An Issue of Television Violance

Ever since television stations made their debut in the 1920's, there have been different types of genres and tv shows that have aired on television. Some of these genres and tv shows include fantasy, science-fiction, action, sitcoms, soap operas, cartoons, and the news. Of course, a lot of these genres and shows include violence, such as a shows in which a superhero defeats the villain and the news reporting a mass shooting. Violence on television has been a controversial subject for quite some time now. Violence on television has adverse effects on people, especially children. A negative effect of violence on television is that it desensitizes not only children to violence but people in general. As humans, we have a natural dislike towards violence.

On our pastimes.com, According to a 2007 study conducted by the Association for Psychological Science, Most people have an automatic aversive emotional response to scenes of violence, often assessed by changes in heart rate and skin conductance. Such negative emotional responses help inhibit aggressive behavior and inspire helping behavior. But the study went on to state that people exposed to violent television showed reduce skin conductance and heart rate reactivity when facing real-life violence. Adding on to this point, livestrong.com states that violence on television also ...becomes enjoyable and does not result in the anxious arousal that would be expected from seeing such imagery. People think a reason why violence on television is good because it teaches kids about the consequences of violence. According to pastimes.com, Jib Fowles, an author who wrote a book touting the benefits of TV violence, believes most television shows teach children that good will prevail over evil and crime doesn't pay. If children know about prison and vengeance and fines and all the negative after effects of violent acts they are less likely, according to Fowles, to commit those same violent acts in real life. The problem with this is that after watching violence on television, what if the children learn about the consequences of violence, but it doesn't stop them from becoming violent? According to apa.org, ... Huesmann and Eron found that the ones who'd watched a lot of TV violence when they were eight years old were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults. There are more appropriate ways for children to learn about the consequences of violence that could also be more effective than watching violence on television.

In addition to the point made previously, people think violence on television can be beneficial because it serves as a socially acceptable way to relieve anger and hostility. According to latimes.com, Jib Fowles said, Viewers use television content and, in particular, television violence, to help them manage their own emotions. So I see television's violent content as therapeutic for the population. Watching television violence could be a way to relieve anger and hostility, but it could also be a factor to why children acquire an aggressive behavior or harmful ways. According to apa.org, Research by psychologists L. Rowell Huesmann, Leonard Eron and others starting in the 1980s found that children who watched many hours of violence on television when they were in elementary school tended to show higher levels of aggressive behavior when they became teenagers. If anyone needs to relieve anger and hostility, they could talk to a psychologist, and they could learn how to manage their anger. Because of its negative effects, violence on television, and media, in general, should be regulated. How should it be controlled? Well, in households, parents should have power on what their children watch on television.

They could decide on things like what their children watch and how much they watch television and make a verbal agreement on it. If they want to make sure their kids have no access to violence on television, there are ways to set parental controls to help prevent it. You can choose what can be restricted, and some parental controls require a code to be able to watch whatever program that is restricted. If more violence in the real world starts to link to possible influence from violence in the media, the government should try to regulate the amount and type of violence it shows. An example of a violent act that could be linked to influence from violence in the media is the Columbine shooting. The Columbine Shooting was an incident in which before two teenagers killed themselves, shot and killed 13 peers, including a teacher, and hurt 21 others. Although analysts concluded that the two teenagers were mentally ill, Other analysts have argued that a possible causal factor may relate to the young killers' obsessions with violent imagery in video games and movies that led them to depersonalize their victims, according to psychiatrictimes.com.

Since the Columbine shooting took place in 1999, there has been a lot of acts of violence, including some that could have been influenced by violence in media. Regulating violence in media won't stop all acts of violence, but it could help prevent the ones that are influenced by it. In conclusion, looking at the evidence that is in favor of and against the violence of television, it has adverse effects on people, and it should somehow be regulated, whether it's regulated within a household or by the government. It is proven that violence on television has a negative on impact because it desensitizes people to violence, it increases the chances of people acting out in violent ways, and it could be a factor to why children acquire an aggressive behavior. Violence on television should be regulated to help prevent any of those things from happening.

Although people find reasons why it has a positive effect on us, such as teaching kids about consequences and it helping relieve anger, there are different and more efficient ways to do those things.

Cite this page