THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, December 22, 1994 TAG: 9412220005
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 65 lines
That TV violence stimulates aggression in children, desensitizes many viewers to mayhem and contributes to the murderousness that haunts us is a proposition widely accepted.
It's also sharply disputed, of course. But there is a consensus, grounded in studies and the particulars of some TV-inspired crimes, that violence-saturated television influences a percentage of youths and young adults for the worse.
Congress, pediatricians, parents' groups, teachers and many others troubled by the rise of barbarism have been pleading with broadcasters to curb depictions of brutality. The hope is that toning down violence on the tube will help lessen it in the streets and within families.
That hope may be futile; there are many reasons for the unacceptable levels of real American violence. Would the disappearance of TV violence assure domestic tranquillity? History says no. Nonetheless, sentiment builds for mandating a ``V'' chip on new television sets that would empower parents to black out violent shows. The desire is a reasonable one. Warnings about gruesome content now precede some programs. That's progress.
Few would contend that violence does not abound on TV. Researchers estimate that children see 100,000 acts of simulated violence before leaving elementary school. The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research group, counted 2,605 violent acts between 6 a.m. and midnight on cable-television channels available to Washington, D.C., households. The heaviest concentrations of violence were in the early morning and afternoon when children tend to be watching. Does anyone solemnly argue that whopping helpings of such fare are good for impressionable youngsters?
The public appetite for savagery, fictional and real, is hearty. So hearty that America's well-heeled providers of goods and services pay handsomely to pitch their wares on TV programs that use violence to catch the viewer's eye. Billions of dollars are paid for advertising on commercial television. The investment is profitable for the advertisers and the networks and stations that project the advertising.
Violence is not a staple of public television, which is underwritten in part by the taxpayers for the common good: Education is the stock in trade of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which mounts all kinds of worthwhile programs for schoolchildren inside and outside the classroom.
Yet many of the critics of our sensation-drenched popular culture are in the forefront of the Republican congressional majority's drive to deny any federal funding to CPB. Gov. George Allen has just proposed halving state funding for public TV and eliminating all funding for public radio.
About 14 percent of CPB's funding comes from Washington. The rest comes from the private sector - corporations, foundations, individuals. The annual federal subsidy for CPB programming - ``uplifting'' programming (as earlier generations put it) - that stimulates learning and appreciative, thoughtful and constructive attitudes and behavior is $285 million for TV and radio, or $1.09 per American. That money's well-spent.
Washington would be shortsighted to scrap the CPB subsidy. CPB strives ever to deliver high-quality programming that addresses viewers as citizens and students, not primarily as consumers. It does not exploit violence to sell things. If CPB is forced to rely more heavily on corporate money than it does, no one can count on its retaining its distinctively positive thrust. by CNB