http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=8866443&page=1
The link above is from ABC news health section of their website. The article and short video clip discusses the risks of violence and sex in the media and how it affects children and teens. The article also mentions how the nation’s chief organization of pediatrics wants doctors to do something about it. According to the video clip, it is recommended that a child under the age of 2 is not exposed to any TV at all. Baran and Davis would agree with this rule of thumb as they state on page 190 in Mass Communications Theory “The researchers argue that by age of two and a half, children have sufficiently developed viewing schema that allow them to comprehend specific television content conventions.” In other words, after the age of 2, children can better understand TV. Before the age of two, they do not possess the skills to understand media content which could result in a very confusing experience for a young infant. The video clip also states that it is proven that background television in the home can result in poor attention skills in small children.
At first I was perplexed by why this organization would want to put the responsibility on doctors to manage children’s media intake. It then dawned on me that this countries youth has had a major rise in the diagnosis of ADD and ADHD. Maybe the medical community wants to try to blame the media for this disorder. They could claim that because media sources target children starting at a very young age, and since it is prove that TV and background TV could produce poor attention skills, that television viewing or exposure to television at a young age could affect a child’s attention span or cause Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Although this makes perfect sense to why the medical community is upset with the media, are the doctors supposed to now make house calls to make sure children aren’t exposed to too much TV? Should pediatricians be responsible for implanting medical devices into the bodies of our youth to ensure that media isn’t affecting our children negatively? Absolutely not!! The nation’s chief organization of pediatrics should be focusing on the actions of the parents. When a child is that young, the parents have full control of what their child does at every waking moment. Yes, the pediatricians should be informing parents about the negative and positive effects of media in a young person’s life, but it is up to the parents to implement a healthy lifestyle for their offspring.
As McQuail states on page 400 in McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory, “The majority of American television shows have at least one act of violence in them; the context in which most violence is presented is sanitized; violence is rarely punished in the immediate context in which it occurs; and it rarely results in observable harm to the victims.” Because of this known fact, the parents should then step in and remind their children that there are consequences for every action. Just because the cartoon character stole money from the bank and didn’t get in trouble doesn’t mean that is what would happen in real life.
The real question here is who is responsible for children being directly affected by the media? Is it the media’s responsibility? Is it medical professionals? What about the United States Government? Could it be the parents? Or should we point fingers at society? What do you think?
You bring up some very good questions. It is hard to say who is responsible for media effects, especially effects that stem from the portrayal of violence, so I think the easiest way to look at it is to say everyone is responsible in their own way. For example, there are things that the government could do to prevent violent media content from coming across the path of children, and as the article suggests violent video games and other media could be placed in a more prohibited area in stores. Right now, when I walk through a video game store it is hard for me to separate which games are targeted for young children and which contain gratuitous violence, but that may be because I don’t know a lot about games. I feel like parents might feel the same way and might not know exactly how much violence a game could contain until their child starts playing it. Something else that I think could be done is more research on child development and implementing those findings into creating a broader range of age appropriate media. As Baron and Davis discuss in Mass Communication Theory, developmental perspective looks and the vast changes individuals undergo from childhood to adulthood, which in itself is complex and can be different for different people. I believe this perspective could be useful in creating more appropriate media choices, as it says, “Much of this research actually focused on differences in attention and comprehension at different stages of development to better tailor educational programming to specific groups of children (191).” I believe this is important to factor in to how media portrays violence, as well as what audience this violence may be reaching. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory also explains how important it is to consider stages of development as it explains on page 403 that children will have differences and difficulties in comprehending not only fantasy from reality, but the actual plot of the show and the lessons it might be trying to convey. They stress that timing is important as well, especially if violence is not punished right away. Therefore, I think it is the responsibility of the media to better target their audience and make sure they have considered how the message will be received. Parents are then responsible for actively monitoring the media and which media their children are consuming, and to make sure they do their research. I believe media effects cannot be blamed on just one person or one of these groups; they all need to collaborate to provide appropriate media to children and to understand what the effects could be.
ReplyDeleteI do not see any positive implications that could possibly come from doctors stepping in to mediate the issue of media-influenced violence. Allison brought up the rise of ADHD in our nation’s children over the past couple of decades. The medicalization of ADHD is a whole separate debate in itself and I can only predict the potential intervention of doctors with regards to media influence effects to become yet another money making ploy.
ReplyDelete“Save your kids from falling prey to the media and turning into violent sociopaths! Give them ::insert new drug here:: to prevent violent behavior!” Sure, that may be a bit of an exaggerated statement, but besides offering a miracle drug, what else can doctors do that will really help the situation? If anything, the suggestion of therapy, say more locally in the education system, would be more helpful. The implementation of a school program that exposes children to the potential influence of media violence and an explanation of the difference between reality and television may help make young television viewers more aware of their media consumption and how it affects their behavior.
As we’ve discussed in class, not every media consumer is influenced to commit violent acts after witnessing similar acts on television or in the movies. Only in extreme situations do we see a direct influence and imitation of violence as a result of violent media. In Baran and Davis’ words, “…such gross examples of media influence lend substance to the argument that negative effects occur only in those ‘predisposed’ to aggression- in other words, those crazy to begin with.” On the other hand, however, the statement that stood out to me most in the reading is in relation to the influence of media with regards to advertising.
If, as the media claim, no objective correlation exists between media portrayals of violence and violent behavior… then how can the media claim an impact in product selection and consumption, as they obviously affect the viewers’ impact in commercial attitudes and behavior?
Paul Briand, as quoted by Baran and Davis, makes a valid point. Billions upon billions of dollars are poured into the advertising industry each and every year. If the influence of media were so insignificant, the advertising industry would not be as hardy as it is. This suggestion at least supports the possibility that all media have a certain degree of influence over us; no matter how insignificant or subconscious that influence may be.
To get back to Allison’s original question, I hold the belief that the media is responsible for the effects it has on children. As Developmental Psychology teaches us, children learn their behaviors several different ways, one of those ways being through social learning. Positive reinforcement has a very strong influence. As McQuail points out, “…through observing television models, viewers come to learn behaviors that are appropriate, that is, which behaviors will be rewarded and which will be punished.” If those rewarded behaviors are negative or violent in nature, a child could potentially internalize that behavior as acceptable, which also leads to desensitization as McQuail discusses. Desensitization is a scary notion; to think that viewers become hardened by the violence they witness in the media implies that they may not hold the same morals that correlate with the social norms of what is right. Therefore, the collective efforts of the media as a whole should be held accountable for the influence violent media has on our society and children.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMedia is all around us. Since it is all around us, it is easy to see how people, especially children who are the most impressionable, can be affected. According to the social-learning theory, children learn by seeing and imitating. I think there are plenty of age appropriate programs on television today that can help in the development of children. I have seen direct effects of a program called “Baby Can Read,” and the results were outstanding. I agree with several of my classmates that say doctors shouldn’t monitor how much media children consume. The video says that infants and toddlers shouldn’t watch any television before the age of about one. I think this idea is a bit extreme, because there are plenty of age appropriate programs on television today.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Baran and Davis, “…significant research supports the casual link between violent video games and subsequent player aggression,” (191). This proves that yes, violent video games can have a negative impact on the behavior of children, but in today’s society, isn’t everyone affected by something? Just because a child watches a violent movie doesn’t mean they will become violent themselves; however this does not mean that all children will or will not be negatively affected. Age restrictions are a great idea because although it will not prevent all minors of purchasing or playing violent video games (because I am sure some parents will buy the violent video games for the children) it will prevent some.
I agree with Mera when she states that parents should be held most responsible. Parents teach children right from wrong, so I believe that most children will not be negatively impacted by video games or violent movies. One idea that I do find interesting is the idea that children can become “desensitized” to violence or on the other hand, very fearful (McQuail). Once again, some people may fear everything and will think everyone or everything is dangerous or violent, and others may think that violent acts are just part of society. It is important to become aware of what is happening around us, but we must also live our lives. Overall, the media is powerful, and as long as children learn right from wrong at an early age, most children will not be negatively impacted.
We live in the technology era so it is a giving that children are going to be exposed to media and technology will continue to advance so its not a way to really stop that. Like mera said i think it is the parents and society to blame.
ReplyDeleteParents can control what's going on in the household. It is their job to monitor how much television is consumed by their kids. Parents today are very young and kind of rely on television to contol their kids.
Society definitely plays a role in this. With all the video games and all the killing and violence that goes with it, kids don't know any better and think that it is all fun and games. Like Mcquail says "Clearly a number of factors contribute to violence in american society" (399).
In Baran and Davis chapt 7 it states that "by the end of the 1950's and early 1960's televison were in almost in every household in the country" (165)it is 2010 now and it will probably be a fact that every household has a television, so i put the responsibility on the parents to take control of their kids because it starts in the house first.
I agree with Mera when she says that parents are to blame. I feel that the actions displayed on television don’t matter nearly as much as the actions displayed by the parents. Parents have the obligatory responsibility to be the ones to teach their children right and wrong. The parents have to be the ones to give positive reinforcement when their children do good things, and likewise, they must show negative feedback when the children do something wrong. It is the parents’ duty to teach their children that television is not reality. They must reinforce this important fact starting from an early age, and continuing into teenage years.
ReplyDeleteOn page 190 of Baran & Davis’ book, we read about the active theory, which “assumes that comprehension causes attention and, therefore, effects (or no effects.)” This theory would suggest that once children are capable of comprehending what is happening on television, they are likely to emulate those actions and behaviors (these are the effects). I think that this is exactly the moment when the parents need to step in the most! The parents need to be the ones to tell their child that what is happening on the TV right now is wrong, shouldn’t be repeated, and shouldn’t be thought of as “cool.” This is important because I think that the parents are the most influential factors in a child’s life. I think this is especially true for children under the age of 5 (these years are when children repeat everything they hear and see!). So we must make sure that our children are taught well starting at an early age.
On page 399 McQuail says that “the television set is on more than seven hours per day in the average American home.” This is probably what Evann and Mera were talking about when they suggested that parents today use the TV as a babysitter. They just sit their kids on front of it and their children are entertained for hours. But I think that if you are going to complain about the effects of the television, then you shouldn’t use it as your babysitter. YOU should be the one raising your child. People always say if you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the president! I think this rings true in our discussion too, because if you let the TV raise your kids, then you can’t complain when they don’t turn out the way you wanted them to!
---Leigh Weissman
I think parents and society are to blame. I don't believe doctors should be held responsible for monitoring how much media our children consume. Lastly, I disagree with Alison's contention that the media is responsible for its effects on children.
ReplyDeleteParents are first and foremost responsible because they provide the television, electricity to power it, and then they allow their children to sit in front of it. When such is the case it is no wonder that, “by the time the average American child graduates form elementary school, he or she will have seen over 800 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence” (Wartella, Olivarez and Jennings 399). No agent of the media, doctor's office, or government came into anyone's home and forced television upon them or their child. Parents need to be accountable for their actions.
Society is next because society permits this behavior and then frowns upon its effects. We cannot have televisions as babysitters (teachers, entertainers, workout leaders, etc.) and then complain about the negative ideas our children are walking away with. We either let the TV baby-sit or we raise our children. The media like any other household item is a product that is bought and sold. If it does not suit your needs then you do not buy it.
That brings me to Alison's unfair contention. Every household that owns a TV probably owns a sharp knife. That sharp knife is probably far out of reach of most children simply because it can do harm. The same principle should hold true for the media since it has been stated again and again that media exposure can have a negative effect on children. For instance, Wartella, Olivarez, and Jennings explain in, “Children and Television Violence in the United States” that years of media research have indicated a relationship between exposure to violent media and aggressive behavior (399). Parents and society should do their part to protect children from that which can do harm. We cannot go back and blame the knife or its manufacturer for cutting a child when it was made readily available and similarly we should not blame the media for damaging our children if we make it readily available to them.
People have blamed television and the media for encouraging violent behavior among our youth going all the way back to the radical and rebellious times of the 1960’s. In fact President Lyndon Johnson felt pressured to set up not one, but two national commissions to look into finding a solution. Most would accept the fact that “direct imitation” of violent acts from the big screen is not a serious problem for an overwhelming majority of the population. Baran and Davis lay out the hypothetical situation of a young viewer watching Beavis and Butt-Head set fire to a cat and then go out and set their house on fire the next day (p. 182). This type of imitation is extremely rare in occurrences and thus cannot be blamed on various television programming.
ReplyDeleteOf course there is always the flip side and there are plenty who would argue that children are exposed to so much violence over the course of their childhood that it is bound to influence them in a negative fashion. As Angela points out, desensitization towards violence is a very scary notion when you think about it. The idea that one can have watched so many graphic murder scenes and bloody fights that they are no longer surprised or emotionally affected in any way when they view it on TV. McQuail’s Reader in Mass Communication Theory provides a great statistic to back this theory up in chapter 37; “By the time the average American child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have seen over 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence” (p. 399). A statistic such as this one sounds ridiculous at first but when you think about all of the movies and violent TV shows you have watched over the course of your life, it sounds pretty accurate.
I would never argue that violent programming needs to be eliminated altogether from television programming because that it is absurd. As Leigh, Mera, and others mentioned this is where parents have to step in and at least monitor what type of shows their kids are watching on a regular basis. I can remember as a young kid in elementary school hearing from all my friends about all of the rated R movies they had been watching. Maybe my parents were old fashioned but I flat out wasn’t allowed to watch rated R movies with tons of violence and sex when I was in the fourth grade. I do maintain that any kind of programming, even a show like MTV’s “Jackass”, can be enjoyed by mature audiences who appreciate the show for what it is. Problems come when viewers, who are not as mature, regardless of their age, watch these shows and feel obligated to imitate what they have seen.
-Andrew Spero
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to begin by saying that I was certainly exposed to all sorts of media before the age of two. My mom loves her television and I am positive she had me on her lap every night as she watched her “shows”. I know I was in the car seat as she listened to fabulous 90s rap. And let’s be serious…I think the only children who haven’t been exposed to television or other mediums before the age of two must be trapped in some sort of commune devoid of any media influence.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this: I turned out just fine and the vast majority of my peers and friends did as well. As in any claim relating social problems and other phenomena to the media, there will always be outlying and extreme situations. In this week’s article from the McQuail text, the authors write, “no study claims that viewing media violence is the only, nor even the most important, contributor to violent behavior…it is not every act of violence in the media that raises concern, nor every child or adult who is affected.” Not every child who watches violent television is going to have overtly aggressive tendencies. Banning children from watching TV before age 2 is not going to protect them from the real world and true socialization. Though it might seem extreme, in all seriousness, I worry more about the kid whose parents ban him from watching TV. He’ll be the outcast at school—bullied for not knowing about the ninja turtles and embarrassed and frustrated by the censorship. I feel this sort of frustration and social ineptness is more likely to spur aggressive and dangerous behavior later on than the child who pretended his plastic light saber was real.
As I mentioned above, my mother insists that I watched plenty of television before the age two. (And as an aside, why age 2? Is a five year old child really any more capable of associating violent or inappropriate behavior as fictional and inappropriate?) It’s what these children are watching that really matters. I do not think that children need to be banned from television until they reach a “proper” viewing age. Parents just need to censor Maury and encourage Sesame Street. It’s simple. If they’re involved in their kids’ media consumption, they can focus on exposing them to positive programming. Media is an important part of our culture and children should not be shielded from it completely.
In the Baran/Davis text, violent media exposure leading to imitated violent acts is used as an example for the social learning theory. We have all heard at least one story about some extremist who played video games in his youth and then reenacted a violent scene from a game resulting in injury and death. In that sort of example, the social learning theory is frightening and dangerous, but social learning and the media can be positive! Take the Seasame Street example. This fabulous show encourages the young audience to learn through imitating the characters’ educational lessons and through positive reinforcement by congratulating the audience’s involvement and success in understanding and utilizing the topic matter. The Baran/Davis text states, “…imitative learning occurred when observers were motivated to learn, when the cues or elements of the behaviors to be learned were present, when observers performed the given behaviors, and when observers were positively reinforced for imitating those behaviors” (183). Sesame Street provides the perfect outlet for positive social learning from our youth.
I agree with Mera and Leigh when they say that the parents are responsible for their children and their decisions. I especially agree with Leigh’s comment that said “the actions displayed on television don’t matter nearly as much as the actions displayed by the parents”. After reading everyone’s comments I began to think about what I read in Baran and Davis which said that "by the end of the 1950's and early 1960's television were in almost in every household in the country" (165). The way the world is progressing and how technology has become part of everyone’s lives these days it would not surprise me if every household in the country had at least one working television. Even if a family restricts their child’s viewing privileges it would not stop them from watching TV at their friends house.
ReplyDeleteI think that the parents are definitely responsible to not their children’s behavior especially when their minds are progressing and developing. In defense of the parents though, there is no way they can watch out for their children all day and make sure they are behaving perfectly. Speaking from my childhood, if my parents watched me like hawks all day I would resent them for it and probably act up worse than if I knew they trusted me.
McQuail says that “the television set is on more than seven hours per day in the average American home.”(399) I think that this is true for the most part but I don’t remember reading if that had anything to do with how much TV was watched by specific age groups. Yes, sometimes a child will see something on TV and want to reenact it but I also don’t think the television or media can be blamed for a child stealing a car.
As many other people have stated before, I beleive that the parents and the parents alone have the ability to control how much media a child intakes and how much media affects the child's actual persepctive of the world. Today parents are so quick to jump to a conclusion that other people are to blame for where they failed, whether it be an actor or musician or other 'role models' who have wrongly influenced their child. A parent and other real life and "at hand" role models should be stepping in where they feel these other people have failed. our geneneration grew up consuming very little educational programing besides the usual Sesame St. or Barney, and I feel that because there was not so much pressure on the media to 'raise good kids' that we were able to step beyond the TV and go outside and learn from our peers.
ReplyDeleteBy being the adult and telling a child 'no more TV, go outside' a child can benefit from actual interactions and grow to be responsible and mindful. It is this entire need from society to be constantly connected with the world that is affecting our children, not the media. If we put less pressure on the media and more pressure on good old fashion human to human interactions, I feel that children would not feel the need to imitate the people and things they see on tv, especially if they see less of it and more of team sports and neighborhood commaradery. I feel that the texts and the 'experts' give the media too much credit and too much responsibility. When did the TV become the new babysitter?
To start, I am really interested by your ADD analysis. I was one of those kids where Sesame Street was my religion and also I was diagnosed with ADHD relatively young. Only recently when I read my evaluation did I see that one of the main things noted was my television viewing. I seem to always need some media going on while trying to focus on anything, as much of an oxymoron as it may seem, or is. That pattern has followed me throughout my throughout my college years when television becomes a requirement for completing homework. While I don’t blame the media for this I wonder what it’s affect may be on ADHD diagnosed kids. On page 328 of Baron & Davis when they discuss the concept of “mainstreaming.”
ReplyDeleteThis “background noise” seems to have larger effects than the focus breaks I have aimed for. If through repetition what we hear solidifies in our thoughts, example being “Is the criminal justice system failing us? It is if we think it is,” that absolutely may pertain to violent undertones in what children hear and potentially act out.
Though, I’m doing homework I do retain the fact that J Wow (Jenni? Whoever the Guidette is that fought Heidi Montag over whose boob job was better) thinks another character is a “dumb bitch.” While not actually watching the show, I receive plenty of dialogue. This dialogue definitely correlates with Baron and Davis’s “Mean World Index” if ADD children are taking dialogue;” “Do you think you can’t be too careful in dealing with people;” “Do you think most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance?” These questions can definitely create social patterns for those who receive this message, which comes from the “drama” that attracts viewers.
In conclusion I feel that while doctors may have insight into media patterns in ADD children, the media is by no means to blame. Instead this should just be researched and included in treatment, that those diagnosed may be more prone to “mainstreaming” and therefore keep a closer look on what they are watching and if those opinion start disrupting their actions.
Added note:Kailyn Simpson is really Kailyn Corrigan. This was from a Simpson's blog. I'll try and fix it.
ReplyDeleteThis news story furthers my ongoing frustration with this ephemeral finger pointing occurring in current society.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I will start with the small portion of common ground I have with this report. I will say that I do agree on the child being held from television until after two years old. George Gerbner states that media as a text is a form of a message which is open for interpretation. He then goes on to further explain that "a message (or message system) cultivates consciousness of the terms required for its meaningful perception," (Gerbner, 145). Simply put, media and the individual texts within media form a message open for collective and individual interpretation. As the studies from Allison's cited story show, children under the age of 2 cannot meaningfully interpret the barrage of symbols being conveyed through television. As a psychology minor (and a bit of a nuero-nerd), I often look at things in a cause-effect relationship with potential mental/developmental side effects. I can speculate that such a barrage of confusion at a young age may lead to elevated levels of infantile stress. As a relatively new practice, clinical psychology is still in rudimentary stages regarding youth study. However, if it were my child I would not chance any form of stress increase (as a firm believer in its correlation with later mental stress/illness).
Now- while I do agree these images and actions portrayed by media may impose harm on a young child's stress levels, I do not believe it has a direct effect on later violent or inappropriate behavior. In the infamous 'Bobo Doll' study conducted by Albert Bandura, the subjects were at an age where imitation is an innate learning mechanism. Other studies since have also claimed correlation between violent media exposure and lasting violent behavior. However, I would propose we turn this supposed correlation on it's head.
Leonard Berkowitz was a large proponent in the theory known today as the "priming effects theory." This theory states that media "activates or 'primes' other semantically related thoughts that may influence how a person responds to the violence on TV," (Wartella, Olivarez, & Jennings, 402).
This theory essentially turns the correlation between media violence and violent behavior backwards. It is not imitation of media that causes violence, but it is the dormant issues within a person that are triggered by the violence. It's not a chocolate store that makes someone obese, but the consistent returns to the store by the chocolate addict. Those who have an insatiable taste for violence due to psychological issues will flock to violent media as a comfort zone for their urges. However, violent media will not take an innocent child and turn him into a killer. This argument will become quite interesting as the field of child psychology and neuroscience advances its understanding on cognitive learning.