10 Years Of V-Chip: Utter Failure
from the that-about-sums-it-up dept
Matt Cutts reminds us via Twitter that we're coming up on the 10th anniversary of TVs being required to have the v-chip, and what an utter failure this program has been, despite hundreds of millions spent on it (including tons of taxpayer money for "education"). Cutts points to a 1996 NY Times opinion piece accurately predicting what a waste the V-Chip would be, and it seems to be quite right. The fight over the V-Chip, if you don't remember, was in some ways similar to some of the arguments about violent video games today. It involved lots of politicians grandstanding about needing to "protect the children" from the dangerous effects of seeing violence on TV (despite a serious lack of real evidence of any impact). Then it required TV makers to install this chip, followed up by $550 million "education" campaign. And the result? A dismal failure and a waste of money. A 2007 FCC analysis (warning: pdf) of the program isn't impressed:Based on the studies and surveys conducted to date, we believe that the evidence clearly points to one conclusion: the V-chip is of limited effectiveness in protecting children from violent television content. In order for V-chip technology to block a specific category of television programming, such as violent content, it must be activated. However, many parents do not even know if the television sets in their households incorporate this technology and, of those who do, many do not use it.But do politicians learn? Of course not. They still grandstand and still talk about the need to protect the children, and push for laws to get their names in the headlines.
But because there are no metrics and no official process for review to make sure a law actually does what it claims it's supposed to do (and, of course, no backup plans), these laws get passed, hundreds of millions of dollars get wasted... and we're left a decade later with a total waste and failure.
At what point can we at least get new laws to require a review period to see if they actually do what they're set out to do, and then reject the ones that fail?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 10 years, protect the children, v-chip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Psshhh
Around the same time you ratify amendments to the constitution requiring that all political offices only be granted one short, single term. That way you can have NEW stupid politicians who are willing to review decisions made by the OLD stupid politicians. Without that new ratification, what reason would a politician have to allow people to independently review laws they've supported when their effectiveness might have been minimal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psshhh
We should NEVER allow anyone to make a career of public office. Because doing so, you end up with people more concerned with keeping their job than doing what's right which is what public service is supposed to be about.
And now it is so bad that voting current politicians out has no effect, because the person you vote in is just as bad as the one that was voted out. Face it, we're F*&#)D all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save the Children?
FWIW, I do not plan to use the V-chip, etc., as a substitute for raising my child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Save the Children?
What a load of crap!
Don't you know that there are governments and school systems that do that for you?
How dare you be responsible! You should be ashamed!
(PS it really is good to know that there are still good parents around)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Side Benefits
There is a side benefit to this: it would keel lawmakers busy.
Basically, legislators legislate. They pass new laws. That's how their job is defined. As such, the number of laws on the books is ever-increasing. If we required them to spend some of their time reviewing old laws, we would get rid of some bad old ones, and we would reduce the time they have to pass new ones (written up by their lobby group buddies), thus we would improve the average quality of our laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side Benefits
Or set a time limit on legislation in which the law is effective; so that if it isn't important enough to be reviewed, then it just expires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Side Benefits
I've always romanticized about getting a few things in place, such as:
1) All laws passed have a clearly stated purpose.
2) All laws passed are limited to 500 words or less.
3) All laws passed are to be written in language easily understood by the "average, literate" citizen.
4) All laws passed are to be reviewed/renewed on a yearly doubling basis.
Example for 4--a law is passed, 1 year later it's reviewed for efficacy. If it is accomplishing its intended purpose, it's renewed. 2 years later, reviewed and renewed again. 4 years later, reviewed and renewed again... and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side Benefits
> 2) All laws passed are limited to 500 words or less.
> 3) All laws passed are to be written in language
> easily understood by the "average, literate" citizen.
> 4) All laws passed are to be reviewed/renewed
> on a yearly doubling basis.
I'd add a (5) to that list:
No more "naming" laws. No "Child Internet Protection Act", no "USAPatriot Act", etc. Every law is given a number (SB 1067, HB 1254, etc.) and nothing else. This will remove the pressure for lawmakers to vote for things they wouldn't otherwise support because they don't want their opponents to be able to accuse them of voting against something with "protect the children" or "patriot" in the title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Side Benefits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew about it
and we never even considered using it with our daughter.
A censorship chip is NOT a substitute for responsible parenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tormenting my wife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tormenting my wife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tormenting my wife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tormenting my wife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V chip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a substitute, but...
I for one am glad that our TV has one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a substitute, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
Much better to isolate them from it.
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
Watching a TV-14 documentary on war != handing your child a gun and a uniform.
My favorite movie when I was 6 was Terminator 2, but do I go on murderous rampages like Arnold? No! It wasn't detrimental to me at all. I thank my parents for letting me experience life and make my own decisions because they recognized I had a good head on my shoulders and could handle seeing violence.
Censoring what your child sees (I'm not talking about hardcore porn here, why would a prepubescent child go to a strip club? bad sarcastic example, Steve) just shows your children that you don't trust them enough to handle things.
If you show your kids a certain level of trust, like how to spend money and go online without you over their shoulder and educate them about online safety and not spend frivolously, then they will have a maturity advantage over kids of a similar age but strict upbringing.
I back my assertions up not with a study but with how I've turned out, and how I see other people turn out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
For some reason there's a group of people who fly into a tizzy at any thought of censoring things from children. In my experience these are usually young adults who don't have their own kids yet. (Not saying that's the case here, just generalizing.) When parents say, "Well, I appreciate having tools like this to help me do my parenting," that results in a harsh, negative response.
Why is that? Shouldn't the response be more like, "Wow, I'm glad someone is actually taking the time to try to think through things and take a hands on approach to parenting (even if I think maybe they're being overly restrictive) instead of letting their little monsters run wild with no parenting whatsoever." Why is it so bad for a parent to want to restrict their children from things they think are harmful? I don't see parents saying "My child will never be allowed to see anything over a G rating until they leave home!" It's always "I'm going to keep things I don't think are appropriate away from my child until I think they're ready for it."
You're right, I don't trust my children to handle everything the world might throw at them. That's why they're called "children" -- they're not mature, they need oversight, and that's part of the job a parent takes on. The fact is, kids do NOT always make good decisions. Sometimes that's okay and they learn from their mistakes. Other times the bad decision has a much worse consequence that it's the parent's job to help the child avoid. As the kid gets older they are exposed to more and more until they turn into a functional adult. There's no reason it has to be a "here's the world kid, deal with it all at once" kind of thing.
Explain to me why it's so bad for a parent to shield a child from things that he thinks the child is not ready for? You already indicate hardcore porn is inappropriate. So why is it bad for a parent to think violence at a Terminator 2 level might be inappropriate for a 6-year-old? Shouldn't you be worrying more about the parents who let the kids do anything they want because "they're just being cute" while they throw rocks at your car? This is not such a black and white thing. There's a wide area of grey where I think it's okay to have different parenting styles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
The problem with that debate is it has nothing to do with the original argument. Indeed if you as a parent want to shield your child from various media and experiences until they reach a level of maturity to handle that exposure, then by all means use whatever methods and tools you feel appropriate. Because in this day and age, we as parents must fight for our children's right to be children. Too many forces are at work in the world trying to make our children grow up WAY too fast. But again, that is a parenting debate and this has nothing to do with that.
The original argument is about how our all-seeing, all-knowing all-omnipotent jacka$$ government officials consistently take it upon themselves to use our children and our fears about their safety and well-being to force-feed a load of ridiculous, inefficient, ineffective, overpriced and downright sinister projects and laws and taxes and fees down our throats. Then years later these same programs show no effectiveness and NEVER get repealed. This is what the problem is. This argument is not about parenting or what little Johnny or Jane is watching on TV. This argument is about our runaway, spend happy government; happily chipping away at our freedoms, replacing them with socialist, gestapo policies that only serve to enrich their corporate lobbyist buddies, corral us into a certain socialized behavior, indoctrinate the masses into believing that violence on the internet will destroy our children only so they can further control it or use that fear to show us why the leftist/marxist belief that government can better raise your children and further institute arcane laws that seek to destroy the family, break down individualism, tax us to death so that we rely more and more on government programs. This is why the V-Chip and any program that they come up with is put in place. Politicians don't give a d**n about your children or their access to violent TV. They care about 2 things - Power and controlling your life.
If you like the V-Chip, and it is working in your parenting model, then by all means use it. I certainly use the one in our kid's DVR from DirectTV. It is actually quite good at blocking the porn, harsh movies that my 6 and 9 year old are not ready for. On my TV, I wouldn't use it for any reason though. But the point is, we as parents and we as citizens and consumers should decide if we want such technology. If we want it, and we are willing to pay for it, you can best believe the manufacturers are going to make it available. But when the Government is allow to force-feed it to us, then all you do is ensure that the cost of the TV or computer or media device is going to go up, your taxes will go up, and more than likely (as is the case with the V-Chip) very few people are going to even use it and even less are going to even know its there. So why force us to use something that is not needed. I didn't have a V-Chip when I was growing up. I had a mother and a father and they had biological V-Chips that functioned quite well. They are usually referred to as brains with the common sense module turned on so that they understood that their 6 yr old son who just got his own TV knew better than to have the TV on when homework was supposed to be done, or that at 8PM the TV goes off or their were only certain channels that I was allowed to watch and if I were caught watching something else, I would lose the TV.
And it's funny... 30 years later, I have children of my own and even without a V-Chip that same thinking still works perfectly.
Less Government. More Parenting. That's the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
I particularly like "Because in this day and age, we as parents must fight for our children's right to be children. Too many forces are at work in the world trying to make our children grow up WAY too fast."
Wow, do I ever agree with that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
If your 2 year old is mentally scarred by the sight of a boob, you have bigger problems, as the little tyke was once fed by one of them. That being said, the way I see it, if your child is curious enough to want to watch hardcore porn, (which probably happens much later than 4) instead of a full-scale crackdown, perhaps it would be a good time to teach your child about how porn is bad. (I assume you feel porn is bad-- if you don't, stop being a hypocrite.)
Why is it so bad for a parent to want to restrict their children from things they think are harmful?
Because isolation does not really educate-- and you're supposed to be preparing your child for life. (Which *doesn't* start at 18, contrary to popular belief)
You're right, I don't trust my children to handle everything the world might throw at them. That's why they're called "children" -- they're not mature, they need oversight, and that's part of the job a parent takes on. The fact is, kids do NOT always make good decisions.
The fact is, *humans of any age* do NOT always make good decisions.
If you taught your child the reason you'd like them to avoid whatever it is you feel they should avoid, then chances are good they'll come to you for advice when they need it, and they'll be better prepared when they do it anyway. (It happens) If you treat the naked body as an evil, dirty thing-- when your child becomes curious about sex (it's gonna happen) they will not turn to you for advice-- as they've learned their whole life that your advice is to avoid it at all costs. So they go to someone who may or may not have their best interests in mind for advice.
There's no reason it has to be a "here's the world kid, deal with it all at once" kind of thing.
Yes, exactly. So instead of censoring them on your timetable, perhaps you should educate them on *their* timetable. I child isn't going to ask about sex until their curious about sex. However-- if you isolate the child as long as possible, the child *will* be in a "here's the world kid, deal with it all at once" situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
Well, that's okay, what I wrote is still up there intact for those who care to read. I'll just respond to this one item:
"perhaps you should educate them on *their* timetable"
Okay! That's exactly why I like the v-chip! I can keep from educating them on things they aren't ready for by making sure it's blocked. I'm glad we can agree on this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
> to shield a child from things that he thinks
> the child is not ready for?
It's not bad so long as it's the parent that's doing it. Problem is, parents want their kids shielded but more and more of them feel it's too much of a burden to do the shielding themselves, so they start demanding that the burden be shifted (through force of law) to the government or businesses. And that inevitably results in millions of dollars wasted on useless programs (like this V-chip) and/or the infringement of the rights of people without children and who have no affinity for the little buggers whatsoever.
Raise your kid however you want. Just don't expect society to do it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a substitute, but...
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=arsenal&search=search
4. a collection or supply of anything; store
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess we failed to get the memo...
Please answer me this one question: Do you have kids, Mike?
If not, you'll have to forgive me for not believing your expertise on this one. But my experience shows otherwise.
"A censorship chip is NOT a substitute for responsible parenting."
No, but it's a useful tool to decide when my kids are ready for certain types of content that we might watch together and talk about. I would think that puts it in the category of "helps parents be responsible".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
a V-chip is not an excuse for responsible parenting when it comes to controlling what tv shows are being watched.
Hell, it doesn't even work reliably for its intended purpose since many shows aren't rated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
Or is responsible parenting in this case totally taking away his ability to change channels? I think many of the naysayers here would say that's way too restrictive. Alternatively, perhaps I should educate little 3-year-old Johnny all about extreme violence just in case?
Come on. I'm assuming those who seem so against use of the v-chip wouldn't let the kiddies into the liquor cabinet or the gun cabinet or your stash of hard-core porno. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
I love that example, mostly because a majority of young kids end up having access to that stuff anyway, hence framing the futility of the V-chip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
Got it. Brilliant. What a crappy dad I've been!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
A. Put a gun on a liquor cabinet and watch the child break in to it
B. Educate the kid in an open dialogue such that, if he/she is reasonable, they will understand that the costs of drinking underage outweigh the benefit, therby negating the need for a lock
Your way is okay, in terms of prevention. I just like my way better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
But we've strayed a bit. you say use of the v-chip is futile. I say I like the fact that if I leave the room for a bit I like knowing that my 6-year-old won't land on watching someone get their head blown off because I don't think that's something he needs to be exposed to at this point. Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
And I'm not NEARLY as against the use of locks on those types of things as I am against the Vchip. Is see way too much opportunity for abuse of the technology by people outside the home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
So right now I say the v-chip is working pretty well. Most shows are actually rated and the ratings have nice and discreet levels in different categories that I can use to do blocking. That's great and I'm using it as an aid to parenting. (Not as a substitute for parenting.)
So what if I thought it was starting to be abused in some way? I'd stop using it. Easy enough. Maybe the argument is that outside forces will use it in such a way that I can't turn it off. Then I get my war on and fire up my elected representatives and encourage everyone else to do the same.
I don't lose sleep over v-chip abuse.
(And for the record, I have neither a gun cabinet or a liquor cabinet in my house. But I do have a bit of liquor. That I'm pretty sure the kids have never touched while wasn't around. While I am around they are quite good at fetching me a beer.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
"So what if I thought it was starting to be abused in some way? I'd stop using it. Easy enough"
Fine, except that if the Vchip can accept outside signals, whose to say you CAN stop using it? And if you think that that type of abuse by government or media corps. (who are mostly the same thing anyway) is just paranoia, I would suggest looking into some of the controls Nazi Germany had on media distribution. A Vchip that could be manipulated by the government to control the flow of media/information to German citizens would have been a wet dream to Hitler. I guess I'm just more wary of my "elected" officials than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
Like I said, I'm not losing sleep over it.
Besides, worst case I just toss out my TV. It's not like it's a critical piece of my life. (We can use a different set of blog entry comments to talk about potential government Nazi-fication of all other media sources if you like. Actually, I'll pass. My tinfoil hat needs a few more layers.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
Why are you so afraid of your children having ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
Yes, I would prefer my child had absolutely no brain activity. That would pretty much solve all the problems. He could watch anything he wanted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
I think that too many people are reading that statement as follows:
"No, but I let technology baby-sit my kids for me...."
Those who read it that way should return to elementary grammar school and actually pay attention this time. The key words in PRMan's statement are "useful tool".
Analogy: Does the hammer drive the nail without you?
(in case you didn't catch the rhetoric there, the answer is NO....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
If the parents who would actually use it want it, let them purchase them and pay the higher price for it. For those of us who don't need it, don't force it on us and spend our tax money on useless causes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
Cable TV, music, video games -- these are not licensed by the public, and I agree the government should stay out of it. Those are good examples of the public voting with their dollars to get ratings systems that, while still rather crappy (in my opinion), at least exist for those who want to pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guess we failed to get the memo...
Just rate everything high and that won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't block content based on rating - why? Because, well; I'm more opposed to violence than sex for one. A lot of PG, PG-13 content is ripe full of violence, but you put a half-nude person in a movie suddenly, it's rated R.
Too much 'unlocking' of content that could be considered not as bad as stuff that's not blocked.
Plus, I'm with Dave Barnes there - responsible parenting is the key really. I know I'll get flamed, but I'd rather have my kids watching a movie with a couple of light sex scenes in it, than some of the juvenile, tactless "humor" on some of the cartoon network shows.
In other words; it's one thing to see a girl naked it's another to make childish jokes about a woman's anatomy. One just shows nature the other shows woman as an object - if that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, yes, it is not a _substitute_ for parenting. Duh. But it's an excellent tool in the parenting toolbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who says it was a failure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real problem with v-chip
"Make something stupid proof and we will find a greater idiot"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You only pointed out an article that thought it would fail. There were probably lots of articles written by people who thought it would succeed.
Hindsight is great, but until we get that benefit, I don't mind if companies, the government, or any other organisation tries to give parents an option for controlling the program that kids watch on TV. Personally, I wouldn't use such a rating system, or take advantage of such technology. However, that's not the point. The government was trying to give parents this option.
Like you said, most shows don't have a rating. However, like I pointed out, they probably didn't know this would be the case 10 years ago, prior to any laws being passed. The laws were probably passed with good intentions.
And for the record, I'd never use the V-chip, even with kids in the house. I'm just not blindly against everything "the man" does like this website is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The V Chip A good solution to an Idiotic Political Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V-Chip is not a failure
fcc - 1998:
"The V-chip will not relieve parents of the responsibility of determining what their children watch on TV. It will help them fulfill that responsibility. Those who urge parents to simply turn off the shows they do not want their children to see should welcome the V-chip. The V-chip is essentially a remote control device with a longer range. It allows parents to "turn off" programs that they believe are harmful to their children while they are at work, at a PTA meeting, or at a Saturday night movie. It will not be a substitute for parents; it will help parents do their jobs."
It's not the fault of the V-Chip inventors that people are either too dumb to use it, or find other tools that do the job better.
The whole intent was not to FORCE content filtering on every kid in the country. It was to give parents the CHOICE to filter content.
And I would argue that the cable, satellite and DVR boxes that filter content are only able to do so because the V-Chip laid the groundwork for broadcasters to identify the type of content found in a TV show.
(v-chip history)
For the record, I do have little kids and we don't use the v-chip or any kind of content filtering. At this point they're not even allowed to use the remote. When they're a little older and can handle the TV by themselves I'll be enforcing some controls on the DVR and satellite boxes.(probably not the tv's v-chip)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: V-Chip is not a failure -- but the PROGRAM is
If parents want one, make it an option or make it a market-differentiator for your product.
By making it mandatory, the government is (a) interfering with private manufacturers' business, (b) taxing a product with a feature people aren't using, and (c) meddling in the private affairs of citizens.
The V-Chip program is a failure in that it cost ridiculous amounts to implement and is not being adopted by those it was forced upon. An insignificant number of people are using the feature. Those that are likely would have purchased a V-Chip type device separately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: V-Chip is not a failure -- but the PROGRAM is
Because it's for the CHILDREN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VChip hasn't changed anything
I turned it on because the grandchildren come over. When something that's TV-MA comes on, the blocked message comes on and she calls me up. After a while, I turned it off. The main reason is that it's annoying.... who can blame her?
I've had it come on during some mis-labeled TV commercials and it annoys me too. What excited me about the VChip was that I thought that we would finally not have to wait until 10pm to have some shows that aren't sanitized for children.
Turns out, nothing really changed and STILL parents who don't like violent or marginally offensive shows are protesting agatinst them. When they're asked why they don't activate the V-chip, they circumvent the answer and still protest. The only thing they want is to have the shows off the air.... period. If parents can't stop their kids from watching what they don't want them to watch, then they shouldn't have had the kids. You wanted the kids and you can't sanitize the world to make them happy. Otherwise they won't be able to deal with the world when they grow up and see that it's not sanitized for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media effects
'Despite a serious lack of real evidence of any impact'???????? Are you kidding me? Maybe you should take a look back to the 1960's when Bandura did the Bobo doll experiment? Does Social Learning ring a bell to anyone? This is one of the most widely accepted concepts of learned aggression and provides striking evidence in the field of media effects. Maybe you should read the numerous studies done on media effects and how violence and other explicit material on TV in fact DOES have serious consequences to those who view it. Your opinion is completely discredited by that 1 statement alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]