Some say violence on television causing 'mean world syndrome' Friday, 02, 2004

By Brad Aspey

CHRONICLE TV CRITIC

Once upon a time, the sources of children's stories, fables, tales and myths were books or verbal renditions told by friends or family members. Today, there is one major source of children's legends and mythology -- television.

But why the fuss over television violence? Some of history's finest children's literature includes scenes of alarming violence. Take, for example, wolves that eat young girls, stepmothers who serve a little boy's head in a stew and bloodthirsty giants. But in the case of children's literature, tales of violence usually exist as moral lessons and depend on the interpretation of and enlightenment by the story's teller -- usually a parent.

Not so with TV. Television's unfiltered and random acts of violence are creating what some are calling a "mean world syndrome."

According to Jeff Smith, director of the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy, mean world syndrome means, "that (TV viewers) think the world is actually more dangerous than it might be because that's what they're being saturated with."

"Research has shown that (TV violence) desensitizes people to violence, it limits their ability to respond to conflict with nonviolent means," Smith says.

Muskegon psychologist Patricia Groessl agrees.

"Children become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others if they watch a lot of violent TV," Groessl says. "They're more fearful of the world around them and they're more likely to behave in an aggressive or harmful way toward others. Children are watching long hours of (violent TV) and then identifying with the aggressors."

Violence in our society and our culture is nothing new. Real world history makes "The Sopranos" look like "Teletubbies."

Before TV, physical punishment was once an accepted parental tool. The "rule of thumb" meant the size of the stick a husband could use to strike his wife. The very first motion picture ever made by Thomas Edison's experimental movie

company was of a cowboy aiming his six-shooter at the camera and firing. Shakespeare's plays aren't exactly without blood, gore, murder and mayhem.

Why do children get such vastly different ideas from TV violence than from the violence in myths, fairy tales and history itself? According to a UCLA study of television content, the difference is in the complexion of the violence: On TV, perpetrators of violent acts go unpunished 73 percent of the time; 47 percent of violent situations present no harm to the victims; 58 percent depict no pain; only 4 percent of violent programs show nonviolent alternatives to solve problems."

Author George Gerbner, who founded the Cultural Indicators Project, wrote in 1994, "Most of the violence we have on television is what I call 'happy violence.' It's swift, it's thrilling, it's cool, it's effective, it's painless and it always leads to a happy ending because you have to deliver the audience to the next commercial in a receptive mood."

It's encouraging to note that most television viewers do not tend to watch particular programs simply because of violent content.

For the week of March 8, the Nielsen top 10 TV ratings for prime time network shows included only two programs on which violent content can be expected as part of their storylines: "CSI" and "CSI: Miami." Only one other show on the list sometimes features violence: "Without a Trace." The remainder of the list hardly reflects a bloody, mean world syndrome: "American Idol: Tuesday," "American Idol: Wednesday," "Survivor: All Stars," "The Apprentice," "Everybody Loves Raymond," "Friends" and "Will and Grace."

But the wheels of television's current practice of cultivating fear, hatred and outright violence are still greased by money. It is well known that producers of American television shows often find it hard to make a profit because of the lack of enough buyers for their products. Therefore, they are forced to place their wares on the global market. What translates easily to non-English speaking audiences? Action, adventure, sex and violence. That means violence sells regardless of the relative levels of American viewership.

Many worry that television violence directly causes actual violence -- especially among children. "There's all kinds of research to back up that it does," Groessl says.

It's a complex issue, however.

Smith is not sure about a direct cause-and-effect dynamic. "Where th issue with violence and violent messages is there's a cumulative effect. So, if you're exposed to those images and messages over a period of time it can have consequences," he says.

In March 2003, psychologists with the University of Michigan published a 15-year study on the effects of television violence. The study concluded that, "Children's viewing of violent TV shows, their identification with aggressive same-sex TV characters, and their perceptions that TV violence is realistic are all linked to later aggression as young adults, for both males and females.

"These findings hold true for any child from any family, regardless of the child's initial aggression levels, their intellectual capabilities, their social status as measured by their parents' education or occupation, their parents' aggressiveness, or the mother's and father's parenting style."

The U-M study concludes that violent TV may requires a more collaborative effort on the part of parents in monitoring television viewing.

In other words, as in children's literature, a parent's interpretation may make all the difference. And that is no fairy tale.

© 2004 Muskegon Chronicle. Used with permission