Living With Children

Upon recent receipt of a regional health care system's newsletter, my attention was immediately drawn to the lead article, "TV Violence: Are Your Children At Risk." It reiterated oft-heard statistics concerning the number of hours the average American child will spend watching television by age 18 (18,000+), the percentage of premium cable shows that portray violent acts (85%), the percentage of perpetrators that go unpunished (73%), and so on. Alarming, to say the least.

The writer then asserted these figures "confirmed previous suspicions, unequivocally illustrating that violence on TV teaches children and adolescents to behave violently . . . According to child psychiatrists, (television's preoccupation with violence) produces children who have less empathy for others (and therefore) do not reach out to understand others and do not understand nonviolent ways of resolving conflicts."

These sorts of alarmist conclusions are nothing new. The well-read individual will run across them periodically, which is the problem. It has been irrefutably established that if Joe or Josie Average reads/hears something often enough, he/she will eventually take its veracity for granted. It has not, however, been "unequivocally" established that television violence teaches children to behave violently, results in empathy-challenged children, or prevents children from understanding and employing nonviolent ways of resolving interpersonal conflict. Indeed, adolescent violence has tripled over the last generation or so, and over the same time, television violence has become more chronic and more explicit. But as every introductory psychology student learns, correspondence is not necessarily indicative of cause-and-effect.

The facts:

While there have been numerous attempts to prove that high doses of television violence leads to violent behavior in children, the "smoking gun" has not been found.

A significant number of children who are regularly exposed to television violence never engage in violent behavior.

Parents should certainly be concerned about what their children watch on television, but concerning the matter of violent behavior in children, there's obviously more involved than the tube. In my book, television violence qualifies as junk; it does not yet qualify as toxic. Letting a child watch television programs that contain violent and/or sexual themes is stupid, but in this case at least, stupid doesn't qualify as child endangerment.

By way of conclusion, the author of the aforementioned article recommended that parents of teenagers counteract the overly sexual or violent nature of certain shows by watching such shows with their teens and explaining their own views. In my book, this, too, qualifies as stupid. My children were young when first I heard this vapid piece of advice. I asked myself then what I ask now: What's the point of watching stupid programs with one's children? I can think of few things that qualify as bigger wastes of everyone's time. And if the answer to that question is "it gives me a chance to explain my values to my children," I suggest you find a more meaningful way, during a more meaningful time, to explain your values. Parents did manage to accomplish this before television, you know?

I also suggest that the best way to communicate your values to a child who is discovered watching a stupid television show (and there are pitifully few exceptions) is to simply walk over and turn off the television, saying, "We do not allow such stupidity into this house. Find something else to do." That, parents, is explanation enough.