Violence in the Media
Over the last 4 decades, it has been observed that violence found in media and electronic entertainment have a direct relation to aggressions found in children and in society. In February 2009, Paul Boxer, a Rutgers University researcher published a study that showed interesting evidence to support the theory. The difference with Boxer’s study and studies done previously was that Boxer and his colleagues took into account the external factors that may cause aggression within society. After collecting data in the field, he (and his colleagues) determined that “Even in conjunction with other factors, our research shows that media violence does enhance violent behavior,” Boxer states. “On average, adolescents who were not exposed to violent media are not as prone to violent behavior.” (Capizzi, 2008).
But what does this mean? If studies determine that there is a definite correlation, what is the solution? Well, this is where the problem really arises. Who determines what inappropriate media is? As an educator my job is to protect children in every aspect, every day. When thinking about violence and the role that it plays in my students’ lives, it is very hard to think objectively!
The Federal Communication Commission is the government agency that oversees broadcasted media. Responding to the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show “accident” Commissioner Michael Copps writes, “In the past, the Commission too often addressed indecency complaints with little discussion or analysis, relying instead on generalized pronouncements… (However) The U.S. Surgeon General, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and countless other medical and scientific organizations that have studied this issue have reached the same conclusion: exposure to graphic and excessive media violence has harmful effects on the physical and mental health of our children. We need to complete this proceeding” (FCC, 2006).
The American Library Association and other similar organizations look at the situation in a different light. In a document entitled “Violence in the Media: A Joint Statement” they write: The undersigned organizations, whose members represent a broad cross-section of the book community in America, believe that concerns being expressed over portrayals of violence in the media, including films, television, music, and video games, as well as communication via the Internet, are generating demands for action that threaten core First Amendment freedoms (ALA, 2009). Although the document does not deny that there is a possible problem with violence directly related to media, it does state that the solutions are worse than the problem itself. The statement makes the following points:
· Censorship is not the answer to violence in society.
· The First Amendment protects the widest range of expression.
· It is not properly the role of the government to evaluate merits of expression.
· Evaluating the worth of expression is subjective.
· Portrayals of violence in the media reflect a violent world. Book authors, publishers, booksellers and librarians, along with those engaged in creating and distributing other media, strive to enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression.
· Individuals, not the government, bear responsibility for determining what materials are appropriate for themselves and their children (ALA, 2009).
So if the government of the United States should not be involved, then who? Should significant research be ignored? If government is infringing on first amendment rights to stop the production of media containing violent images and language, should they still be able to publicly oppose the media… and more importantly, counsel citizens on determining what is appropriate for children? Because there is no clear cut answer, the logical thing to do is to use good judgment.
References:
"ALA International Sustainable Library Development Interest Group," American Library
Association,.http://www.ala.org/template.cfm?section=endorsements&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm&contentid=32051 (Accessed June 08, 2009)
Capizzi, C. (2008). Rutgers Researcher’s Study Cites Media Violence as ‘Critical Risk Factor’
for Aggression. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from Rutgers Media Relations Web site http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2008/11/rutgers-researcher20-20081118
Federal Communication Commission (2006, February). Complaints Against Various Television
Licenses Concerning Their February 1, 2004 Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show (File No. EB-04-IH-0011). Retrieved June 7, 2009, from Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-17A3.pdf
10 comments:
I think violence in the media should be left up to the media people, and let people decide for themselves what they are willing to watch. I don't have a problem with a ratings system because obviously there's no way to know something is violent unless someone tells you beforehand OR you watch it. So ratings are helpful in my opinion. If something is marked "really violent" I know that I personally probably don't want to watch it, so I can just move along. As for kids, it is part of parents' job to decide what it's okay for their kids to see and to bother to pay attention to what's going on with their kid: don't let them buy the violent video games if you don't want them to play it. Know where they are and who they're with and what they're doing, inform their friends' parents that they are not allowed to watch certain types of movies or play certain games. Yeah it would be a pain, but I think that comes with the territory. Just my 2 cents.
I agree with Lisa. I think people should be able to decide for themselves and that is the responsibility of parents to judge for their children what is appropriate and not appropriate.
Violence in the media is a reflection of our violent world. I don't thinking censoring or breeding naivete is a good idea, but I do think the rating systems do more good then harm. They offer guidelines and leave the ultimate decision making to the people and the parents.
My question would be, what if a parent/legal guardian comes to the library and specifically asks that their children not be allowed to view violent media on the library computers. The first amendment is a noble right that we should uphold, but what about the rights of a parent to determine what their children have access to at the library? Is there a middle ground that libraries could take which allows open access to material, unless a parent/guardian says otherwise? Couldn't there be choices in library accounts that allow a parent to chose what they deem appropriate for their child? I guess the question I would raise is how is the library not acting "In Loco Parentis" by allowing unrestricted access to children in spite of what their parents might want for their child? Isn't saying there are no limits on access a de facto usurpation of parental rights?
Note: I have no idea what the answers to these questions are, but I think they are questions we as a profession need to ask ourselves because the answers make a huge difference in whether we see ourselves as community servants (who cater to the needs of our specific communities) or if we see ourselves as civil liberty servants (who uphold our ideals and never back down no matter what).
Joseph, your comment about parents specifically asking that their children not be allowed to view certain things raises an interesting point.
As a librarian at that location, I think the parent totally has the right to determine what the child can see. However, I also believe the parent should be the one to enforce the rule, not the librarian.
For younger children, the parent should be there to supervise them on the computers. For older children, my opinion is that if they are old enough to be at the library on the computers alone, they are old enough to follow their parents' rules. If they don't and their parents find out, the children are responsible for their misbehavior, not the librarians; the children are old enough to accept the consequences.
Violence is everywhere and in some cases glamorized as we see on TV programs, the TV news and in the newspapers. This is something in our society we have to deal with on a daily basis. I agree the ratings are a huge help to me not only for what my kids watch but for myself, too.
I don't think it is up to the federal government to tell me what I can and cannot view or purchase. I think this goes back to many of the posts on several of these issues...it is the parent’s responsibility to define to their children what is appropriate for them. This is not up to the librarian. If a parent comes into the library and says they don't want their child to view violent material on the library computer, I would say great, pull up a chair and sit with them as you surf the net.
I am not naive in that the family structure isn't what it was even a few years ago. The support children receive at home varies from household to household from overly supportive to non-existent. Even so, it is still the responsibility of the parent to protect their child from the violence in the media. As Lisa said..just my 2 cents.
Lots of good points here! Yes, this is a tough issue for librarians, since I think ( hope!) that many of us will consider ourselves as both of the things that Joseph mentioned - servants to our communities, our "people", as well as servants of the profession and it's ideals. As a parent I realize too that there is a wide range of parental involvement, and I think I would have a hard time as a librarian not being concerned for children whose parents were absent or uninvolved. This might be an area where as a librarian I would want to provide an "active" level of service, trying to provide support to parents and children by giving information about the content of library materials. And then, ultimately leaving the decision making up to the parents. I think that its unrealistic to expect a librarian to be able to directly monitor what every child is looking at, and that is why the responsibility in the end belongs to the parent.
I think one of the ALA's statements quoted in the blog, about the world being violent and writers, filmmakers,etc simply recording reality is such a cliche Freedom of Expression defense. The people who are upset about violence in the media are not usually upset about legitimate use of violence ex. "Saving Private Ryan", they are usually upset about extreme instances of violence: slasher films, Grand Theft Auto, etc. Violence for its own sake, or for pure entertainment. There is a newer genre of film dubbed "torture porn"(Hostel, Saw) designed to make audiences squirm at depictions of mutilations performed on screaming victims. Should a library let just anyone, even children check out films like this? They can't go into a theater and see it, but they can check it out from their library and watch it on their personal DVD player. Yes the parent(s) should be monitoring what their children check out, but can't the library assist them towards that end? Materials flagged as 'mature' using existing ratings standards not available to be checked out on a minor's card if the parents choose to use that service-would something like that work? Or would it butt too hard against the ideals of the Library? I'm not sure yet what I think. Thanks for the interesting blog topic!
We do have a sticker we put on any DVD that is R rated that simply states this may not be appropriate for all ages. If a child came to check it out, I might look around to see if the parent was nearby and I would mention something to that effect. But what if the parent was in the car and sent the child in to rent it?
Does anyone have any experience with a library that will not allow R-rated movies to underage kids without parental permission? I'm wondering if this exists. If kids aren't allowed to see R-rated movies in theaters, does that extend to library materials, too?
Post a Comment