Media Influences on Violence

Television executives are also quick to deny the influence of media violence. Yet the entire economy of television hinges on viewers' suggestibility. When NBC sells time to Microsoft and Toyota, it does so by hawking the tube's power to move minds. (The fact that individual commercials may fail to result in purchases is immaterial here.) Media's ability to influence people is a no-brainer for the simple fact that media is everywhere and everything; it is central to American culture. To argue that people aren't influenced by media is to argue that they aren't influenced by culture, and you don't need to be Margaret Mead to know that's insane.

When Fonzie brandished a library card on Happy Days library registration shot up nationwide. After a popular Budweiser campaign, people began greeting their pals, "Whassupp!" (To capitalize on the spots' popularity with children, J. C. Penney even sold "Whassup" kiddie T-shirts.) When Ally McBeal wore a certain style of pajamas, thousands of viewers asked retailers for them. It's the same thing with movies. ET and Reese's. Tom Cruise and Ray-Bans. Dirty Harry and . 44 Magnums. And it's not just companies that exploit media's influence. Many large nonprofit groups--from the NAACP to the White House drug office to the American Medical Association--hire people to lobby Hollywood for favorable coverage.

Does violence in the media influence the real world? Of course it does. Cop shows and crime reports make us scared of other people, of going out at night, of helping out strangers. That is perhaps its primary effect. But there should be no doubt that watching violence can also lead to violence. To say that it can is not to say that it does in most circumstances, with most people, in most places. Nor is it to say that violent media creates violent behavior out of nowhere. Whether someone's violent tendencies originated with an abusive parent or with Dirty Harry is on a certain level irrelevant; the fact remains that a steady diet of media blood and guts isn't good for some people, some of the time.

To say all this is simply to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth, one for which there is no easy solution. Censorship by righteous experts or government officials is not the answer. Even if you ignore the serious First Amendment issues involved, censorship schemes could at best treat only the symptoms. The real problem with the media is not overt violence, but an unchecked market that churns out content strictly for bucks. The only solutions, then, are far more radical: the establishment of a truly public broadcasting system, as opposed to the limp vessels of PBS and NPR. Let the corporate-owned networks program whatever garbage they like. Providing true alternatives to commercial media would give viewers more choices. And even if a fraction of the audience watches the alternative channels, their presence would help put things in perspective, onscreen and off.