OK, I think I understand David's perspective on morality with one exception (noted below) and I agree with his identification of his values (and not objective facts) as being in opposition with the FoxNews presentation.
Now for the exception. Since I was wrong in assuming that he meant the traffic light example to be extended metaphorically, I am left wondering in what sense a 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." Is this the same as saying a traffic light is the only stimulus that has unalterable consequences for being ignored? The assertion seems to be that everything except the traffic light is something you are free to ignore or attend to as you please. In what sense is this true? What about other laws (including gravity) for which the penalty is just as swift, certain and severe. I can imagine many people freely choosing to ignore a traffic light (with the attendant consequences) and I can imagine many people choosing to ignore other laws of the land (tax laws or laws against breaking and entering) or even moral principles (with the attendant consequences). In fact, having driven in NYC, I have to say that red lights are some of the most ignored stimuli in town. I just don't understand the special status of the traffic light. Rick Dr. Richard L. Froman Psychology Department John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone and voice mail: (479)524-7295 http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/rfroman.html -----Original Message----- From: David Epstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
