Sunday, April 29, 2007

FCC Calls For Congress To Regulate TV Violence

Many pediatricians suggest that children's exposure to violence on television should be curtailed. Now what parents may be failing to do to protect their offspring may be taken up by the government.

The FCC is recommending that Congress step in with regulations limiting TV violence.

While the suggestion that violent TV viewing among children should be curbed may be admirable, the idea that the government might regulate it is absurd.

It's the responsibility of parents to determine what their children watch.

Besides, stopping violence on TV doesn't really protect anyone.

There's plenty of violence for children to see on cable TV (which isn't regulated by the FCC), in movies, in books, in comic books, on the Internet and, unfortunately, in real life, in neighborhoods and in homes.

Once the government gets involved, judgment calls will have to be made. Where will the lines be drawn? Will Saturday morning cartoons be banished? Were entire generations of children psychologically scarred by watching Popeye battle Brutus or Jerry outwit Tom? Will reruns of the Three Stooges be banished? Will TV journalists be ordered to sanitize their coverage of wars and other violent events? By this measure, the cops who beat Rodney King, for example, might not ever have been exposed to the world.

Even shows like COPS and Jerry Springer could find themselves regulated. We'd be "protected" from watching Jack Bauer beat the locations of suitcase nuclear bombs out of terrorists.

Maybe there would be no more free WWE. Wrestling enthusiasts would have to dig into their pockets to watch it only on pay for view.

Would hockey fans be forced to get satellite dishes so they can watch their teams battle for the Stanley Cup on the CBC? What would happen with football? Would NASCAR races be put on a time delay so that the network can dump out if there's a violent crash?

The only ones who would benefit by such draconian regulatory reach would be the lawyers. These kinds of proposed rules just scream for litigation. The Media General News Service says there are 220 lawyers in the current House and Senate. One can only hope that some of them are Three Stooges fans and that this proposal ends up where it belongs, in the circular file.


Cass said...

Gosh......... imagine attempts to sanitise society! You wouldn't be able to show the English Parliament on TV; no football games; no reality TV shows; no news - oh, and while we're at it, cut all those nature programmes cos they can get pretty violent!!

I'm sorry, but I just can't see who would be best quslified to make the decisions about what should and should not be available for viewing. Would it be politicians? Nah, they too can be violent, not to mention ammoral! Government officials? Nah, they are puppets. Religious leaders? Nah, they're driven by their own specific agendas and have way too diverse a take on acceptable levels of violence and morality.

So what are we left with? That's right Gary, the family!!! What a novel idea!
'Brave New World' thinking is alive and well and living in our society!

crash said...

When is it the goverments job to moniter our children ???It is our the parents responceablity to do this not the goverments.If Parents would take on thier responceablites then we would not need govement involvement as we have too much of it as it is so where does it end ???

psychie said...

The government has been weaseling it's way into our lives for a long time. Suddenly everyone is shocked that they want to regulate what our children see on television?

Of course, we don't live in a Leave It To Beaver world any more. Who is watching what the children are watching?

It's still up to the parents. Just like it should be up to the parents if their child gets an abortion; goes into drug rehab; or anything else involving a minor.