Violence in Media Causing Violent Behavior: Urban Myth?

[Anonymous]

Some good TV

For what it's worth i think TV can have the power to enthrall and entertain. Here's 3 programmes that would not have worked as well in any other media, be it dance, mime, stage, written or spoken word:

Life on Earth - nuff said
Blue Planet - straight out of the same mold
Universe - truly stunning look at our physical reality

other also-rans are Alien Empire (the insect one), and Supersense (where you had real-honest-to-goodness "birds eye" view of the earth, complete with visual magnetic lines in a bird version of a head-up display).

I'll agree that these are all of the same natural history vein, but visually seeing wasps lay their eggs inside the heads of snails is something that i don't think my brain could imagine, no matter how elegant the prose style of the writer. Likewise for whale migrations etc. In an ideal world people would see these events in real life. However TV gives many, many people who don't have the cash and opportunity to do these fantastic things some chance to actually "experience" it, on a tangible level.

People that say TV is uniformly crap are just snobs, IMO.

 

[monster_magnet]

hmm Kinda disagree IJ

TV the same as Paint and Photography and Film etc are all mediums.

TV is a victim of a 'lowest common denominator' approach. The TV stations and programme makers will always have to consider the commercial aspect of anything they produce, ratings pull in advertisers and advertisers provide the money to make the programme - you could argue that programme makers are held to ransom by the TV stations and Advertisers and thus the quality of programme will always have to appeal to the greatest audience.

To ask 'Can television ever produce a work of quality in arts?' is much like asking if my biro can create the next great literary work, it might but the input is the important thing NOT the medium.

There are some exceptional artists using video/TV as their medium. Chris Cunninghams work is outstanding and disturbing, Shynola produce beautifuly moving and appropriate peices and groups like Tomato are constantly pushing the boudaries of video as a tool.

It's unreasonable to turn on the ITV or SKY or BBC and expect a Great peice of visual art. That's not to say there aren't 'Great' peices of video art - as with anything effort is needed to find them.

 

[elvissa]

There's a very interesting chapter in Philip Glassner's "The Culture of Fear" on the influence of TV violence on viewers. Worth having a read.

It's very a very interesting book also on what we might be able to conclude about many urban legends - displaced fear (eg stories about workplace murders which is fear displaced of losing jobs).

 

[stu neville]

Yes, I'd contend that TV can produce works of art, and not just documentaries. Dramatically, I would rate "Edge of Darkness", "A Very British Coup" and "Boys From the Blackstuff" highly. The scripts and performances were top-notch: agree entirely with el jubbo that to dismiss all TV as artistically inferior is intellectual snobbery: sure, a lot of TV is crap, but within the crap there be gems.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I'd contend that TV can produce works of art, and not just documentaries. Dramatically, I would rate "Edge of Darkness", "A Very British Coup" and "Boys From the Blackstuff" highly. The scripts and performances were top-notch: agree entirely with el jubbo that to dismiss all TV as artistically inferior is intellectual snobbery: sure, a lot of TV is crap, but within the crap there be gems.

all fine programs.

Also the recent spate of great television from America that turns concepts upside down (consider CSI wich focuses not on the dectivs but on the phorensic teems, Boom Town that presents multipil views of the same event.)

And don't forget that TV can upset: Tony Morrison's famous reading on Channel Four back in it's early days comes to mind.

TV is also a great place to chalange ideas and concepts not only in the sence of issues but also in the sence of chalanging it's own constructs (Ghostwatch, Brass Eye.)

John Logie Bard thought television could be used to educate. It may not be doing that in an obvious sence but there are things there posing questions of how we react to the media and what we expect form out programs.

 

[MrRING]

So, with so many good examples of great tv, isn't it unfair to try to say the whole form is devoid of possibilities, of quality, of art?

And to clarify, when I said that film is just as good as any other media in terms of quality, think about this - with all the hours of tv, it still pales in comparison with the amount of written works, particularly since written works have a 2,000 year history or more, and tv just has a roughly 80 year history (if you count from it's creation). Comparitively, there is much less television than written works of all kinds.

So I say that if the percentage of good to bad works in a medium stays the same - say 10 to 1 - then out of 100 tv shows, there are 10 of worth, & out of 10000 written works, there are 1000 of worth. There are many more quality books on the whole if you go by sheer number, but not by percentage of the whole of the medium. But it sure is easy to point at 1000 books and say "Look at the quality" while conventiently dismissing the hack work, then turn around and look at the 10 good shows and dismiss them as an anomily in the tv medium.

And going back to violence in media - why is it that the new forms are accused of being the ones that are dangerous? I could read the gory details of the jack the Ripper murders in a book and it would be considered okay, that I won't be damaged or want to commit violence. But if I saw a film of the same murders, then I am damaged and "desensitized"? or if I listen to a song where the lyrics describe killing somebody like JTR, then I am similarly damaged or more prone to commit violence? Because, if the written word is such a stronger medium, shouldn't the concern be that the messages contained therein are the most damageing, the most powerful, the most likely to cause desensitation or grow the desire to do violence?

 

[Anonymous]

And going back to violence in media - why is it that the new forms are accused of being the ones that are dangerous?

in one word:

Consertivism.

The new media is the threatening one and needs to be nutralised.

 

[Anonymous]

So, with so many good examples of great tv, isn't it unfair to try to say the whole form is devoid of possibilities, of quality, of art?

I'm sorry, Edge of Darkness, Boys From The Black Stuff, Life On Earth, Ghostwatch, and some modern 'crime and punishment' nonsense from some US, cable company. Is that the best the pro-telly lobby can do? Most of those programmes were made 20 years ago!

Yes, TV has potential as a medium to produce something more than filler between adverts. Does that happen? Rarely.

I watch very little on TV nowadays, Buffy, Angel, the occasional film (mostly nothing more than superior comic strip fare, but perhaps that's just me). Apart from the very occasional Horizon, or Open University tie-in on BBC2, I have seen some excellent and thought provoking documentaries and factual TV, but mostly on Dutch telly.

 

[Anonymous]

And going back to violence in media - why is it that the new forms are accused of being the ones that are dangerous?

Very true, the concept of violence and depravity as titillation, or for vicarious jollies is as old as the hills and continues to this day. Ancient Rome anyone?, then surfacing in more modern times as "penny dreadfuls" and whatnot, then a full turn of the wheel to football stadium executions, Taliban style. We love a good killing / punishment / accident. And we (most of us) want to be there to see it...

Watching violent TV is like riding a roller-coaster, you ride it knowing full well that it's totally safe, but you still get that sense of adrenalin when you're being thrown around up there. Like a vicious sex murder on TV, you want/don't want to watch what's going on, if just to get a little taste of what it's all about.

Hang on, i'm losing myself up my own fundament where was I?

Oh yeah that's it: I don't think that TV in itself incites people to do things they wouldn't do anyway, and to water down the more challenging programmes because of a few nutjobs deprives 99% of normal humanity their dose of salacious wish-fulfilment fantasy time.

 

[Anonymous]

Watching violent TV is like riding a roller-coaster, you ride it knowing full well that it's totally safe, but you still get that sense of adrenalin when you're being thrown around up there. Like a vicious sex murder on TV, you want/don't want to watch what's going on, if just to get a little taste of what it's all about.

Hang on, i'm losing myself up my own fundament where was I?

Not the best pro-TV argument I've ever come a across!

Being a voyeuristic spectator at television's vicarious feast of carnage has it's downside.

If anybody's watched Micael Moore's Bowling For Columbine, they'll know that Moore makes a (mostly anecdotal) connection between the portrayal of violence and race on US TV and high levels of fear and paranoia, leading to shootings. It not that TV encourages violent acts, it's that it can make people more fearful and timid.

He went on to suggest, pace GW. Bush and post 9/11, that fearful and timid people are easier to control.

Playing on people's fears and uncertainties, keeping them dissatisfied, and promising, but never delivering fullfilment. Aren't those just the sort of conditions a consumer society needs to create in the minds of its consumers. Isn't that the main aim of modern TV? To keep the advertisers supplied with insecure and insatiable punters?

And, in order to keep the punters tuned in and watching, doesn't the spectacle on offer have to be increasingly shocking, extreme and ultimately devoid of content?

 

[monster_magnet]

Andro, you say

Yes, TV has potential as a medium to produce something more than filler between adverts. Does that happen? Rarely.

But you have identified the reason in your statement. As i said before TV stations and Programme producers are slaves to the advertisers.

What is on TV is what 'we' want - FACT. The focus groups, advertisers research and marketing theories will dictate what the TV companies show. 'We' are the ones to blame we are given what 'we' desire.

 

[Anonymous]

Playing on people's fears and uncertainties, keeping them dissatisfied, and promising, but never delivering fullfilment. Aren't those just the sort of conditions a consumer society needs to create in the minds of its consumers. Isn't that the main aim of modern TV? To keep the advertisers supplied with insecure and insatiable punters?

Isn't that true of all media? Why TV in particuler. Why not the press, movies. music, art? Why pick on TV?

 

[Anonymous]

Not the best pro-TV argument I've ever come a across!

Being a voyeuristic spectator at television's vicarious feast of carnage has it's downside.

Agree 100%, just thought i'd inject a small dose of subjective honesty

 

[Anonymous]

Agree 100%, just thought i'd inject a small dose of subjective honesty

honesty is a good thing.

 

[Anonymous]

What is on TV is what 'we' want - FACT. The focus groups, advertisers research and marketing theories will dictate what the TV companies show. 'We' are the ones to blame we are given what 'we' desire.

Only in so far as regards styling I should think. Focus groups are asked what they would like to see, but the marketeers, researchers, advertisers, etc. will only use that information as part of their own agenda.

People only get what they are allowed to desire. They're desires are constantly being molded and directed by other branches of the media.

 

[Anonymous]

What is on TV is what 'we' want - FACT. The focus groups, advertisers research and marketing theories will dictate what the TV companies show. 'We' are the ones to blame we are given what 'we' desire.

and if the product is substanderd then we are to blame.

I don't see why using a program like Boom Town is a bad thing. Why's Buffy better? Once upon a time Buffy might have ment something but it's going down the drain fast while America is producing programs (such as the above) that chalange our expectations.

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't that true of all media? Why TV in particuler. Why not the press, movies. music, art? Why pick on TV?

TV is multi-channel and 24/7. It also gets the biggest slice of advertising revenue. TV was once the most linear and intrusive of media. Now its very fragmentary cross-channel zapping nature is adding to the shortening of attention spans and degradation of ability to reason in a conscious and timely way.

 

[MrRING]

And to clarify, when I said that film is just as good as any other media in terms of quality, think about this - with all the hours of tv, it still pales in comparison with the amount of written works, particularly since written works have a 2,000 year history or more, and tv just has a roughly 80 year history (if you count from it's creation). Comparitively, there is much less television than written works of all kinds.

So I say that if the percentage of good to bad works in a medium stays the same - say 10 to 1 - then out of 100 tv shows, there are 10 of worth, & out of 10000 written works, there are 1000 of worth. There are many more quality books on the whole if you go by sheer number, but not by percentage of the whole of the medium. But it sure is easy to point at 1000 books and say "Look at the quality" while conventiently dismissing the hack work, then turn around and look at the 10 good shows and dismiss them as an anomily in the tv medium.

And going back to violence in media - why is it that the new forms are accused of being the ones that are dangerous? I could read the gory details of the jack the Ripper murders in a book and it would be considered okay, that I won't be damaged or want to commit violence. But if I saw a film of the same murders, then I am damaged and "desensitized"? or if I listen to a song where the lyrics describe killing somebody like JTR, then I am similarly damaged or more prone to commit violence? Because, if the written word is such a stronger medium, shouldn't the concern be that the messages contained therein are the most damageing, the most powerful, the most likely to cause desensitation or grow the desire to do violence?

Anybody care to tackle these arguments? They seemed to get lost in the shuffle.

And AndroMan, I can totally agree with you in the sense that Buffy & Angel are the best things on tv now, the only things I make room to watch. Too bad you took Dark Willow off your avatar...

 

[monster_magnet]

I think there is a huge gap between books and TV. The fundemental interaction between humans and a book is one of 'the taking' of information. The words require an understanding and interaction that TV does not. TV on the other hand is pumped as us at the speed of light, no thought required, an instant information hit whether we like it or not.

BTW, I find Buffy and Angel vacuous and unintelligent - i've tried it and it wasn't for me. Could you define why Buffy/Angel IS good TV and other 'light entertainment' programmes are not? It seems that taste has a great deal to do with whether you like TV or not. If you find most of the programmes uninteresting and unprovoking then it's likely you will choose other mediums as entertainment and prefer them

 

[MrRING]

I don't want to take up too much time with a Buffy/Angel discussion on this thread, but I thought it was bad the first few times I watched it, but since I knew so many people people (mostly strong feminist women, oddly enough) who thought it was great, I kept watching and eventually "got it" - it is the scope of character growth over seasons, clever dialogue, and fun light horror action. I enjoy it.

And I liked what you said about this: "It seems that taste has a great deal to do with whether you like TV or not. If you find most of the programmes uninteresting and unprovoking then it's likely you will choose other mediums as entertainment and prefer them"

Maybe personal taste is a major factor in what people like or deem a worthy medium. And I know TV is often scorned by intellectuals, but I sometimes wonder if it's a class or prestige issue because of that (i.e. I can't admit to liking TV because it would diminish my standing with other intellegent persons who look down upon the medium).

I've always heard that Shakesphere wrote his plays for mass entertainment, and that they were looked down upon by the intellectuals of the time because they were for common people. Is this true, or is even that an urban legend? And if that was indeed the reaction to Shakesphere in his lifetime, will some tv show be as legendary an influence at a future time? Maybe Boomtown, or Buffy even, when removed from modern media predjudices, will be seen as quality examination of the human spirit... (or not, but I'm sure tv will eventually have it's own Shakespheres, Marlows, Dickens, etc)

 

[Anonymous]

I could read the gory details of the jack the Ripper murders in a book and it would be considered okay, that I won't be damaged or want to commit violence. But if I saw a film of the same murders, then I am damaged and "desensitized"? or if I listen to a song where the lyrics describe killing somebody like JTR, then I am similarly damaged or more prone to commit violence? Because, if the written word is such a stronger medium, shouldn't the concern be that the messages contained therein are the most damageing, the most powerful, the most likely to cause desensitation or grow the desire to do violence?

Because TV has a special hold over the idiotic and easily led among us, which other media cannot achieve, precisely because they require brainwork while TV just shows pretty pictures. Bright colours and moving things to amuse the monkeys. The written word makes you think about things, which does not 'desensitize', while repeatedly flashing pictures of the same thing in front of someone will do precisely that.
I have seen some good television, but not for a long time, and it is degenerating daily. All media can be abused- post-modernism in painting, sculpture and literature has shown us that. I do not know how TV can be constructively used (Except possibly for humour, but I'm not sure that counts as 'art'). It damages theimagination and shortens attention spans, trivialises important subjects by reducing them to little more than 'pretty' pictures and bombards people with piss-poor fiction so effectively that many now have trouble differentiating reality from what the TV tells them...
As a tool for brainwashing, it is second to none, but as an artistic media it's doubtful.
If what you say about Shakespeare is true, then maybe people are just getting more stupid these days? I mean, people who are impressed by soap operas or those tedious sci-fi programmes which use a variation on the same plot every week are hardly going to get Shakespeare, are they? Even translated into modern English. People today are little more than automata, with no opinions, no beliefs and no minds. Whether our apparent misuse of what I'm told are the 'wonders' of television is the cause or a symptom, I do not know.

Snobbery? Probably, but I feel it's justified.

 

[MrRING]

Because TV has a special hold over the idiotic and easily led among us, which other media cannot achieve, precisely because they require brainwork while TV just shows pretty pictures. Bright colours and moving things to amuse the monkeys. The written word makes you think about things, which does not 'desensitize', while repeatedly flashing pictures of the same thing in front of someone will do precisely that.

Does this strike anybody as more opinion than fact? Can someone empirically prove that "tv has a special hold over the idiotic and easily led among us" (which again sounds like the rationalizations used on every previous media)? What about Mein Kaumf? Or for that matter, the Bible, or the Koran, or the works of Nietzsche?

If what you say about Shakespeare is true, then maybe people are just getting more stupid these days? I mean, people who are impressed by soap operas or those tedious sci-fi programmes which use a variation on the same plot every week are hardly going to get Shakespeare, are they? Even translated into modern English. People today are little more than automata, with no opinions, no beliefs and no minds. Whether our apparent misuse of what I'm told are the 'wonders' of television is the cause or a symptom, I do not know.

Snobbery? Probably, but I feel it's justified. [/quote]

I do wonder if what I've heard about the appeal of Shakesphere originaly had and if intellectuals of his time held his work in low regard - are there any Bard experts in the house? And I always thought the value of Shakeshpere's plays did not lie in plot (starcrossed lovers? revenge? murder?) but in the rich characterizations.

And I don't know if it really is snobbery, but I think that it might be a misunderstanding of communication medium in a historic context. Plus, it's not so easy to simply access all the sucky written works in the world and realize the small percentage of good works in relation to the tons of badly written material because you can't simply open a book and access hundreds of diverese works like you can with television just by flipping channels (if you have cable that is, which I don't).

And the supposed "tv trance" that viewers go into - is this something that also works when you read, but since literature is now believed to be benificial, no one would think to question or test in the same way?

 

[Anonymous]

And the supposed "tv trance" that viewers go into - is this something that also works when you read, but since literature is now believed to be benificial, no one would think to question or test in the same way?

I don't think its actually possible to read while in a trance...

I have digital TV; almost 900 channels of pure, top grade shit.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think its actually possible to read while in a trance...

This might sound strange, but when I read fiction and really get into it, I 'see' it unfolding, like a movie. I also don't hear people talk to me, I have to be tapped on the shoulder to get 'my head out of the book' as the family refers to it. Quite trance-like.

 

[Anonymous]

I do that, but that's just you diverting attention to your imagination, being creative, isn't it? How can people be creative with soap operas or reality TV...?

I just really like using my brain and find TV extremely insulting as 'it' mostly assumes that I do not have one...

 

[Anonymous]

I do that, but that's just you diverting attention to your imagination, being creative, isn't it? How can people be creative with soap operas or reality TV...?

I don't disagree with you there, especially on those two specific points. TV is a time eater of the worst variety because there's no interaction, there's no use of your imagination, nothing except watching mindlessly.

 

[Anonymous]

And the supposed "tv trance" that viewers go into - is this something that also works when you read, but since literature is now believed to be benificial, no one would think to question or test in the same way?

The 'trancelike' state of book reading is quite qualitively (and I suspect, quantatively) different from the 'trancelike' state of television watching. Real effort has to be put into the simple act of reading even the simplest book. Where's the effort in watching TV? Why it simply pulls you along. And if it doesn't 'grab you' you can always zap to another channel.

 

[Anonymous]

What about Mein Kaumf? Or for that matter, the Bible, or the Koran, or the works of Nietzsche?

Books. The Tyranny of the Printed Word? But, it wasn't Mein Kampf that made Hitler. It was street corner thuggery and oratory, It was shady deals and marching in uniforms and hate. It was Film and live mass spectacle and a pliant and duplicitous media.

The Bible and the Koran? Yes, influential and fixed for all time by the power of the written and printed text, whence comes part of their authority.

Nietzsche? What's he done to piss you off, apart from tear up the rules for confetti?

 

[MrRING]

Does this strike anybody as more opinion than fact? Can someone empirically prove that "tv has a special hold over the idiotic and easily led among us" (which again sounds like the rationalizations used on every previous media)? What about Mein Kaumf? Or for that matter, the Bible, or the Koran, or the works of Nietzsche?

I do wonder if what I've heard about the appeal of Shakesphere originaly had and if intellectuals of his time held his work in low regard - are there any Bard experts in the house? And I always thought the value of Shakeshpere's plays did not lie in plot (starcrossed lovers? revenge? murder?) but in the rich characterizations.

And I don't know if it really is snobbery, but I think that it might be a misunderstanding of communication medium in a historic context. Plus, it's not so easy to simply access all the sucky written works in the world and realize the small percentage of good works in relation to the tons of badly written material because you can't simply open a book and access hundreds of diverese works like you can with television just by flipping channels (if you have cable that is, which I don't).

Everytime I post, some stuff never gets commented on (maybe it's less attackable) , so what about the above points?

 

[MrRING]

Woops, AndroMan, I made my respose after you did yours...

I think Mein Kampf has weilded an influence, but theorists wouldn't blame it for people's thuggish behavior since it's a book - but they would blame a violent tv show or violent lyrics to some poor sod who shoots up his class.

Don't have anything against Nietzsche per se, but I was turned off from him early on as a college professor told us (in a sculpture class) about how one of his best friends committed suicide after reading all of his works, so it always struck me as my predominant memory of his philosophies... and again, because it was literature, his friend would be considered a distrought individual who just snapped, whereas if he had watched a violent tv show, the show would be blaimed for his suicide.

And you agree on the Bible and Koran - so why not ban them the same as violent media and violent lyrics and the whole of television, the rotter of minds?