Don't panic!: children & the effects of media violence

For as long as television has been around, concerns have been raised about the potential effects, both positive and negative that too much television, or even any at all, on children. One issue in particular is often cited above all others: media violence. What effect does media violence have on children, and can television be identified as a reason for the increase in youth violence, or indeed, violence in general, that society today is faced with?

Authors Catharine Lumby and Duncan Fine, in the book Why TV is good for kids, discuss these issues in the chapter entitled Child’s play? Media violence panics, with the aim of debunking many of the theories and panics that have arisen around this issue. Noting the strong bias in media reporting and commentary towards the somewhat simplistic view that watching media violence will lead to real acts of violence, Lumby and Fine have decided to take a “forensic and unflinching look” at what is a very emotive issue. (2006, p.99) They maintain that this bias is not supported by thorough media research that has been conducted in Australia and elsewhere. All this is doing, they contend, is diverting the attention away from the real issues and causes of violence in society, namely, dysfunctional families, mental illness, drug abuse and poor educational or vocational opportunities. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.100-101) While the media and society are focused on banning or sanitising violent television, these other societal problems are continuing unchecked.

One school of thought around the issue of media violence is the ‘media effects school’. Linked strongly to behavioural theory, media effects theorists attempt to use scientific experiments to discover the effect that the media has on people. The problem with this approach, Lumby & Fine note, is that while it would seem natural to examine the multitude of effects that media has on us and how we react or behave in response to these, they tend to focus almost solely on one in particular: aggression (2006, p.104). Child’s media expert David Buckingham is just as dismissive: “in the estimation of many other researchers, this research in fact fails to prove its central hypothesis: that media violence makes people more aggressive than they otherwise would have been, or that it causes them to commit acts they would not otherwise have committed. (Buckingham, as cited in Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.108).

So contrary to what the media would have us believe, many international reports have in fact showed that media violence is not a prime cause of real-life violence.

Why, then, do “simplistic and totally contrived” (2006, p.108) media effects studies continue to be not only funded, but given extraordinary media coverage each time someone sends out a press release “claiming that letting your toddler watch Teletubbies today will encourage him to join a street gang when he turns fifteen”? (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.108). The authors postulate two main reasons for this: the fact that most of these studies are conducted in the United States, where media effects research suits the simple cause and effect agenda of those who profit from the advertising industry (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.109); and that the media itself loves it. As we all know, sex sells, or in this case, horror and simplicity sells. Media effects researchers habitually claim that they have irrefutable proof of the media’s horrific effects; while media studies researchers draw far more complex conclusions, these just don’t make for simple enough headlines. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.111-112)

Having detailed evidence that indicates that the research linking youth violence with media violence is weak at best, Lumby & Fine (2006) explain their position in relation to the banning of violence on TV, and in other media. Banning all media violence is easy in theory, they contend, but far more difficult in practice; once you start looking for it, you can find violence in virtually every genre and every medium. (2006, p.119) Television is a prime example: from slapstick comedy, to football matches, to the evening news, and even children’s cartoons, aggression and violence is there, in one form or another. Even outside of television, you can find violence in Shakespeare, in fairy tales, even in the lyrics of Waltzing Matilda (2006, p.119). We are exposed to violence every day, through a multitude of different mediums; children are as well. They key here is context: viewers, adults and children alike, are able to see the violence within the context of whatever it is they are watching. Even children as young as three can recognise the difference between representations and reality, and it is this real-life violence that cause children the most distress. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.123-124) The idea that children are becoming desensitised to this real-life violence is, as David Buckingham notes, impossible to sustain. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.124)

So when it comes to the issue of what to ban, Lumby & Fine instead note that the question that should be asked is, ‘what should we be doing to guide children and teenagers through the world of media, including the representations of violence that they will undoubtedly encounter in all kinds of media and in many different genres?’ (2006, p.126). In answering this question, the authors note that it’s important to focus on real examples of real children and what they enjoy. A study conducted in Australia in 2000 took an in-depth look at children’s views about media and the harm it potentially does to them. Focusing on horror films, the study found that the children found the experience of watching a horror film not harmful, but exciting. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.130) What this indicates is not only confirmation that children are able to understand the differences between imagined and real-life violence, and understand how films are constructed, but also that the difference between what violent media critics worry about what children actually experience is vast. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.131) The real issue is whether the violence frightens or saddens them, not, as the media suggests, the potential for violent media to make them violent, or trigger copycat actions. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.131) As other studies, including this one, suggest, media does have an effect on children, just not in the simplistic or negative way that we are led to believe.

The final point that Lumby & Fine make is perhaps the most salient: banning violent content doesn’t prevent children’s exposure to violence in the media. Not merely because more often than not it serves to only increase the desirability of the movie or television show, but because they will be exposed to violence, both real and imagined, in their everyday lives regardless. Parents and educators need to work with children and young people, to help them make informed decisions about what they can and can’t handle. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.132) It is so important to encourage youth to become involved in conversations about what they are watching, and how they are responding to it. By doing this we are able to prepare them for the everyday realities that they are likely to face in the real world.

Clearly, this issue is one that causes emotions to run high. When the welfare of children is at stake, everyone is always going to have an opinion. However, what we need to be careful about, and what I think Lumby and Fine have explained clearly, is the tendency for the media to sensationalise and oversimplify the kinds of effect media violence has on children and young people. By examining the flaws and concerns of the media effects studies that continually tell society that television and media are the cause of violence, they provide a constructive and sensible analysis of the issues, without succumbing to the panic that continues to grip the mainstream media. I agree with Lumby and Fine in that the constant focus by the media on television shows and films as the cause of violence distracts attention from where it should be: on the more societal causes of violence, such as drug abuse, dysfunctional family environments, and mental illness. Television is, after all, merely a distraction.

References:

Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006) Why TV is good for kids: Raising 21st century children. Sydney : Macmillan.