A Solution for Television Viewers
Problems arise abundantly in almost every situation, and solutions are
even more scarce. To find one great solution to a pressing problem of
contemporary society is difficult, yet not impossible. Americans are plagued by
the influences of television day in and day out. It is one of the main constants in
many individuals lives, while grabbing the attention of families in ninety-eight
percent of America’s homes and is kept on for an average of six and a half hours
every day (Cheney 2). Perhaps there isn’t a problem so much in the fact that so
many people have this mysterious box on for periods of time, but rather the
problem lies in the way the viewer interprets the program that is being presented
to them. How much control does the viewer really have over what programs they
watch and when? How can a viewer monitor their viewing as well as their
children’s in a manner that will benefit them both? And what is the solution for
those who watch television for hours on end, giving up employment, schooling
and other important duties? These questions will be addressed throughout the
course of this paper, along with the best possible solutions that I have conjured
up for such a controversial topic.
Television has become nearly unavoidable and American society is more
affected by television than they realize. According to Nielsen Media Research,
the average TV household in the United States now owns two sets, which are
watched just over 30 hours every week by the typical American adult (Mahler
12). American society is more affected by television than is realized. Television
offers thin slices of the real word, becoming a version of reality that is created by
numerous components from mechanical parts to people, making up the medium
of television. Because what is heard and seen on TV is a lot like what is
experienced in real life, it’s easily and unconsciously assumed that what is on
television- the sex, the violence, the commercials, the cartoons- is real, true, or
normal. Viewers must realize the difference inbetween the fiction of TV and the
reality of their own lives.
The term “couch potato” has been coined for those who sit around and
watch television all day. Rutgers researcher Robert Kubey is one of the many
academics troubled by the trend of excessive television viewing. He and other
researchers have identified something called the “passive spillover effect” among
marathon viewers, in which individuals become noticeably more unassertive and
less alert even after turning the set off. The theory is that those who view a lot of
TV are in what amounts to an addictive state much of the time unable to think or
concentrate clearly (Mahler 14). Kubey goes on to say that “with prolonged
viewing some people become less able- or less inclined- to engage in a complex
analysis of what they watch. This raises the possibility that viewers may be less
guarded against, and more susceptible to, certain kinds of persuasive messages
the longer they view [television]” (14). By watching TV for endless hours viewers
become less choosy about the programming that they are going to feed into
themselves. Television is no longer being used as a positive force at this point,
but rather a substitute for other activities whether they be employment, chores,
or taking responsibility in their own lives. These people are abusing TV by
allowing themselves to escape their own lives for periods of time on end until
something jars them back to reality. TV has been criticized for promoting such
laziness, but the solution to this problem lies within the viewers themselves. The
viewer must know when they need to carry on with their lives and get chores
done, go to work, or go to school. Without self control and possessing self
motivation, these people are not victims of the television, but victims of their own
choices. Yes, television is providing them with an excuse as to why they didn’t
carry out their agenda, but television is unable to make decisions for the viewer.
The viewer ultimately chooses their own path, and if excessive TV viewing is a
part of it, then the viewer can only be blamed for their poor decision.
Perhaps one of the leading controversial subjects regarding television is
its plethora of material regarding sex and violence. Programming such as soap
operas and some prime time programming are devoted to sexual content.
According to a study in The Journal of Communications in 1980, “General
Hospital,” the most popular soap opera among adult women and teen-agers was
also the sexiest, exhibiting an average of sixteen incidents of sexual behavior
per hour, and during prime time, people engage in premarital and extramarital
sex seven times more often than in normal marital relations (Cheney 51).
People watching such hypothetical situations have to decide for themselves what
is morally correct, but this age group should be limited to adults. Children and
adolescents are hardly blocked out from sexual content on programs. While
most children are watching TV after school, the raciest soap operas are still on
the air. At night, when children and adolescents are watching their favorite
sitcoms, prime time television is beginning its programming that is geared toward
adults. Programming also containing extreme amounts of violence. The
rationale behind these flaws in television is that TV is simply mirroring the
realities of America and helping to express their concerns. Through TV, viewers
are allowed to partake in worlds unlike their own. Most individuals do not deal
with violence on a regular basis, and by watching a police officer battle it out with
a robbery suspect, or watch a gang do a drive-by on their sets, they are allowed
a small peep into an unfamiliar dimension. The adult viewer knows that these
instances are fictional, and that no one really was hurt in the end, but a child
watching the same type of program may not come to the same realization.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of violence on
adult and young viewers. Studies have shown that children watching a lot of
violent programs are more likely to be aggressive during play, and will accept
force as a solution to problems, and will fear becoming a victim of violence
(Cheney 48). Most children that have been subjected to violent programming
feel that it is acceptable to hit someone if there is justification. There have been
incidents of viewers mirroring actions that they have seen on TV, regarding
children and adults. Cartoons hold the most disguised forms of violence, and
children see characters hurting others and laughing about it too. They see the
characters in pain for a short moment before they immediately recover. How
many times did Tom lose his fur or have the shape of his head distorted in his
pursuit for Jerry, and how many times did he recover? 100 percent of the time.
Young children aren’t apt to realize that humans won’t go unscathed if they were
in the same predicaments. Kyle Pruett M.D., states that “Consistent exposure to
television violence immunizes children against real violence, reduces empathy
for the victims of violence in the real world, and makes it seem okay to intimidate,
abuse, or victimize others (228).
Adult viewers are also affected by violent content in programming as well
as children. Adults watching a lot of television violence have increased
tendencies to become violent or have an exaggerated fear of evil in the world.
They may also tend to overestimate the extent and seriousness of crime in
America, and they have a greater fear that people will try to take advantage of
them (Cheney 48). Because adult viewers have the opportunity to use wise
judgment in their program choices, it is easier for adults than children to resist
sex and violence on TV. So that an abundance of violent television is not
watched, the adult viewer can simply change the channel when violence is taking
place or just turn the television off. The viewer is and should always be the one
in control of what they are watching, and should never allow the TV to sway their
decisions.
There are also ways for parents to combat their children viewing such
material. Such items as the V-chip can be installed so that concerned parents
can block out certain stations so that their children will be unable to view them
entirely. A more practical approach for concerned parents would be that they
would set specific rules regarding the television set and what their children are
able to watch, and what is off limits, and enforce the rules they set. Certain
workshops have been set up around Chicago by Sara Livingston, professor of
television at Columbia College. These workshops help parents guide their
children toward critical viewing and offers strategies for family viewing habits.
Studies have shown that parents rarely use TV to help teach their children
values and to help them develop critical viewing habits (Baldacci 64). Parents
are the most important factor in children’s viewing, and children should not be
totally shut out from the world of TV. Livingston comments about those children
deprived of TV and feels that “The kid is isolated. He doesn’t have the
conversation and common ground for most of our social interaction these days”
(qtd. in Baldacci 64).
Television can be used for the high educational value it holds for children,
and the Public Broadcasting System created the Children’s Television Workshop
(CTW) in 1967 to attract children’s attention and teach them at the same time.
They hope children will develop such skills like the ability to recognize
relationships and think rationally by watching (Cheney 56). Such programs as
“Sesame Street” use puppets, and sketches containing action to hold pre-school
children’s short attention spans, and focuses on the areas of learning letters,
numbers, and shapes. A young black boy was watching “Mr. Rogers” on CTW
when he pointed to the screen and said, “Look! He looks like me and he knows
the answer!” (56) Besides learning a letter of the alphabet, this child was
learning something more valuable than the actual lesson.
Regardless of televisions negative aspects, it offers numerous options in
its channels, providing talk shows and soap operas that are directed at the
curious housewife, airing of live sports games for dedicated fans, sitcoms for
families to watch together, world news for concerned individuals, and programs
that inform and educate. In a split second television relays messages to viewers,
and provides them with a perfect way to relax and unwind after a hard day’s
work. If the viewer is aware of the many programs that television offers, and
picks and chooses what is best for them or their children, television is able to
harvest positive experiences. Instead of programming that merely entertains,
viewers are invited to travel with Jacques Cousteau and watch sharks in the
Mediterranean, and see Carl Sagan show viewers everything from atoms to the
fringes of the universe. They are allowed to visit blazing deserts, experience the
first steps on the moon, view pieces of wars, and see the president give a
speech. Sets provide viewers with a certain comfort by being able to hear the
gurgling of noises and talking voices float from the next room, or with the
reassurance that they are watching a program along with one third of the world’s
population (Kellogg 30).
I have attempted to provide solutions for problems that exist within the
realm of television viewing. The solutions lie at the heart of the viewer. It is up
to them to decide what they will watch, how often they will watch, and why they
will watch. Television viewers must have reasonable judgment when it comes
down to their viewing habits, or else they will become a hostage of their set.
Television does not act alone, but must comply with broadcasting rules,
time limits, and especially advertisers that buy air time. Once TV reaches the
viewer, the viewer must be aware that they are responsible for the effect that
they allow television to have on them, and how they relay these effects into their
personal lives. Sure, not everything on the air is one big bed of roses as I’ve
pointed out, but the majority of programming affects viewers in a positive way if
they permit it to. Broadcasters can shove almost anything they want through the
airwaves, but the viewer must be intelligent enough to decide what programming
is beneficial to himself, his family, and his children.
Bibliography
About the Author
Back to The Full Cup
Send comments to:
sspmo@imap2.asu.edu