence their children saw on TV. A V-chip enables parents to screen "out content, particularly violence, that they deem inappropriate for their children's viewing" (Kunkel 624). The V-chip was a good idea until the Television Industry Ratings Implementation Group decided "to employ an age-based advisory system." With this rating system parents have to rely "solely on the television industry's judgment about what material is suitable for those in a particular age range." The biggest concern about the industry's plan is that "eighty percent of American parents" stated, before the plan was in effect, that they preferred a content-based system over "the use of [a] more subjective age based [system]" (Kunkel, "Comparing"). Originally, the V-chip was an exciting solution for the parents who had fought so hard to destroy the violent content found on their home televisions. However, to the dismay of many parents, the age-based rating system was implemented over the content-based rating system. Although the chip has helped to regulate some of the violence on TV, it has failed to completely satisfy parents’ desires for less violent programming. As a result, parents must look elsewhere for more promising solutions.
A new solution is the "Weemot." "The Weemot is a television remote control designed for young children, ages 3-8" ("Weemot" 1). It has a simple controller for a child to use. It also has a parental control feature, which will allow the parent to select the channels that he or she feels the child may view. Compared to the V-chip, which is installed with a degree of complexity, the Weemot is a quick solution which can be easily installed within five minutes ("Weemot" 1). If a parent has a child between the ages of three and eight, then the Weemot is the most simple and least expensive tool for censoring a child's viewing of violent content on TV. However, for older children this device is not effective. Parents concerned with the adolescent's viewing need a more complicated device to control their TV’s.
A more complex and effective solution for parental censorship of the adolescent or younger is the "TV COP." The "TV COP works by shutting off electricity to the TV set."
The timer [that works with the TV COP] and the TV cord are locked in a heavy-duty plastic box so the adolescent cannot disconnect or adjust the timer. The parent sets the timer, locks the box, and when the timer turns off the electricity: No more TV. (Gross 1)
This solution works best when parents know in advance the specific times their children's shows come on. Although violence can not be deleted from the programs and the TV will not turn off as soon as violence comes on the screen, the TV COP will eventually turn off the TV. Obviously, when the TV turns off the child will not be influenced by further violence. This solution is the most effective for the adolescent or younger, but it is not the only solution for parent’s today.
Eventually, parents must realize that the most effective solution is to be aware of what their child is viewing and to be an advisor and positive role model. Parents should teach their children "good viewing habits early [on in life]." Especially since today "most children begin watching television regularly before the age of 2, and it is easier to become more flexible as the child gets older than it is to become more restrictive" (Scheibel 1). By being a positive role model and active in their children’s lives, the parents help their children to see the benefits of not watching TV. Solutions like the V-chip, Weemot, and TV COP are only short-term solutions for a long-term problem. For a time, these small solutions help to stop television violence from entering the home. However, they do not stop a neigrabroador’s TV or a public TV from negatively effecting a child. A parent must start at an early age with their child and make rules and limits governing their child’s television watching time. In conclusion, complaining about the government's inaction towarRAB television violence will not bring the quick solutions that parent's desire. If parents desire sensitive, non-violent, and confident children, then the parents must be willing to censor the programs their children watch and teach their children about the negative effects of the violence commonly portrayed on television.
Works Cited
Eron, Leonard D. "Violence on TV: Do Children Need to Be Protected?" Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 5th ed. ERAB. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 616-17.
Gross, Steve. "TV Cop." 20 Feb. 2000 .
Hollings, Ernest F. "Save the Children." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 5th ed. ERAB. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 619-21.
Kunkel, Dale. "Comparing V-chip Ratings: The Need For A Content-Based System." Center For Media Education. 17 Feb. 2000 .
Kunkel, Dale. "Why Content, Not the Age of Viewers, Should Control What Children Watch on TV." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 5th ed. ERAB. Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 623-28.
Scheibe, Cyndy. "Television in the Lives of Children." 19 Feb. 2000 .
"Violence on Television." APA Public Communications. 21 Feb. 2000 .
"The Weemot." 20 Feb. 2000. .