Anti-violence lessons on TV

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34127, 13 April 1976, Page 4

Anti-violence lessons on TV

IBg

KEN COATES)

Television is being used in the United States to help counter the effects on children of violence in television. A researcher, Dr Jack Lyle, director of the Communications Institute’s East West Centre in Honolulu, said on a visit to Christchurch that “mini-lessons” about one minute long on how to counter frustration and aggression without resorting to violence had been prepared for commercial breaks.

“The scheme originates with a foundation set up by the United Methodist Church of America,” he said. “A film might show children waiting for a turn on a swing and how a talk approach can be adopted instead of a fight developing.” Dr Lyle said the effect of television on children was so complex that it was difficult to generalise. But it was

most dangerous when children and adolescents were in a state of frustration or high tension and television could be the final push into some violent action. A counter-contention, that TV had a cathartic or purging effect, had largely been discredited. The most that could be said was that television had some effect on some children some of the time. But in programming for the public, it had to be realised that literature, including the Bible and Shakespeare, had a lot of violence and sex, both of which interested and were enjoyed by the public without harm. “There is no reason, in a free media society, that such censorship should be imposed so as to end up with television so bland it would not have any effect on anyone," Dr Lvle said. He'described a fascinating study of disturbed children in custodial care which showed that they reacted violently after watching wholesome family programmes. This was because the wise and protective

father and stable family shown brought home to them what they had missed. Dr Lyle emphasised that there was plenty of evidence to show that parents are the strongest influence in a child’s life. They could be most effective mediators in the influence of television when they watched it with their children. “In just talking about TV with their kids they can point out the moral message, if there is one, and sort out things for the children if they have been disturbed by a programme,” he said. Very young children, however — and in the United States most children were making their own choice of programme at three — could not connect parts of the same programme. Programmes containing violence were considered acceptable if right prevailed. But as young children viewed each segment between commercials as a separate entity, they saw might winning

without it being linked with right. “And that is obviously very disturbing," Dr Lyle said. He had to concede that realistically many parents used television as a childwatching device. It was the children whose parents were least likely to act as a buffer who lived in the most troubled environment. And for them, unfortunately, violence on television often merely reinforced it as a way of life. Efforts were being made to introduce programmes into the school curriculum to help children develop analytic attitudes towards television. An interesting social effect of television was a sharp rise in the incidence of dental decay. Commercials promoted breakfast cereals with a high sugar content and now “counter-commercials” were being produced on the dangers of eating too much candy and sugar. The National Science Foundation had called for

research proposals in the area of TV and children, and more funds were being made available. “But we hesitate to do anything in our system which interferes with the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech,” Dr Lyle said.