A Mass Effect: Television's Impact on American Culture (Conclusion)

The final, arguably most important impact that television has had on our culture is its double sided effect on our fears, attitude towards violence and overall values. Television programming and news stations often paint a picture of the world as a terrifying, violent place. This creates an inflated sense of fear among viewers while also desensitizing the public to violence and cruelty. Research shows that heavy television viewers perceive that world as a much more dangerous place than those people who don’t watch nearly as much television. When the evening news comes on TV, the majority of the stories are saturated with crime and violence. Such stories often times result in a spike in ratings and viewership, especially among viewers who watch television later at night. (1990: 93) “Violence and other adult themes increase with the hour. The 8 o’clock (news) has more violence than the two earlier ones, and 10 P.M. programs have even more.”

The violence doesn’t stop at the news. American television programs are notorious for containing scenes of violence, especially in prime-time slots. In a study done by Gerbner in 1985, data shows that five to six violent acts per hour were found in prime-time television shows, often times within some sort of action series. Today, shows that air on premium networks like HBO and Showtime are often extremely violent, holding little to nothing back in the department of blood and core. Shows like Dexter, where the main character is a serial killer and Boardwalk Empire, which chronicles the violent lives of prohibition gangsters, build every episode around violence. It is not rare to see a couple murders, often times detailed and gruesome, in each episode. Violent programming is not limited to such channels, however. Network television features increasingly graphic shows, as well. Law & Order: SVU (Special Victims Unit, is a show the follows the cases of a crime unit in New York Police Department, who specialize in special cases, nearly always involving some combination of rape, murder, and assault. For years, this show has aired in prime-time weeknight time slots; currently airing on Wednesdays at 9 P.M. SVU is just one example of violent network television programming. Others include Revolution, a post-apocalyptic setting riddled with fight scenes and killing, 666 Park Avenue, a show that falls in the horror genre rife with violent murders and references to the devil, and NCIS, a show much like Law & Order where the writers serve up stories about abductions, sexual assault, and child pornography. All three shows air on different networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS respectively and all have a rating of TV-14, indicating that they are not appropriate for children under the age of 14. It is safe to assume, however, that simply flashing a rating on the top corner of the TV screen at the beginning of an episode is going to do very little in the way of deterring underage viewers.

Now that we’ve established the fact that violence exists on TV, the next step is to weigh the consequences of such. There are conflicting schools of thought on whether or not media violence has a positive correlation with real life violence or not. In a study done by Neil Malamuth of the University of California, Malamuth states that (1990: 99) “steady viewing of graphic violence, including sexual assault, was associated with greater tolerance for and less disapproval of rape and wife-beating.” According to Smith, “the evidence is becoming overwhelming that just as witnessing violence in the home may contribute to normal adults and children learning and acting out violent behavior, violence on TV and movies may lead to the same result.” Not everyone is so convinced however. Freedman sees that there is a slight correlation between TV violence and aggression, but not enough to positively determine that Tv violence is the cause of increased aggression. According to Freedman, “Something in their personalities or behavioral patterns, some predisposition, trait, combination of environmental pressures, learning history, or whatever, causes people to like aggressive programming and also to be aggressive.” Freedman feels that a clear determination between whether the violent television leads to an aggressive personality or if the aggressive personality draws the person to violent television cannot be made. Personally, I have to side with Malamuth and Smith on this particular issue. It seems intuitive to think that a person who is exposed to violence in the media is going to be desensitized to violence in real life; if for no other reason than the fact that if a horrific event happens to them or they pay witness to such an event, a person familiar with seeing such events on TV will likely be able to cope with the trauma by mentally reverting to the comfort of their homes, sitting in front of a TV screen.

The specific areas of life affected in addition to the extent of the impact have been debated for years. Naturally, a medium as intrusive and extensively involved in American life will have long term consequences on the way people act, think, and perceive. Learned television watching behaviors, such as eating, talking, and going to the bathroom whenever you please often translate into other areas of life, going from strictly an action performed in the privacy of our homes to an action performed in movie theatres, lecture halls, and office buildings. Culture, which according to its definition includes learned, shared understandings, has been forever changed as the mass media has the ability to spread a message to people from all walks of life, affecting the collective knowledge that we, as a people, share with one another. Finally and most importantly, television affects the way we think, especially in reference to violence. We have been desensitized due to the scheduling of violent programming in addition to a focus on violence in news broadcasts. Countless examples and various studies have been performed testing all sorts of different theories out about what the long term effects of such a dominating invention will have on our society, yielding a lot of different results. The one constant that remains, however, is that there are some definite effects; strong ones at that. The mass effect of television on our culture cannot be taken lightly, and an ever-continuing research effort is a must for the better understanding of such a powerful tool.

A Mass Effect: Television's Impact on American Culture (How We Think and Act)

Television habits that we practice at home are translated into other areas of our lives. For example, talking while watching television is extremely common. ‘Stage IV’ viewers often converse with other people in the room as they watch television. This behavioral pattern has translated to other places including, but not limited to, the movie theatre, the classroom, and the work environment.

People also tend to execute their freedom to get up and go to the bathroom whenever they please, yet another trend that has translated from an in-home habit to one that is demonstrated in public. Students often get up in the middle of class and walk out, without saying a word, in order to use the bathroom. Just like a television program only holds part of our attention, as does the actor on the movie screen or the professor in the classroom. This is the direct result of shorter attention spans, a behavior developed over time as focus on the television becomes less constant. Kottak states that these people (1990: 4) “intend no disrespect. They are simply transferring a home-grown pattern of snack-and-bathroom break from family room to classroom. They perceive nothing unusual in acting the same way in front of a live speaker and fellow students as they do when they watch television.”

In addition to the way we act, television affects the way we think. According to Thinking Like An Anthropologist: A Practical Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, written by John T. Omohundro, culture is defined as (2008: 27) “the learned, shared understandings among a group of people about how to behave and what everything means.” There is a minimal effect from any single show, just as a show cannot tell a person exactly how to feel. It is important to focus in on television as a whole rather than a series of individual parts. The collective exposure to television in combination with the pervasiveness of the media lead to a complete redefinition of the common knowledge we share with our fellow Americans. Television does not discriminate against a particular segment of the population, but rather spreads the same exact product to every single viewer all at one time. In the words of Kottak, (1990: 7) “Televiewing encompasses men and women of different ages, colors, classes, ethnic groups, and levels of educational achievement. Television is seen in cities, suburbs, towns and country – by farmers, factory workers, and philosophers.” There is simply no other means for delivering the same consistent message to this amount of people from all different walks of life. The result is a change in our interpretation and expectation of the world around us. In order for such a massive change to take place across the board, there must be a shared knowledge held by all members within such a culture. For example, football is a popular sport because most of the people who watch it understand the rules of the game. (Kottak 1990: 43) “Such mass knowledge contrasts with the privileged expertise and resultant prestige of professionals such as lawyers and economists. An activity’s clarity democratizes it.” In other words, mass knowledge delivered via the television set, settles into the collective consciousness of the public, which, in turn, creates a feeling of comradery and enjoyment.

Every time you hear a person spit out a quote from South Park, a cartoon show on Comedy Central, followed by a group of people laughing at the quote, you are experiencing the aforementioned comradery and enjoyment. Part of the enjoyment revolves around the humor in the words themselves, while the other part is the collective recognition and understanding shared by those involved. Another example of shared knowledge leading to joy is in the form of references and call backs. Often times television programs will make a reference to some other event and there, in itself, lies the joke. For example, Community, a prime-time sitcom on NBC, features a reference to the movie Beetlejuice. In the movie, saying the word ‘Beetlejuice’ three times summons the monster from his grave. In Community the word Beetlejuice is worked into the conversation on three separate occasions over the course of the show, and on the third time, a man dressed as Beetlejuice walks by in the background. There is no punch line here other than the fact that a cleverly written reference is being made, and yet, nearly 1.5 million people viewed the clip on YouTube, proving that there is a certain level of enjoyment in the sharing of a common knowledge.