This post contains even less data than any of my prior posts on this topic, if that's possible, so feel free to delete, unless you care about my musings.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Rick Froman went: > I guess I thought you were saying the media doesn't have much of an > effect. I didn't realize you were limiting the negative effects to > things like body image. Well, I only said "probably." :) One could probably amass evidence that the incidence of eating disorders and other body-image problems has increased with the growth of mass media (even after accounting for the fact that such problems are better-recognized than they used to be). > Media eroticism has no negative effect on teens but media distortion > of body image does? It may be that both have effects, but I question the value system that leads the Fox News site to mention "promiscuous sex" while ignoring media messages about who's sexy and who's not. I mean, if each of those things were shown to be causally related to its putative outcome--promiscuous sex on the one hand, eating disorders and hatred of one's own appearance on the other--I would point out that promiscuous sex can _lead_ to negative effects, but eating disorders and hatred of one's own appearance _are_ negative effects. > Now I realize that "to imply that there's something bad about the > availability, or even the proliferation, of lurid material, you have to show > that it causes harm" while "the marbling of information and advertising (as > on Channel One or > in teen magazines). . . [is] bad on its face, whether or not any further > resultant harm is demonstrated". But I am confused about the traffic light > reference and what kind of content would be metaphorically considered a > traffic light. None--that was my point. A literal traffic light is one of the only examples of something that (should you choose to navigate the streets) you don't get to attend or ignore as you please. Intake of mass-media content should be a matter of informed choice. Informed choice is threatened by undisclosed commercial influences on content; it's also threatened by people who would limit access to Eminem albums, or whatever, on account of some presumed harm. From that perspective, you could argue that the Frontline site is calling for more informed choice, while the Fox News site is aligned with those who'd like to see less. > My point in bringing up the comparison initially was to show that > there was agreement from both right and left wings that the media is > evil and is having a negative influence on our teens. Many posters > to the list were expressing doubt that the media had any significant > effect on culture. Well, I am skeptical about certain contentions regarding mass-media influence, especially the one we all hear most often--that mass-media violence has produced a general increase in callous acceptance or perpetration of real-life violence. At the risk of arguing from anecdote, I would point out that the pre-Tarantino, pre-video-game baseline includes, oh, the Rape of Nanking and the US's publicly celebrated lynchings in the 1800s and 1900s. Where is the evidence that people (kids or adults) in the US in 2002 are more callous about real-life violence than other people at other times? (Come to think of it, where's the evidence that we're not more sensitive about it?) One concession: I do believe that the reporting and mass-media analysis of real-life violence can be a _proximal_ cause of copycat violence. For example, when the _New York Times_ excerpted the journal entries of the nonentities who'd shot people at Columbine High School, the message to readers was "here's how to get yourself cared about; here's how to have your motivations fascinatedly scrutinized." Sure enough, we got copycats. I'm sure that the copycats would inevitably have done something violent anyway, but the point is that they did THAT thing THEN. Similarly, we have the kid in Florida who flew a private plane into a building a few months ago. These are the cases where causation seems clear. (As an experiment, perhaps the front page of the _New York Times_ should excerpt journal entries from kids who volunteer at homeless shelters or join P-FLAG in support of their gay siblings. Perhaps we should see televised panel discussions in which psychologists try to explain what motivates THOSE kids. If we get even a handful of copycats, it'll be worth it.) Thanks for indulging my Sylvesterian free association. --David --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
