Democracy has become the cry to herald freedom and liberty to societies all over the globe in the twenty first century. The continuous debate that embroils censorship, in what the public can and cannot view on television is an issue of civil liberties and the placement of responsibility. Should the government be responsible for what should and should not be aired on TV, or should the public be responsible for their viewing behaviour? Thus one must ask, that which results from such a question, where does the power lay, and what is the power relationship between those that produce television programs and those that view the programs? We could argue the point of Paolo Freire (1972) in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that "love is an act of courage, not of fear, love is commitment to other men". But love is not in the hearts or minds of the program creators, economic rationalism and the search for greater profits are. We cannot depend on the loving temperament of corporations towards fellow humans. Thus the debate continues and will not dissipate, for our civil liberties are at stake.
In the United States high impact programs wash and wane like yearly tides, or changing seasons (Hickey, 2004). During the Nielsen ratings period, shock-and-awe news stories and action drama stories are aired on TV, in order to boost ratings for those periods (Hickey, 2004). The main aim for the alteration of programming is to increase profits, by demonstrating to the advertising companies and those wishing to sell products that the viewing market share is worth investing in (Hickey, 2004). With the use of alarmist, hair-raising news stories, more people tune in to that television station, whilst promoting fear and paranoia in the society (Hickey, 2004). With the introduction of a new rating system that measures a sample of people's viewing behaviour all year round, that the tidal effect in the programming decision will be eliminated, but other propose that the shock-and-awe will persist all year round (Hickey, 2004). The new streamlined people meter, monitors electronically every day all year, the viewing habits of people in the sample (Hickey, 2004). Combined with accurate demographic data, such as age, income, religion, sex orientation, gender, race, etc. a TV producer may tailor the programs of specific demographics (Hickey, 2004). Having the information and technology like this, gives the illusion of democracy, where the majority get what they want.
How can Hickey (2004) say that television, shock-and-awe programs, and using alarmist, hair-raising news stories create fear in people?
People are impressionable, and psychologically vulnerable to what they see on TV. The effect of TV can be seen in a host of psychological studies, researching the effect that violent television programs have on people. The most vulnerable to the effect of TV viewing are the young. Long-term affects of viewing violent TV programs impact on the sociability and how often people are in trouble with the law throughout their life (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003). The effects of TV violence have an affect on memory, modelling, and the building of cognitive schemas, which we will look closely at. Modelling involves the copying the behaviour from others. Schemas refer to the frameworks of attitude, behaviour, and judgment making based on events or observations of past experiences, and is argued to help form personality (Cervone, 2004). Memory and schemas are closely linked, but schemas are subconscious mechanisms that guide our behaviour.In the United States high impact programs wash and wane like yearly tides, or changing seasons (Hickey, 2004). During the Nielsen ratings period, shock-and-awe news stories and action drama stories are aired on TV, in order to boost ratings for those periods (Hickey, 2004). The main aim for the alteration of programming is to increase profits, by demonstrating to the advertising companies and those wishing to sell products that the viewing market share is worth investing in (Hickey, 2004). With the use of alarmist, hair-raising news stories, more people tune in to that television station, whilst promoting fear and paranoia in the society (Hickey, 2004). With the introduction of a new rating system that measures a sample of people's viewing behaviour all year round, that the tidal effect in the programming decision will be eliminated, but other propose that the shock-and-awe will persist all year round (Hickey, 2004). The new streamlined people meter, monitors electronically every day all year, the viewing habits of people in the sample (Hickey, 2004). Combined with accurate demographic data, such as age, income, religion, sex orientation, gender, race, etc. a TV producer may tailor the programs of specific demographics (Hickey, 2004). Having the information and technology like this, gives the illusion of democracy, where the majority get what they want.
How can Hickey (2004) say that television, shock-and-awe programs, and using alarmist, hair-raising news stories create fear in people?
A survey was conducted in pre-schools to measure the attitudes of the students (Comstock and Strasburger, 1990). One group of children were shown a video of 2 children, "Rocky" and " Johnny". With one group the children viewed a movie where Johnny was playing with a toy, and Rocky came up and took the toy from Johnny after a small scuffle. In the second group the video's scenario was altered, Rocky tried to take Johnny's toy, but Johnny fought back, thus keeping the toy. The children were then asked which character do they admire the most, Johnny or Rocky. The surveys between the two groups produced similar results. The children in the pre-schools admired and expressed the desire to emulate the behaviour of the aggressor, "Rocky" (Comstock and Strasburger, 1990). The statistical results showed that 60% wanted to emulate Rocky when he got the toy, and 20% wanted to be Johnny when he thrashed Rocky (Comstock & Strasburger, 1990). Also children that identify with an aggressive TV character predict subsequent aggression, in both males and females (N=450, number of participants in the study) (Comstock and Strasburger, 1990). Modeling behaviour of other depends on more than just stating ones attitudes, behaviour must be observed and measured. A study that Murray (no date) conducted involved a similar process, where children viewed low-level aggression on TV (Superman and Batman cartoons), comparing the behaviour with children that watched a pro-social TV show (Mister Roger's Neighborhood). The effects of watching the differences in children's behaviour after watching the shows indicated a significant difference between the groups (Murray, no date). Results showed a significant difference, antisocial behaviour (pushing, arguing, breaking toys) increased when watching the cartoons (Murray, no date). Another group of preschool children given a diet of pro-social TV viewing (Mister Roger’s Neighborhood) displayed less aggression, "more cooperative and more willing to share with other children" (Murray, no date).
One could argue that psychological differences between children and adults are vastly different. That adults have a capacity not to be influenced by what they view on television. DR Susan Villani was interviewed on Lateline in 2001, she describes an MTV experiment in a jail, which showed that violent acts decreased when the inmates were deprived from watching MTV and then increased again when MTV was reintroduced. Dr. Villani emphatically stated that violent TV shows do increase violent behaviour, and that with the evidence of other studies, there is a causal link. Music Television affects behaviour by increasing the heartbeat with the effective use of drums combined with fast camera cuts from scene to scene, also in some songs the lyrics can be interpreted to give a violent message (Comstock & Strasburger, 1990). Likewise as longitudinal study is currently being conducted on St. Helena, an island in the South Atlantic 3,200km of the cost of South America with a population of 5,500, being without TV until March 1995 (Kruszelnicki, 1998). Before TV came to the island it had the lowest incidences of behavioural problems in the world, besides Japan. "Problems in preschool children [increased], problems such as soiling or wetting their clothing, poor concentration, temper tantrums, lack of sociability with their peers, and fighting or destructive behaviour. It seems as though there has been an increase in behavioural problems, beginning with the arrival of television" (Kruszelnicki, 1998).
Being a recipient of values, delivered via television shows and news broadcasts, effects humans to be desensitised to events in real life. This has a positive and a negative affect on humans. A study showed that children that watch medium to high level violence a lot, are more likely to ignore others in the playground inflicting violence on other children (Comstock & Strasburger, 1990). Desensitization has a great implication, because of the social apathy toward intentional harm of others and ignoring the pleas of those in need of help. The positive aspect of desensitisation (as stated by a fellow class mate in tutorial) is that people learn from TV that differences in people should not be feared. These differences include: sexual orientation, religious beliefs, race, and other differences that separate members of society. By viewing TV shows that humanise those that pose an illusionary threat to others promotes understanding between people.
Emotional knowledge manifests as habitual responses to situations and/or events that are stable structural characteristics of personality and can be viewed as learnt frameworks of behaviour (Cervone, 2004). Cervone (2004) proposes that knowledge is organized into schemata that help short cut the cognitive appraisal of every event individuals encounter. Self-schema is the organization of the beliefs that we hold about ourselves, and shape the appraisals made to all types of events (Cervone, 2004). Situational variables in the environment influences the individuals cognition and behaviour, likewise the individual shapes the environment partly by his/her own actions (Cervone, 2004). The individual's current emotional state or mood impacts upon other individuals, thus altering their responses to that individual entering the social interaction (Cervone, 2004). It is emotional knowledge that is influenced by watching maladaptive lessons from television programs, and then incorporated into our schemata over time, and thus becomes part of our personality (Cervone, 2004). Schemas are so closely linked to memory and the organization of memory in the brain, that violent TV programs also affect encoding and retrieval. Bushman (1998) found that people watching violent TV shows experience a drastically impaired memory and recall for TV commercials, that were imbedded in the ad breaks during the TV show. The same phenomenon occurs when watching news programs. After watching the news on TV, the recall of news articles, 5 minutes after the end of the program is also drastically impaired.
Each person has a unique view of the world and how he or she interprets meaning from what they experience. The meanings derived from all manner of texts are subject to that persons own subject position. Subject position is their own subjective view on the world, which is driven by the experiences of the past. The reception of material (i.e. programs) with the meanings derived from that medium (i.e. Television) can be miss-interpreted by the consumer (Real, 1996). The same TV program may mean different things to different people depending on: culture, gender, race, religion, and where that person lives (Real, 1996). No person enters a situation void of past experiences, in tern no person lives in a social vacuum, every thing our sensory perceptions perceive is filtered and interpreted (Real, 1996; Cervone, 2004) according to our schemas and current emotional state (Cervone, 2004). Thus we can see that even the choices that we make in what TV program to watch is in a way guided by the types of TV programs we watched in the past. Also the types of shows we watch are part of our social capital that helps to re-enforce our social identity.
Establishing that Television has an effect on people has been argued by numerous studies, where only some have been mentioned here. But whose responsibility is it to protect those that are impressionable or vulnerable to the harmfully effects of television? There are three main groups that have the power to improve the safety of TV; The government, The Television companies, and the individuals in society (the consumers of TV). This is the ground where freedom, civil liberties, and democracy stand. Should a government that acts for the best interests for the society violate these rights? Are the people to naive to know what is best for them? It is the government's responsibility to protect the citizens that it governs, including what can and cannot be published. This responsibility is distributed in the Australian law by a State responsibility and a Federal responsibility (Jackson, 2001). The State responsibility is to classify and if need be to censor programs, produced in that state (Jackson, 2001). The Federal is responsibility to classify and censor all imported texts into Australia (Jackson, 2001).
It is inferred that approximately 73% of all children view violence on TV once a week, and 47% of all children are not limited or monitored by their parents, and by the age of ten or older 92% of children watch violent TV weekly (N=922) (Cheng, Brenner, Wright, Sachs, Moyer, & Rao, (2004). Cheng, et al. (2004) also stated that it has become the responsibility of therapists to educate parents in America, regarding TV viewing habits of the family. The research conducted by Cheng, et al. (2004) emphasized the importance of governmental intervention of what is aired on free to air TV. In 1990 the Children’s Television Act was introduced to protect children viewing sex, violence or the two combined, but as Whitehead (1993) announced, it has not yet been fully implemented or enforced. As the majority of films are imported into Australia, the Federal Government censorship is incorporated into the Customs Act of 1917, it is only recently that censorship was placed under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act of 1995 and then amended in 2001 (Jackson, 2001). Each State Government has a similar Acts to follow, for instance, New South Wales has the Classification of Publications, Films and Computer Games Act (Jackson, 2001). With respect to the Federal Government policy, a board of reviewers are responsible for classification:
2.5 The need for consultative and information processes.
"The Film Censorship Board, the classification officers who classify publications and the Film and Literature Board of Review represent the community. Their judgments are supposed to reflect the community's views. There should, therefore, be a strong emphasis on public participation and consultation in the Boards' work."
(FILM AND LITERATURE CENSORSHIP PROCEDURE Report No 55; The Australian Law Reform Commission 2005)
Imbedded within this Government policy of procedure is the illusion of democracy. The wording of section 2.5 of the Film and Literature Censorship Procedure Report No 55, I find most intriguing. As the boards are “supposed to reflect the community's views and should. [place] emphasis on public participation and consultation (The Australian Law Reform Commission 2005). This does not ensure a democratic process, but instead reacts to those with the loudest voice, whether they are part of the majority, or a minority viewpoint. Thus without complaints from the public, differing texts may enter the country without due process, and programs that could be of benefit to the community, be banned. This was well demonstrated in Sydney recently where a bookshop was selling books promoting terrorism illustrating how to be affective in suicide bombing (reported by Fair Fax Digital 2005. Appendix A).
Whose responsibility is it to permit what is to be aired on free-to-air TV in Australia, and where does the responsibility lay? If a program is produced in one state and imported to another state with different ethical standards, is this a Federal issue or can one State ban a product from another State?
It was proposed in 1961 that television was a "waist land" where homogeneity between programs within all television stations were the norm (Taylor, 2003). Taylor (2003) tried to measure the quality of what television has to offer, with respect to the diversity of programming styles. Taylor (2003) now regards the current heterogeneity of programs on television as a "lush rain forest", full of life and diversity. The diversity of program genres and ideals within genres, creates a fragmenting of social values that often clash with Policymakers and the public, that assign social values to each genre and ideal (Taylor, 2003). Taylor (2003) questions whether this is a good thing, when public-affairs programs have different spins on the same stories, but Taylor leaves this question up to the individual. Taylor (2003) cites questions posed by Rupert Murdoch (1989) of what is "quality television? Murdoch maintains that it is “a reflection of the values of the narrow elite which controls it and which has always thought that its tastes are synonymous with quality" (Murdoch, 1989 in Taylor, 2003). But does this apply to the economic rationalists that drive for greater profits? The elite do place social values on programs, high values for programs like Nightline and lower social values of programs such as The Late show with David Letterman (Taylor, 2003). Taylor maintains that democracy is at the heart of western governments, and the same democracy in now applied to what is aired on USA TV. But in America The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) ascertains what quality television is by employing “lawyers, engineers, and economists, but very few, if any, cultural historians, ethnographers, child psychologists, media effects researchers, sociologists, etc (Taylor, 2003). Using statistical information and drawing inferences of human behaviour or what is deemed as quality television is like measuring lengths with a rubber band (Howell, 1997. Ch.1).
In conclusion, the well-established effects of television on the populus are clear. The impact upon individual's personality is still questionable, but television-viewing habits certainly reflect ones social capital. The effect of TV on behaviour is a correlational relationship. The direction of the correlation is also questionable, as we cannot be sure whether, people with violent personalities enjoy watching violent programs, or if TV violence causes violent behaviour (Howell, 1997. Ch. 9). Some Psychologists maintain that TV violence does cause violent behaviour. Even so the producers of such TV shows could be more responsible in their actions. In the matter of reception, reception cannot be controlled for. The individual's interpretation of meaning in TV programs is dependant on the individual's subject position, thus meaning is independent from the television companies. Reading the Bible may be a good comparison, wherein one book can spawn so many different interpretations and religions. One cannot hold TV companies responsible for the individual's interpretation of what is aired. With the practices of economic rationalism, television is wielded, like a child playing with his/her father's gun. Thus with the restraints of legislation, and the guiding prescripts of ethics, also with the help of love for your fellow man, television can guide the society into a future to look forward too.
References:
- Bushman, B.J. (1998). Effects of television violence on memory for commercial messages. Journal of experimental psychology, 4 (4), 291-307.
- Bushman, B.J. and Stack, B.J. (1996). Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: Effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of experimental psychology, 2 (3), 207-226
- Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological review, 111 (1), 83-204.
- Cheng, T.L., Brenner, R.A., Wright, J.L., Sachs, H.C., Moyer, P., & Rao, M.R. (2004). Children's Violent Television Viewing: Are Parents Monitoring? Pediatrics, Academic Research Library, 114 (1), pp. 94-99
- Comstock, G. and Strasburger, V.C. (1990). Deceptive Appearances: Television violence and aggressive behaviour. Journal of adolescent health care, 11, 31-44.
- Fair Fax Digital (2005). Bin Laden book ban 'not an option'. [online] viewed 25 September 2005. < http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bin-laden-book-ban-not-an-option/2005/07/18/1121538901095.html#>
- Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Ch. 3. Harmondsworth. Penguin.
- Hickey, N, (2004) TV: Hype takes a hit. Columbia Journalism Review, 43, 1. p. 6
- Howell, D.C (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (ed. 4). London. Duxbury Press.
- Huesmann, L.R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C.L., & Eron, L.D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, (2), 201-221.
- Jackson, K. (2001). Censorship and Classification in Australia. Parliamentary Library. Australia. [online] viewed 25 September 2005.
- Kruszelnicki, K.S. (1998). TV VIOLENCE: Great Moments in Science, Ep 29, viewed 12/08/05
- Lateline. (2001). Media linked to child violence: aired 22/3/2001,
- Murray, J.P. (no date). Impact of televised violence. Kansas State University. Viewed 12/08/05
- Real, M.R. (1996). Reception Theory: Sex, violence and (Ms) Interpreting Madonna. In Exploring media culture: A guide. Thousand Oaks California. Sage Publications. Pp. 92-116.
- Taylor, R. (2003). Measuring quality television. Federal Communications Law Journal, 55 (3). 593-600
- The Australian Law Reform Commission (2005). FILM AND LITERATURE CENSORSHIP PROCEDURE Report No 55. [on line] Viewed 25 September 2005.
- Whitehead, B.D. (1993). Dan Quayle was right. The Atlantic Monthly, April, 76-94.
Appendix A
Fair Fax Digital
Bin Laden book ban 'not an option'
July 18, 2005 - 12:27PM
A Sydney shop, The Islamic Bookstore at Lakemba, is reportedly selling books endorsed by the al-Qaeda terrorist leader which discuss the effectiveness of suicide bombings and attack Western civilisation as "the culture of oppression, the culture of injustice, the culture of racism".
The shop refused to comment on the claims today. A spokesman said: "We're not talking to any media ... we hope to put out a press release early tomorrow."
A Sydney newspaper reported that the shop was selling a book by Sheik Abdullah Azzam, which discusses the effectiveness of suicide bombings.
"The form this usually takes nowadays is to wire up one's body, or a vehicle or a suitcase with explosives, and then to enter a conglomeration of the enemy and to detonate," the writer states.
Another book by Azzam, Join the Caravan, carries similar themes.
In Auburn, also in Sydney's west, other distressing books were found at the IDCA bookstore and the Islamic Science, Culture and Art Association.
Muslim community spokesman Keysar Trad said he was concerned the books were being sold and feared they were damaging Australians' understanding of Islamic communities.
"For the last several years I've been focusing my efforts on promoting understanding, building bridges and it just takes irresponsible people importing this type of literature and just undermining all the good work that we do," he told the John Laws radio show.
"This type of literature should really be only there for academic research so we can understand the minds of people who get into this type of militancy so we can counter the militant ideology.
"But they shouldn't be freely available to ordinary people that may be swayed."
Mr Trad said if bookstore owners failed to get rid of the offensive books there was little choice but to send authorities in to confiscate them.
"If they're not wise enough to go through all the material they have on the shelves and assess it and burn the nasties ... if they're not willing to do that then we'll have no option but authorities will have to confiscate such books because it's not acceptable any more with what's happening the world," he said.
"There are people out there who take this message far too seriously and we don't want any literature that can cause violence.
"We would love to remove such literature and make sure it doesn't get into the hands of young people."
British police have shut down an extremist bookshop in Leeds after the July 7 terrorist attacks on the London Underground and a bus.
A spokesman for NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus today said the state had laws against racial vilification and incitement to violence.
But on the face of it, the content of the books did not appear to constitute incitement to violence, he said.
"For incitement to occur, violence has to actually take place [as a result of publishing the material]," the spokesman said.
"If the literature is found to contain racial vilification then the laws are there to prosecute.
"If any information or literature results in a violent act that can be proven, then we have laws to prosecute under incitement to violence.
"We take any breach of the law extremely seriously and the threat of terrorism extremely seriously."
People could be prosecuted for racial vilification if a complaint was made against them and the Anti-Discrimination Board recommended pursuing legal action, he said.
But the NSW Government could not ban the books outright, he said.
"Banning that sort of stuff is a federal matter that comes under the classification of material through the Office of Film and Literature Classification," the spokesman said.
The NSW Government could only act against the bookshop or its owners if they had broken the law - and until then, any investigation into the sale of the books was a matter for Australia's intelligence agencies.
Unlike Victoria, NSW does not have religious vilification laws and, earlier this month, Premier Bob Carr ruled out introducing them.
No comments:
Post a Comment