Cannon arguments on TV violence
The articles, “Honey, I warped the kids”, and “The Hollow Crusade against TV Violence” elaborate on the impacts of TV violence programs. They illustrate how TV programs have affected society, since the early 1950s (Cannon 1). In these articles, the authors argue on several effects emanating from increasing programs on TV violence. To comprehend the current effects of TV violence, one has to analyze the authors’ main points and their common grounds.
In both essays, the authors argue that violence is harmful to society. As affirmed by Cannon, the effects of television violence were witnessed as early as 1954 (Cannon 1). Though the TV industry was relatively young, its negative impacts across society had already been experienced. This issue came into public scope when it was reported in the first congressional hearings held in 1954. Additionally, the television industry’s bizarre marketing power was felt across American society immediately after the inception of the television industry. Despite such phenomenon, when one analyzes of world’s societies prior to the invention of the TV is done, it can be realized that violence was on the increase.
Both Cannon and Todd’s arguments denounce TV violence. Todd claims that he has campaigned against movie violence for more than two decades, since the times of ‘The Wild Bunch’ and ‘The Godfather’. Similarly, Cannon argues that numerous groups’ calls to curb television violence over the years, should act as a reminder that society as a whole, is gaining concern on the effects of TV violence.
Similarly, both Todd and canon’s arguments on TV violence have resulted in numerous adverse effects on society. Referring to David Nasaw’s findings in the 1910 film shows, Todd shows that forty percent of the sampled films were unfit for children (Gitlin 1). These films encouraged vulnerable children to engage in violence through their themes. Using the ‘Deer Hunter’ show, on the TV cables in the year 1982, Todd attributes that several people killed themselves while playing Russian roulette because of the show (Gitlin 1). This implies that in the process of movie emulation, some individuals end up losing their lives. In addition, the author claims that the increasing carnage, suicide, and murders might be a result of TV violence.
An analysis of the two articles reveals the different opinions held by both authors concerning the effects of TV violence. Cannon’s arguments assert that the current increase of violence in society is due to the effects of TV violence. To support his claim, Cannon indicates that there have been more than three thousand studies, all aimed at finding the relationship between real violence and TV violence.
Out of eighty-five major studies conducted, only one research failed to illustrate the linkage between TV violence and crime (Cannon 1). Subsequent reviews by independent social scientists affirmed that indeed there was a high correlation between TV violence and societal violence. Similarly, Cannon uses TV violence research conducted from the year 1973 to date to support his arguments (Cannon 1). Throughout the research analysis, negative impacts resulting from TV shows within the society are illustrated.
Todd argument regarding TV violence
On the other hand, Todd claims that violence in society is not necessarily caused by TV violence shows. As indicated by evidence from the article, the author disagrees with the universal beliefs on TV violence. Despite the fact that he considers various TV shows as a disgrace to society, he elaborates how other factors have perpetuated violence (Gitlin 1). Citing the current increase of violence in society, Todd argues that those advocating against media violence are making grave mistakes. In this regard, he argues that they should be treated like those advocating for pornography shows. He believes that these individuals are trying to distract the media’s real purpose of airing appropriate shows, aimed at reducing violence within the society.
Unlike Cannon, Todd claims that the media played a role in perpetuating violence in society, way before the introduction of the TV shows. He maintains that in the past, English and American middle-class people blamed the media for inciting the working-class youth, resulting in numerous demonstrations and strikes (Gitlin 1). Thus, the article suggests that society should solve other factors that cause violence, before targeting TV shows as the main cause of violence in society. Based on his arguments, he believed that poverty, discrimination, and increase in unemployment rates in our societies should be blamed for the rise in violence.
Another major difference between Cannon and Todd’s arguments is that Todd’s arguments are more realistic because real-world violence is not only perpetuated by the media, but also by other social factors. Thus, the need to minimize the increasing violence rate within our society demands that all root causes must be addressed (Lamson 4).
In my opinion, the increase in violence in society should not only be attributed to the TV violence shows, but also to the decay of society’s morals (Freedman 34). Thus, TV companies should abide by the code of ethics. This ensures that whatever is aired has appropriate content only, especially on children’s channels. Likewise, the TV companies should air more family shows, comical shows, and other non-violence shows at the expense of violent shows. Equally, parents should protect their children from extreme TV violent shows by ensuring that their children watch the right shows under their observation.
Works Cited
Cannon, Carl M.. “MotherJones JA93: Honey, I warped the kids | Mother Jones.” Mother Jones | Smart, Fearless Journalism. Version 1. no publisher, 1993. Web.
Freedman, Jonathan L.. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. Print.
Gitlin, Todd, “Imagebusters: The Hollow Crusade Against TV Violence.” MEDIA AWARENESS NETWORK. Version 16. The American Prospect, 1994. Web.
Lamson, susan. “tv violence does it cause real-life mayhem.” The arts, media studies and popular culture . New York: no puplisher, 1993. 4. Print.