Basic HTML Version
january,
1970
they re::present three basic myths of
television.
Debunking the Myths
Myth
#
1:
That researcb proves the
present viewing habits of children and
adolescents are not harmful to their de–
velopment.
Contributing to this myth are men of
considerable stature. lndeed, widely rec–
ognized authorities have fostered this
belief. A typical exarnple is a statement
by Dr. Wilber Schramm, one of the
most highly regarded experts in the
field. He is Professor of Commu–
nications and Journalism and Director
of the Institute for Communication Re–
search at Stanford University. Dis–
cussing TV research, he recently wrote
in a booklet entitled
Children and Tele–
vision,
" I can tell you,
as a re.rearch
.rcholar,
that not one of these studies has
been able to show much effect. The lat–
est and largest, the British study of tele–
vision and children, has just been com–
pleted; and the conclusion is that tele–
vision, so far as results show, is, of it–
self, neither very good nor very bad in
changing the development of child ren."
Myth
#
1 Debunked:
As is thc case
with other controversia! issues such as
the dangers of cigarettes, marijuana,
or cholesterol, there are many who
refuse to accept any cause-and-cffect
relationship between the endless hours
of tclevision viewing and the fright–
ening deterioration in juvenile behavior.
They grasp at any straw which appcars
to support their position. This is the
case here.
The foregoing statement by Dr.
Schramm is always quoted as if it vindi–
cated television from any harmful
influence.
Y
el, he did11't
.ray
that.
What
he did say was that studies showed TV
to be "neither very good nor very bad"
in its effect on children.
Now by any logic tbis can only mean
that TV
i.r to .rome extenl bad.
Just what
very
bad might mean is a moot question.
But if it's only slightly
bad,
is that ac–
ceptable? Is that an endorsement? Is
that grounds for daiming no harm ?
Certainly not!
Let's pose the identical situation in a
different context. What if it were a
medi cine or food he was discussing,
something you were allowing your child
The
PLAIN TRUTH
to eat - then what would your reaction
be? Would you give him medicine or a
meal that was bad for him even if it was
only
.rlightly
bad? Nonsense! And,
don't think for a minute that what a
youngster takes into his mind is less im–
portant than what goes into his blood–
stream. No. Not by any stretch of the
imagination. What enters his mind ei–
ther builds or destroys character and
that is really what is at issue here. We're
concerned with the
ed11cational impact
of TV.
But anotber very important question
which must be considered in evaluating
Dr. Schramm's statement is whether it
is valid to judge the effects of American
TV on the basis of British research
findings? The answer has to be
no
for
severa[ reasons. First, television cov–
erage is by no means as universal in
Britain. Certainly nothing like 95% of
Britisb bornes are equipped with TV.
Therefore, they have not begun to reach
the saturation that has occurred in the
U. S.
Second, British tclevision is largely
state owned and controlled. There is
no proliferation of channels, and con–
sequently programming is not influenced
by commercial competition which de–
pends so heavily on the portrayal of
violence for "crowd-catching," ratings,
and profits.
Third, British TV is forbidden to
show acts of brutality and violence of
the kind that are commonplace on U. S.
television. For thi s reason, children in
Britain have not had comparable ex–
posure to such a glut of mayhem.
And, fourth, British TV broadcasts
only during limited hours and is there–
fore not available to children 24 hours a
day as in the U. S. On this basis alone,
the exposure is bound to be significantly
less.
Obviously the research data are not
comparable and should not have been
thrown together. But such was the case,
and many have been misled whi le the
myth is perpetuated.
No, it would require sorne form of
self-delusion or loss of contact with
reality to refuse to recognize the harm
which has accrued to this TV-saturated
generation. As Walter Lippmann has
written, "A continua! exposure of a
generation to tbe commercial ex-
19
ploitation of the enjoyment of violence
and cruelty is one way to corrode the
foundations of a civilized society" (in
Schlesingcr,
Violence: America in the
Sixtie.r,
p.
60).
That corrosion has bap–
pened! Our first TV-educated gencr–
ation is now manning the barricades on
collcge campuses across the land!
But lct the National Commission on
the Causes and Prevention of Violence
!ay
Al)th
=::
1
to rest once and for all.
On September
23, 1969,
that group,
which was impaneled by former Presi–
dent Johnson, issued its long-awaited
and exhaustive report. Remember now,
the sources of information upon which
the Commission based its conclusions
were all available research studies and
expert testimony presented by both sides
in the controversy. Here is what the re–
port said in part. "The preponderance
of available research evidence strongly
suggests ... that \'ÍOlence in television
programs
can and doe.r
have advcrse
effects upon audiences -
parliCII/ariJ
child a11dience.r.
"Television," the Commission con–
tinuéd, "enters powerfully into thc
learning process of children and teaches
them a set of moral and social values
about violence which are inconsistent
with the standards of a civilized
society ..." That's pretty straightfor–
ward and what it clearly means is
that present programming policies and
viewing habits
are harmf¡¡/
-
that
serious moral and social damage is
being done
Now -
and that we prob–
ably should have changed those prac–
tices
YESTEROA
Y!
Myth
#
2:
That by viewing violent
and aggressive behavior on television, a
child's own aggressive tendencies and
impulses are "drained off" or satisfied
vicariously with the result that he then
is less likely to "act out" his belligerent
feclings in real life.
Haven't you heard that claim madc
over and over aga in ? Well, this myth is
based upon an application of the
Freudian psychoanalytic theory of "ca–
tharsis." The underlying belief is that
unless aggression is gotten out of one's
system by sorne means, it will suppo–
sedly be stored up only to come out
later in intolerant attitudes, hatreds, prej–
udices, and hostile behaviors. Furthcr–
more, it is claimed, failure to rclease