Remote Controlled: Part Three

Children and T.V.<BR>

By Leonard Jason

On the other hand, lawmakers must face an increasingly vocal constituency, one filled with parents weary from battling television's crude messages and images. Additionally, many government leaders find it hard to ignore the possibility that violent programs may breed a violent society. The current TV violence debate comes at a time when crime--especially youth crime--seems epidemic. According to a recent Justice Department survey, crime America is now at its most violent point in 20 years. For youth, the picture is particularly grim. A few statistics tell the story:

• The rate of 15-year-old males arrested for murder increased 207% between 1985 and 1993.
• More than 2,900 children and youth between the ages of 10 and 19 were murdered with a firearm in 1993--an average of more than eight young people a day.
• Between 1984 and 1993, juvenile arrests for weapons violations increased 125%.
• Juveniles accounted for 19% of all violent crimes arrests in 1994.5

It would be naive and misleading to directly associate this increase in juvenile crime with televised violence. At the very least, though, these figures point to the volatile climate in which the TV violence debate is being conducted. As for more direct examples, there have been a few very high-profile copy-cat incidents that do seem to link televised violence with real-life, imitated violence. In 1977 a 15-year-old boy killed his elderly next door neighbor during a bungled burglary attempt, apparently as a conditioned response to what he repeatedly saw on shows like "Baretta," "Kojak," and "Starsky and Hutch." The resulting trial, known as the Zamora trial, was unprecedented in the fact that television was actually named as an "accessory to the crime." Similar cases have been documented. In 1974, a nine-year-old girl was attacked and raped on the beach by four teenagers in a near direct copy of a scene from the TV-aired movie Born Innocent. And in 1993 a five-year-old boy set fire to his two-year-old sister. The mother claims her son got the idea from watching MTV's paean to teenage dysfunctionality, "Beavis and Butt-head." Though many claim such linkages are sensational and circumstantial, these and other incidents continue to fuel a national debate on the subject of violence on television.

Of course, it is hardly fair to tag TV as the primary source of youth recklessness and lawlessness. Child abuse and neglect, poverty, the dissolution of the family, and educational issues certainly play a more direct role in adversely influencing a child's life. As for the above copy-cat incidents, television has never been implicated on legal grounds for inciting viewers to violent action. According to the arguments, the cited shows and movies did not purposefully invite imitation. Children, so the argument goes, should simply "know better" than to follow in Kojak's foolish footsteps, and if they are too young in age to make such discernment, their parents should not let them watch such shows in the first place.

Fair enough. Yet television cannot altogether escape responsibility. The primary age group that is killing and being killed today are major consumers of a medium that very attractively packages violence as an effective solution for problem solving. When a character is insulted, his powerful right hook sends the offender sailing across the bar counter. With a POW! the problem is solved. Or when a character fears an ugly secret is headed for broad light, he chooses to "silence" a possible informant rather than come clean with the truth. With a BANG! the problem is solved. The issue of violent problem solving becomes particularly frustrating when TV heroes resort to violence to save the day. This common plot device has an unintentionally amusing twist on "The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers." In a public service announcement that follows every show, the program's actors soberly advise kids not to use violence to solve their problems. Yet for the preceding 30 minutes the program has been showcasing witty, friendly, good looking teenagers triumph on the side of good with one well-placed kick or the graceful swoop of a laser sword. Which approach to life's troubles does the young viewer choose? Which approach seems more fun?