|
|
|
|
| Media & Society | . |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
T.J. Newton | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| << Home << | Visit neoNewton.com! | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Signs,
Signs, & Everywhere Signs: Warning About Violence, Sex,
& Television T.J. Newton |
|||
Violence and sexual images on television, and the influence of television in general, has become a growing issue all over the world. In the US, various groups and individuals have attempted to address the problem in a variety of ways, sometimes with very different proposals. Some of the proposals have resulted in legislation or a response from the entertainment industry, while other proposals seem to take away the programs many people enjoy. The proposal featured in this presentation does not attempt to ban any type of programming, nor does it seek to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. Free expression must be highly valued and appreciated. It is hoped that these problems can be addressed through increased knowledge and understanding, brought about through the sharing of information. The proposal attempts to work within the framework of warnings and ratings that has already been successfully established, and attempts to avoid placing additional burdens on advertising or entertainment providers. The proposed system requires a warning screen to be displayed for 30 seconds prior to the beginning of all television "programs," and prior to all "commercial breaks" (as opposed to each ad), regardless of content. An announcer must read the warning, and it must be read in a normal tone and cadence, not in monotone or fast talk. The warning cannot be obscured, overlaid, surrounded, or accompanied by any other media. Special warning screens are required for "threats or violence" or "sexual imagery." In deciding when to use special screens, "threats or violence" and "sexual imagery" must be defined very carefully, specifically, and comprehensively, and the use of such definitions must be restricted to the warning screen system. For television programs that require a special warning screen, it must be displayed and read prior to the beginning of the program, and in programs lasting more than 30 minutes, it must also be displayed and read prior to each scene or segment that features "threats or violence" or "sexual imagery." For commercial breaks in which ads are shown that require a special warning screen, it must be displayed and read prior to each ad that features "threats or violence" or "sexual imagery." There are a number of reasons I decided to insist on placing warnings on all programs instead of just on programs that feature violence and sexual imagery. I also think there are compelling arguments for placing warnings on both advertising and programming. I realize that getting at least the warnings for advertisements and programs featuring violence or sexual imagery would be an improvement given the current social environment. But I hope those who may be opposed to the idea of warnings on everything will consider some of the reasons discussed following the warning screens displayed below. Warning screen for Threats or Violence: |
|||
|
|||
Warning screen for Sexual Imagery: |
|||
|
|||
Warning screen for Programs and Advertisements that do not contain threats, violence, or sexual imagery: |
|||
|
|||
Warning screen for Threats or Violence and Sexual Imagery: |
|||
|
|||
For purposes of readability, it may be appropriate to replace the phrases "program or advertisement" and "program or advertisement(s)" with the words "program," "advertisement," or "advertisements," depending on the circumstances. It follows that "this/these" and "has/have" could be replaced accordingly. If you are unsure about placing warnings on programs that don't feature violence or sexual imagery, or unsure about restricting advertisements of any kind, consider the similarities between an ad for a bar of soap and the issues people face in their relationship decisions when confronted with sexual imagery. Just as advertising a bar of soap can affect our purchase decision when we buy soap, sexual imagery can affect the decisions we make with respect to our sexual relationships. The problem in both cases is that there is no recognition or warning about these effects while the transmission of information is taking place. The problem is compounded by social and individual factors that contribute to an individual's understanding of selfhood, which makes it difficult for people to recognize how much they are influenced by television. Unfortunately, the effects too often result in viewers being misinformed about certain types of manipulation in purchase decisions, or in the case of decisions involving sexual relationships, leave viewers misinformed about how sexual imagery can manipulate relationship decisions. Of course, relationship problems aren't new, and many factors have contributed to negative relationships throughout the course of human history. In most cases, we humans have tried to recognize and correct the problems. Sexual images on television should be no different. We have also worked very hard to correct economic abuse, and the influence of television advertising should be no different. Information seems like the key to correcting this problem, because we all have a right to free speech. This proposal is pretty straightforward. I'm not sure whether legislation would be required, but I lean toward the possibility of legislation because it could seem like a conflict of interest to ask the advertising and entertainment industries to describe themselves this way, although there may be industry associations that may be able to remain sufficiently objective. I also think that the kind of warnings proposed should represent the voice of the people, and be provided in a way that represents their interests as completely as possible, which is what legislation is supposed to do. On the other hand, the wrong legislators could, with the best of intentions, end up poisoning sexual entertainment and making violence on the television screen seem a little too real. I worked very hard on the wording to avoid the kind of moralizing that brings out the worst part of this debate, and I have a great deal of respect for all of the people that make up the advertising and entertainment industries. And whether people think that programming they don't like should be banned, or whether they think that television is already too restricted, I think the proposal, both in its design and wording, does a good job representing the issues and solving the problems. Incidentally, the government, at any level, including the military, would not be exempted from these warnings, even when the president comes on TV to make a speech, or during war coverage of any kind. Religious groups, non-profit organizations, and other groups would not be exempted, either. There is a large body of research that indicates violence and sex on television contributes to certain psychological states and behaviors (Bryant and Zillmann, Bushman and Cantor, Minow and Lemay, Saunders, Shrader, Walker). It is more difficult to prove that there is a direct causal link (Newton, Saunders), but there is evidence that television can play a significant role in certain specific behaviors (Bryant and Zillmann, Minow and Lemay, Saunders, Shrader, Walker), such as "copy cat" crimes. In a research conundrum such as this, it is important to look for other factors that contribute to the psychological states or behaviors, and it is important to search for alternative explanations. The reason "threats and violence" and "sexual imagery" were singled out is that those content categories do not appear to have alternative explanations that plausibly reduce the role of television, although there are compelling arguments on both sides (Bryant and Zillmann, Bushman and Cantor, Minow and Lemay, Saunders, Shrader, Walker). One of the more frustrating aspects of this research is that there are also arguments that suggest many content categories directly cause certain psychological states and behaviors, and many of those arguments do not hold up when alternative explanations are presented (Newton, Saunders). It seemed the best way to handle that problem, as well as a number of others, was with a general warning screen about the effects of television. A "special screen" seemed appropriate for "threats and violence" and "sexual imagery" because the argument that "threats and violence" and "sexual imagery" on television significantly contributes to certain psychological states and behaviors is strongly convincing and highly plausible (Bryant and Zillmann, Bushman and Cantor, Minow and Lemay, Saunders, Shrader, Walker). As a "realist" who has written extensively in the humanities, I know that "100% proof" is difficult to come by on a number of topics, but it is difficult to deny that television affects our society in significant ways, and that people deserve to be warned, fairly, about any potential negative affects (Bryant and Zillmann, Bushman and Cantor, Minow and Lemay, Saunders, Shrader, Walker). Finally, I restricted this proposal to television because, unlike going to the movies, televisions are in our homes, and unlike the Internet or other media, we frequently watch television in social groups. Even when we watch alone, we do so according to customs that have been around for over 50 years, and vicariously share experiences with others. Still, I did make sure the wording was something I could live with in case this website got stuck with a warning, although I don't think it is feasible and would hate to see the idea of warnings go too far. There are, of course, a few anomalies that I didn't address, such as the "closed circuit" broadcasts popping up at cash registers and on busses (which I personally don't care for). There are also some pretty explicit billboards out there, but there is no way the warnings I wrote could be read by motorists. There are probably a number of technicalities I don't even know about, but like everything here, this is a work in progress. Send in your feedback. In closing, I want to repeat that the proposal featured in this presentation does not attempt to ban any type of programming, nor does it seek to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. As someone who writes, I understand the value and importance of free expression. And I understand that there are some people whose work I enjoy that will be (and are) very upset with me, and strongly disagree. I hope my efforts will at least express where I am coming from, and contribute to the understanding of the problems and issues involved. |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
