Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 310 (392775)
04-02-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 9:13 AM


agreed
That's not what I said. I am saying that the rating of the commercial should at least equal the program being watched.
I agree but this is required because the large media organizations fought to subvert the V-chip (and won ).
The inventor of the V-chip lives (lived?) close to here. I heard him speak on the topic just as the rules for use were being formulated.
His intention (and the V-chip could support this) was that you be allowed to set independent levels of things like sex, violence and about 4 other categories (that I've forgotten). So one person might allow 3 out of 5 on sex and 1 on violence etc. This allows the parents to rate the content themselves according to what they believe is good for the kids or not.
Content (all of it) would carry the levels of each category and the v-chip would cut out anything not meeting the set criteria.
The content providers, media, etc. wanted to maintain control of the ratings themselves and not allow that level of control. So we continued the stupid G, X, R etc. which offer damm little real information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 9:13 AM riVeRraT has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 68 of 310 (393514)
04-05-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by riVeRraT
04-05-2007 12:59 AM


Who needs TV
Three years ago I felt that my son and I were watching too much TV. A lot of it was news, nature shows and science shows but when I stopped to think about it I realized that in the better science shows on TV there was about 5 minutes of pretty good content. I'd find myself watching the same news 3 times in an evening and not learning all that much about the subject.
I cut off the cable and the TV is only on for watching DVD while I iron now or my son and his friends rent one or play a video game. It sits dark for days at a time.
At first we missed it and I'd eagerly watch some when I went to visit my parents. Now we really don't care except for some particular show about once every 2 or 3 months.
There doesn't seem to be any value in it at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by riVeRraT, posted 04-05-2007 12:59 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-05-2007 3:04 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-05-2007 3:30 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 71 by anglagard, posted 04-05-2007 8:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 292 of 310 (399212)
05-04-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by nator
05-04-2007 10:47 AM


Evidence for the effects of TV violence
I'm in a bit of a rush so I can't dig up real research but here are some bits of a recent New Scientist editorial and article.
The article is subscription only I'm afraid.
Article:
quote:
Experiments in the lab have addressed the causal question, by dishing out particular viewing or gaming experiences followed by behavioural tests or questionnaires. This kind of study has shown that after watching just half an hour of violence, children have more devious and aggressive thoughts, are more likely to inflict punishments, and are less likely to cooperate.
Brain imaging and other physiological measures also reveal changes in emotional responses to violent images as a result of viewing violence or playing violent games. Bruce Bartholow of the University of Missouri, Columbia, has found that people with a history of game playing have a reduced brain response to shocking pictures, suggesting that people begin to see such imagery as more normal. Another study found that frontal lobe activity was reduced in youngsters who played a violent video game for 30 minutes, compared with those playing an equally exciting but non-violent game. This brain region is important for concentration and impulse control, among other things. A region called the amygdala, important for emotional control, was more aroused in those who experienced the violent game.
...
The big picture is clear. Modern media such as TV and computer games are changing our minds, and the more we are exposed to them the greater the changes. They are making us smarter and better at some tasks, but worse at others. And there is no getting away from the fact that on-screen violence fosters off-screen violence.
Editorial: In denial about on-screen violence
quote:
Yet every time a study claims to have found a link between aggression, violence, educational or behavioural problems and TV programmes or computer games, there are cries of incredulity, even (ironically) anger. People seem to doubt that such a link exists, or think the evidence is generally weak.
That view is not shared by the vast majority of researchers who study the subject. They see a clear link between media consumption and aggression, and also mounting evidence for an increased risk of attentional, behavioural and educational problems with extended exposure to TV and computer games. They have been in little doubt for around half a century (see "Mind-altering media"), and over that time scientific confidence in the detrimental effects of media violence has only increased. Why, then, the disconnect with public perception?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 10:47 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024