|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Chaos Reigns
| Article
# : |
20035 |
|
|
Section : |
BOOK WORLD
|
| Issue
Date : |
12 / 1992 |
3,673 Words |
| Author
: |
Stanley Rothman
Stanley Rothman is Mary Huggins Gamble Professor of
Government and director of the Center for the Study of Social
and Political Change at Smith College. |
Vice President Quayle's criticism of the television show Murphy Brown set off a storm of public controversy about the impact of television and motion pictures on the American people. However, the debate over that impact, its nature and sources, has been going on for some time at a much lower key, dividing people into several camps. Michael Medved's fine study, Hollywood vs. America, is a new contribution to the debate, one that has the good (or perhaps bad) fortune to be appearing at a time when the issues have become politicized.
The outcome of Quayle's criticisms of prime-time television adds weight to Medved's book but also, as we shall see, a certain poignancy. In any event, understanding Medved's argument requires that it be placed within the framework of the debate of which the volume is part.
There are those who deny that movies or television significantly affects public attitudes or behavior. Their argument, essentially, is that the television and motion picture industries give the public what it wants. Hollywood has no agenda except that of making a profit. For example, television's emphasis on sex and violence reflects the public's desire to satisfy its fantasies and has little or no effect on the real world.
The upholders of this position can point to numerous studies that support their views. Indeed, they often rely on the same studies their opponent cite to underline the nefarious influence of television. For example, the hundreds of studies of television violence have produced, at best, ambiguous results. Children who view violent films are more likely to kick dolls in laboratory experiments, for example, and adults who view violent films are likely to administer stronger electric shocks to putative subjects than members of control groups. Beyond findings such as those, we have very little. In other widely studied areas, such as pornography, the evidence for effects is even weaker, despite the efforts of one strain of feminist theorists to prove otherwise.
Critics of the limited-influence position argue that it is intrinsically difficult to prove the public impact of one medium of communication, partly because it is almost impossible to separate out its influence from that of other factors. In addition, most studies are quite short term. We really cannot tap long-term effects in the laboratory.
The strongest supporters of the limited-impact argument have been the CEOs of media conglomerates, film producers, and
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
