Is Television Harmful for Children?

Media & Society group 1
Yugay Mikhail

20061624

Reaction Paper: Is Television Harmful for Children

The reaction paper is correlated to the “Taking Sides” issues, this is the 2 issue. I have chosen this topic, because I found it quite interesting and argumentative. But as I have understood part “NO” (Jib Fowles from The Case for television violence) does not provide clear opposition, but mainly criticize part “Yes” (W. James Potter form On the Media violence). Many argue that the reason of violence among teenagers and young adults in reality is about the violence shown on TV. In my reaction paper I will try to more or less clarify two points of view, give my own opinion about the topic in general and about two opposite sides. I will try to answer some questions like whether the violence on TV is harmful for younger generation or not? What impacts it has? What other influences exists? And so on.

W. James Potter claims that there are immediate and long-term effects of violent content, and provide ten different characteristics. In Conclusion he provides most valuable reasons. He is giving all data according to researches. And Jib Fowles claims that such researches, for example like collecting group of children and to show different kinds of video and then make some conclusions are not appropriate methods.

As I have read the text, (actually not everything was clear foe me) I found quite interesting claims and facts. Personally, my opinion separated, I mean that from my point both sides are somewhere right and somewhere are not. But my point is closer to “Yes” side. Almost everything James Potter have said is true for me, for example after seeing some cruelties, violence or other negative things on TV I start to feel myself worse, my mood decreasing, these things according to Potter are immediate effects of content. But such things like feeling bad after cruel, violent video do not continue too long and end as immediate as start. I think it could not be one of the reasons but it could be the part of the reason. Further Potter added about some other different characteristics of immediate effects, like the environment of the individual, individuality, and so on. I think these are the main reasons, these things defines the level of influence or impact, for example, a child will have after watching some violence on TV or anywhere (internet, radio, newspaper, reality etc.). For example me, (I think, or expect that I have no problem with my mental abilities) I also was a child and saw the amount of violence the normal child have, and for me all these things are just not real, or if they very realistic I just know that such things could happened, but I never have motives to repeat them in reality, as the majority I guess. But as there are some different fortunes, different cases, upbringing, environment itself, there are different impacts and influences on children, teenagers and even adults. For example if a child was bitten or/and have alcoholic parents or/and drug users, he will have another view of life of environment, he will have another opportunities and wants, I think such children are aggressive, and some of them could, for example take a gun to school not for self-defense.

And what about part “NO”. I just could agree with Jib Fowles’s claim, that researches could be not appropriate for some cases. Because, as he said children do what they want at home and watch also what they want. They would not sit and watch the film or any kind of video they do not like. If child want to watch violent and cruel film, his parents should be worried.