Warning from Washington

Violence on television is harmful to children

Ever since a 1972 Surgeon General's report linked violence on television and aggressive behavior in children and teenagers, the subject has generated heated debate between activists who seek to limit television violence and critics who maintain that the evidence is still inconclusive. Last week the first part of a new report by the National Institute of Mental Health took a giant step toward settling the controversy. The two-year study, titled Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, flatly states that there is now "overwhelming" evidence that "excessive" violence on television causes aggressive behavior in children. Designed to examine the overall effects of television on American society, the report goes on to call television a "violent form of entertainment." It does not give, however, a precise definition of violence, whether in weekend cartoon shows or prime-time adventures.

Based on an extensive review of scientific studies made in the past decade, the report concludes that new evidence has "significantly strengthened" the earlier report's findings. Impetus for the new effort came from University of North Carolina Clinical Psychologist Eli A. Rubinstein, who worked on the 1972 study and was disappointed by its small impact on public opinion and network policy. Prompted by a Surgeon General's follow-up report on the dangers of smoking, he proposed an update on the TV study. Said Rubinstein: "It is just as clear-cut that if a large sample of children excessively watch television violence, you will find significantly larger proportions of those kids exhibiting aggressive behavior."

Rubinstein and David Pearl, chief of the behavioral sciences research branch of NIMH and the project's director, stress that cleaning up TV cannot be achieved by Government regulation. Says Rubinstein: "We are not advocates of Government control or any constraints on the First Amendment." Adds Pearl: "Viewers will be interested in watching programs with less violence. The television industry should not be as definite in thinking this [violence] is what the public wants."

Network reaction to the report was quick and predictable. All three networks attacked the study. NBC, which predicted that many of the study's conclusions "will be challenged by social scientists conducting independent review," also noted that its own study, to be made public in September, "certainly does not support [the report's] overall conclusions about the effect of viewing violence." Commented Les Brown, editor in chief of Channels, a video trade publication: "The networks like to make the argument, based on high ratings, that they're giving the public what it wants and are therefore serving the public interest."

The findings of the report are being applauded by a number of organizations that have long sought a reduction in television violence. Says Peggy Charren, president of Action for Children's Television: "The report should help parents understand that that box in the living room is not necessarily a friend of the family."

Though the NIMH report may galvanize public opinion against violent shows, its authors also state that the power of television has positive effects as well: "The whole federal effort should help parents and others who seek to know of both the positive and the adverse effects of the medium and of the ways in which they can influence them."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.