FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated

tanman writes "CNN reports that a draft FCC report circulating on Capitol Hill 'suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching' The article goes on to quote from studies showing a link between violent imagery and violence in life, and discusses the 'huge grey areas' that could result from ill-defined concepts of excessive violence." Government as Nanny, or cracking down on an excessive entertainment culture? Which side of this do you find yourself on?

Comments

Iraq?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's one way to get the Iraq war out of the media before the next election, ban TV coverage under a "think of the children" violence clause.

Good lord think of the children!

[tomstdenis]

Fuck the children [not literally], I pay for cable not them. If cable/tv/whatever is bad for them, then make a law banning them from watching TV.

Why should I be left with shite "family oriented" programming when I'm the one paying the damn bill?

When 6 yr olds start paying for cable maybe then we should consider what's in their best interests.

Tom

Re:dumb move

[cliffski]

you would do well to read about Bhutan:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,975 769,00.html

This is the last country on earth to have no TV, until 2002. When foreign TV was introduced, complete with violent porgrams, the crime rate in the country went ballistic. The country now has all kinds of social problems that were previously unheard of.
People often claim you cant tell the effects TV has because there is no test case. they are wrong Bhutan was a perfect test case, and a damning one for showing TVs potential negative effects.

"Since the April 2002 crime wave, the national newspaper, Kuensel, has called for the censoring of television (some have even suggested that foreign broadcasters, such as Star TV, be banned altogether). An editorial warns: "We are seeing for the first time broken families, school dropouts and other negative youth crimes. We are beginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world - shoplifting, burglary and violence..."

And where are you free speech ideologues now?

[Concern]

You know, the ones who talk about Fox News' sacred right to broadcast propaganda and call it news?

You know, the sacred right they've had since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the last decade or so?

When you talk about government regulating what they say on TV, some Republicans trot out the constitution like a prayer rug and wave it all around in the air. Their Speech Is Free. How dare the government regulate the media.

(I mean, the government has to decide who can broadcast. And it can only pick a few lucky people, and everyone else can't broadcast on pain of huge penalties.)

(But aside from that, those lucky few should be able to say whatever they want on TV. If you don't like it, print a newspaper.)

The Republicans said, Americans are smart. Americans are free. Americans can handle their own media without getting confused. They don't need anyone to look out for them. They choose what media to watch and what not to watch, and if they happen to see something not so cool when switching channels, oh, they can handle it.

And they are lying through their teeth. They don't really believe a word of that.

Their coming out to censor the media like this is how you can tell.

You're supposed to be able to take care of yourself when consuming the information that powers, oh, this entire democracy. But not be able to handle some violent or sexual imagery.

Megalomaniacal hypocrites.

Re:And where are you free speech ideologues now?

[sp3d2orbit]

You're supposed to be able to take care of yourself when consuming the information that powers, oh, this entire democracy. But not be able to handle some violent or sexual imagery.

To all my Puritan-Facist copatriots: please stop legislating morality.

This whole issue of censorship is a simple problem with a simple solution.

Problem: There is certain material that people don't want themselves and/or their children to see.

The solution is as simple as Slashdot's tagging system. Content producers should be required to tag their programs with descriptive verbs like violence, nudity, etc. They already do this to some extent with the TV-Y, TV-MA rating system.

On my end, my cable receiver should be able to filter out programs with tags I don't like (violence, nudity, gospel). Problem solved.

The whole argument is not really about what should be censored, but who's value system is correct. Some people thing violence is worse than nudity/sex, others aren't offended by mating and think gratuitous violence is repulsive. Everyone's values are different, the problem arises when one group (the Puritan-Facists Fuckheads) tries to impose their morals on the whole populace.

The entire TV and movie rating system is based on the prejudices of these fanatics. It's not OK for a 7 year old to hear "goddamn", but its OK for a 13 year so long as there is no sex; sex and cussing OK for a 17 year old unless, of course, there is too much sex, then you have to be 18, or 21. Oh yeah, violence is OK at any age level.

Its time to move away from such a narrow definition of morality and arbitrary age gateways.

Re:Americans and Sex

[nomadic]

You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?

No offense, but I think that betrays a very eurocentric viewpoint.

What I've found is in most cases where someone categorizes the U.S. as unique, especially in a somewhat negative way, they're ascribing qualities that are actually quite common--just not in Europe.

There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.

Re:They did it before

[BruceCage]

Sexual content and violence should be regulated by the government exactly the same, which is no regulation at all. I'll admit there are a couple of extremes which obviously need to be regulated, but in general this isn't something the government should concern itself with.

This however is an excellent idea, let the users regulate themselves by adding an age flag in the transmission. Regulation such as that suggested by the report only adds another annoyance factor to a medium which is already plagued by them.

Re:dumb move

[Pizaz]

However, causality between the violent content in the programs that were broadcast and real life perpetrated violence is not established. For instance, what if the real destructive factor of TV is a) the social isolation and passive (non interactive) aspects it introduced into their culture that started keeping people at home watching crap instead of going out with their friends and families. b) the blatant materialism worship on tv that makes the viewers feel crappy about being a "have not." c) various other false imagery and notions about what is beautiful, what is desireable, how you should live your life, etc that eroded away in a few short years, hundreds of years of culture. So rather than single out violence in TV, i would simply say TV in general is a source of social and personal rot.

Re:Is it so different?

[mvdwege]

I mean, if you're going to teach the Bible, at least teach what was actually in it, but I can't help but wonder...

The original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So, actually learning -- particularly learning about ethics -- is what damned us all. Curiosity is a bad thing.

You would do well to follow your own advice, and to take this additional advice: read up some basic theology. It was not curiosity that was the reason for the Fall. Knowledge of Good and Evil implies the capability to act on either of them. Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise because they had gained the capability to do Evil, which is something that does not belong in Paradise, which is a realm of absolute Good.

God forbade the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge because it would disturb the balance of Paradise by introducing the knowledge of Evil. The reason for the prohibition was promptly validated by the fact that Adam and Eve started by lying about their act, denying that they had taken from the Tree and trying to place blame on others.

Apart from whether or not you believe this, only a deliberate misreading of the text and the exegesis done on it over the centuries could lead someone to state that mere curiosity led to the Fall. It didn't. Neither did mere disobience.

As for the resolution of this, this is why Christians believe Jesus' death leads to forgiveness for Original Sin: Jesus shows the ultimate Good, sacrificing yourself for others. The core tenet of Christianity is that by following his teachings and if need be his sacrifice, we renounce Evil and commit to Good. I see no refutation of the validity of independent thought in this. In fact, the demand that we consciously choose to do Good over Evil is in fact a validation of the worth of independent thought. One does not get saved by rote regurgitation of dogma; Jesus' attacks on the Farisees and the Judeans make this abundantly clear.

Mart