Cable TV Ruins Bhutan

Christ-on-a-bike writes "This article in The Guardian discusses the negative impact of TV on the population of Bhutan. It has only been legal there for four years. Violence, crime and drug use are on the up. Was this inevitable, and what does it say about the influence of TV on Western cultures?" Our previous story about Bhutan talks about the radical impact of television, but without as much emphasis on the darker side.

Comments

programming, not television

[73939133]

Seems to me that the problem is the programming, not television itself. Maybe instead of opening up television to everything, the country could have opened up selectively: educational programming, non-violent programming, etc.

If the US can prohibit nudity and profanity on television, it seems pretty reasonable that other countries might prohibit violence, greed, commercialism and consumerism, etc.

Some of the Best Quotes...

[Michael's a Jerk!]

"We cannot blame the schools alone for the dismal decline in SAT verbal scores. When our kids come home from school, do they pick up a book or do they sit glued to the tube, watching music videos? Parents, don't make the mistake of thinking your kid only learns between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m."--former president George Bush

If you came and found a strange man teaching your kids to punch each other, or trying to sell them all kinds of products, you'd kick him right out of your house, but here you are; you come in and the TV is on, and you don't think twice about it."--Jerome Singer

"Television is basically teaching whether you want it or not."--Jim Henson, Muppets creator

Newsflash: we do what we see

[WIAKywbfatw]

Violence, crime and drug use are on the up. Was this inevitable, and what does it say about the influence of TV on Western cultures?

It says what we've always known: that behaviour is heavily influenced by observation. Put a kid in an environment where everyone throws their rubbish in the bin and he'll do the same. Put the same kid in an environment where everyone throws stones at people with red hair and he'll do that too.

Bombard a kid 24/7 with images of guns, explosions and murders left, right and centre and he'll want to join in the action. We learn by repeating what we've seen so it's a natural reaction. Why expect a kid that watches violent cop show after violent cop show to be a perfect angel?

Re:Newsflash: we do what we see

[ch-chuck]

Isn't there more to it than that? Most all entertainment involves some kind of story and plot - what if the show with everyone throwing stones at people with red hair ends up with the stone throwers arrested and locked up for a year? Or better yet, the redheads go get bigger stones, clobber the bad guys, then put all their rubbish in the bin? That is to say, it's not just the act, but the moral consequences of it.

I'm sure there were Bhutanese myths, stories or kabuki theatre with very violent scenes. Even the bible beaters complaining about trash and filth in modern media have to admit the old testament has some pretty gory stuff ;)) (I'm thinking of the fat king who came out of the toilet and had a sword shoved into his belly so far the fat covered up the handle).

Hard to call

[The Bungi]

It's easy to dismiss things like these with a "oh, that's impossible", but it's really hard to tell what type of impact this sort of culture shock will have on an isolated society. Take for example this part of the article:

Every week, the letters page carries columns of worried correspondence: "Dear Editor, TV is very bad for our country... it controls our minds... and makes [us] crazy. The enemy is right here with us in our own living room. People behave like the actors, and are now anxious, greedy and discontent."

Is this stupid? Funny? Bizarre? Remember that Bhutan does not follow the same societal traits we are accustomed to in the west. I'd be inclined to see this report in a different light for just that reason.

Reminds me of Fiji, 1995

[gmajor]

In Fiji, a big woman was considered to be beautiful. But after tv was introduced in 1995, Fiji saw a sharp rise in anorexia among girls.

But surely there must be more beneath the surface than blaming our beloved television? TV seems too simplistic of a cause and too easy of a scapegoat, much like rock music/Doom is blamed for corrupting our youth.

Fiji story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/347637.stm

Re:Oh, give me a break

[DrStubbs]

How was this modded insightful? The "it's entertainment" argument, while arguably valid in most contexts, contributes nothing to the debate on how television affects society's Gestalt, Zeitgeist, or any other fancy German terms referring to sweeping changes in the whole.

The road to television in Western society was an evolutionary process, and people's mechanisms for dealing with the new media likewise had a chance to incrementally develop. Not only that, but here in the 21st century, we've been part of a television-saturated culture for our entire lives and have reasonably developed very personal, robust and informed means of coping (e.g. media cynicism). So our relationship with TV is quite exceptional and particular to ourselves, and is certainly not a good barometer of the medium's "innate" effect on an arbitrary civilization.

Given that, it very possible that TV's influence on the human psyche is an inherently destructive thing, and that we have simply developed defenses strong enough to glean the good from it.

no tv when i was a kid

[pioneer]

for about four years my parents unplugged the TV. that was basically 8th grade through most of junior year of high school. and to be quite frank those are still my most productive years. i wrote more code and learned more outside of school during those years than i have learned on my own for the last 6... crazy. and i'll add one more thing, the thing that brought my incredible self learning to end was first college applications and then college when i was forced to sit down and be taught rather than exploring and teaching myself...

now i certainly played video games during that period so i wasn't completely immune to imitated violence completely, but i certainly kept out of trouble ...

TV rots the mind... specially in the crucial early years... if your typical day is get home watch 2-4 hours of TV than you are falling behind your potential...

crazy thing is now i use the internet like the TV. i have my "channels" (websites) that i check often, don't really stray that far. and i check them constantly even if nothing has changed. i waste so much time with the internet its stupid. don't get me wrong some things i do are impossible without the internet and when i do use it to research its fantastic...

so i think what's happened to TV will happen to the internet... most content in the hands of a few corporates and nothing really "on" even though we have tons of channels

Not surprised

[emaveneau]

There have been the hundreds of studies (laboratory experiments, field experiments, correlation surveys, longitudinal panel studies) all showing a link with viewed violence and violent tendencies.

Bhutan's experience has already been documented in studies in Canada and South Africa, showing that before TV and post exposure to one channel or multiple channels of TV the children in schools became more violent and the increase was in response to the dose (number of channels). (for notes see the book quoted below).

Whenever I hear "there is no proven link" I am always shocked by the extreme ignorance. Who said "the Truth is not as important as repetition"? Was it Goebbels or Stalin? Either way here are some quotes from the book, "Children & Television" 2nd edition, Barrie Gunter & Jill McAleer; Routledge. Chapter 7 pages 92,93...

Exhaustive reviews of the scientific literature on the relationships between television depictions of violence and the aggressive behaviour of viewers have consistently documented how exposure to such content is linked to a likelihood of enhanced aggressiveness among children and adolescents.

Major reports from leading public health agencies in the United States, the 1972 Surgeons General's report and the 1982 National Institute of Mental Health review, concluded that television played a significant part in the lives of young people and had a general potential to influence their aggressive behaviour. The Surgeon General's report presented findings from a number of original and specially commissioned studies of children and adolescents, which utilized various research methodologies. The overall conclusion of the body of investigation was that regular exposure to television violence is a causal agent underpinning the aggressive dispositions of the young, and may be especially significant among children and teenagers who already exhibit aggressive personalities.

... During the 1990s, further reports from the Centers for Disease Control, National Academy of Sciences and the American Psychological Association have provided further support for the conclusion that the mass media contribute to aggressive attitudes and behaviour.

The American Psychological Association established a Commission on Youth and Violence to examine the literature on the causes and prevention of violence. This commission concluded that American children are exposed to high levels of violence on television, and that heavy viewers of this violence demonstrate increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour.

... A comprehensive review of hundreds of experimental and longitudinal studies supported the position that viewing violence on television is related to aggressive behaviour (for foot notes and bibliography see the actual book).

Re:Oh, give me a break

[miu]

Some of us are quite capable of seperating reality from televised entertainment programs.

That was not his point. The point was that most people are not as self aware as they think they are. Children especially are often unaware of their motivations or reasons for their actions, but most people who don't spend much time in introspection are subject to not understanding or recognizing their own behaviour.

Re:Frontline ran a story about this a while back

[instinctdesign]

This was recently reran on my local station, and to be honest, I found it nearly painful to watch. As an individual who finds little redeeming qualities in TV beyond PBS, it was quite sad to see such a community that was doing quite well without the negative influences suddenly have to face a new reality. Although I feel TV has its potential, particularly in the realm of education (hence my favor for PBS) or as an avenue to facilitate political or social change, exporting WWE (or whatever its called now) to the world is hardly the most beneficial aspect of our increasingly interconnected world.

Also, here is the link, well, linked: Frontline: World Also, it has the actual video on the site, as most recent Frontline episodes are, and is worth watching.

Also, for those who have never seen Frontline, or Frontline: World for that matter, I highly recommend it as one of the last bastions of extremely high quality programming, particularly in the realm of journalism which has been so much under assault by the need to have a story make money rather than inform.

Re:Learining by example

[tigertigr]

Reminds me of in the book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell talks about how suicides increased in Micronesia after reports of suicides started appearing in the papers. He argues that the idea of offing yourself just started spreading after more people "discovered" it and soon more and more started doing it.

Re:Rots the Mind?

[danila]

You are wrong. It's not the programming that is at fault, it is the medium. The pattern of sitting for 6 hours in front of the screen (TV or PC) and passively consuming content.

Watching Animal Planet is only marginally better than watching MTV. It's the pattern that matters. If you use a particular TV channel once to watch one program about a specific subject you are interested in, that is a good thing, be it Discovery, Fox or BBC. If you watch the same programs for hours every day, you are not learning anything, you are just a TV (Internet) junkie, admit it.

And the little interactivity that is present on the Internet doesn't matter that much. You could call to TV studio for ages and tell your opinion, or vote on some poll, or ask a question... Whatever. If you wrote an essay after reading some site (or watching TV), discussed it with your professor (teacher, parents, etc.), went to the library and got some books on this topic, that would mean your are actively learning. If not, then you are still just an information junkie using your TV and PC in absolutely the same way.

The good thing about TV is that you can abandon it altogether and escape its "evils". That's what I did, I don't have it, I don't watch it => good thing. The problem is that I can't do the same thing with computer, but having Internet access it's too easy to fall prey to TV-like content. :(