May 3, 2007
Nick Gillespie takes on the FCC's violence report in the Los Angeles Times.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
The ultimate goal of the report, she argues, is not simply
to empower parents who worry about what's on TV in their house but
to change "the media landscape outside our homes" (emphasis hers)
and to increase "the amount of family-friendly, uplifting
and nonviolent programming being produced."
If I had to watch more of that crap, I'd probably be more inclined
to go out and kick somebody's ass on a daily basis. Only, of
course, to add a little balance to whole issue.
"look for the agency to go after circus clowns any day
now."
Now THAT is a policy I would support :)
Otherwise, I agree with jimmydageek. If I had to watch more of the
garbage that is supposed to be wholesome and fulfilling for me, I'd
be more likely to go out and join a boxing class or take up
hunting.
If Deborah Tate doesn't like seeing her children act out a TMNT
fight scene, maybe she shouldn't let her children watch the show!
(Parenting... what a novel idea!)
Since when are government-sponsored reports based on a
presupposition that parents are inept, incompetent, and incapable
of making their own parenting decisions regarding their own
children?
Finally, it's shameful and offensive that Jonathan Adelstein found
it appropriate to cite the VT incident as justification for writing
a nanny-statist report.
The police are hauling in some clowns
already.
Reading about violence, or watching films or TV shows that contain
it may actually be cathartic. If these guys haven't read any
Gerard Jones, haven't they at least glanced at
Bruno Bettelheim?
Kevin
OMG!!!
Kevrob you ol Cheezland meister!
hier is a picture of said clown!!!
credit to JimmydaGeek for the info!
She says that it's disturbing to see kids act out fights from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but if you think about it kids have been playing cops and robbers for years and i'm sure kids used to play pirates and roman soldier, the list goes on. Needless to say violence is simply a part of human nature, and violent movies and games actually act more as an outlet for violence than a stimulus for it.
VM, There's also this
one, slightly funnier, and almost as disturbing.
She says that it's disturbing to see kids act out fights from
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
I didn't RTFA, but I get the feeling this woman has a couple boys
and really, really wishes she'd had girls.
Ms. Tate is like the mom's I know who prevented their sons from having toys guns or anything that looked like a gun in their house, only to find their sons using their other toys, bananas or anything as guns and playing the same types of shoot-em-up games we all played as kids.
I think the government should do something about all that violence we see on TV. It's terrible. Every day men, women, children getting killed, by car bombs, roadside bombs...Why do we have to watch that?
Perhaps our Warfare State has need to eliminate cathartic violence in order to ensure a future supply of cannon fodder?
The ultimate goal of the report, she argues, is not simply
to empower parents who worry about what's on TV in their
house
So if fifteen percent of parents worry we should "empower" them,
via Congressional mandate, to limit what everyone else in the U.S.
watches.
"Many of us, as parents, have witnessed our children acting out
a fighting scene from an episode of 'Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles'
I used to strap on my plastic six-gun, grab my Mattel lever-action
rifle, and go blow away friends. I have to say, though, that my
death throes were the most realistic on the block.
When I got too old for that I'd take my B-B gun out into the desert
and perforate cacti and Coke cans.
American governance has gone seriously off the rails
There are rails?
The report notes all this but assumes that the low usage rates
of such tools--only about 12 percent of parents report regularly
using the V-chip or cable channel blockers--mean that parents'
wishes are being thwarted rather than fulfilled.
I have this figured out. When Congress says it's "for the
children," they're not thinking of our children, they're looking at
us.
I didn't RTFA, but I get the feeling this woman has a couple
boys and really, really wishes she'd had girls.
Or had girls, and wishes they'd act like little mommies.
I think the government should do something about all that
violence we see on TV. It's terrible. Every day men, women,
children getting killed, by car bombs, roadside bombs...Why do we
have to watch that?
Yeah. Car crashes, convenience store robberies, infants murdered,
teachers doing it with students, SWAT team drug raids, gang
violence. Then there are pro sports dustups and weather disasters.
We have to block TV news!
Then we can "increase 'the amount of
family-friendly, uplifting and nonviolent programming being
produced.'" and show our children the way the world
really is.
I didn't read the whole thing either, but this snippet LarryA
posted has me perplexed:
The report notes all this but assumes that the low usage rates
of such tools--only about 12 percent of parents report regularly
using the V-chip or cable channel blockers--mean that parents'
wishes are being thwarted rather than fulfilled.
So parents too stupid or lazy to use a technology that they asked
for is now somehow an active thwarting of what they still want?
WTF?!
i'm sure kids used to play pirates and roman soldier
But Roman soldiers didn't have cannons - that's not at all a fair
matchup.
Read this article more thoroughly. What struck me even more than
the amount of times "protect the children" or "safeguard our
children" appeared in the text was the fact that the article
supports the suggestion that there is a *possible* _correlation_
between media violence and aggressive cognizance, but no evidence
supporting causation, and greatly conflicting evidence supporting
_correlation_ between media violence and violent behavior.
The specific words used are very important. The evidence presented
does not support their ultimate recommendation for Congress to take
action. Their recommendation seems to be based on their personal
beliefs on the issue. They present what is essentially neutral
evidence on the issue but take a side in the end anyway.
Turtles are indeed reptiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle
Although there's a line from an old Ninja Turtles cartoon episode
to the contrary. One of the Turtles is crossing the street while
"in disguise" (how come wearing a trenchcoat and hat was supposedly
able to conceal green skin and no shoes?), when Shredder and goons
pull up quickly and cut him off. The Turtle yells, "Hey,
pedestrians have the right of way!" and Shredder answers
"Pedestrians, yes; amphibians, no!"
Perhaps we need legislation to assure us that all TV programming is
scientifically accurate. Hmm, I wonder why congressmembers never
make noise about that issue?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245