Who says TV doesn't affect kids!

[nomadpete]

You're getting desperate now, that was back in 2004.

When I was young these demos were much more frequent.

 

But you've made a point that basically confirms my opinion. Yes there have been a few marches against our military presence in the middle east over the past years.

Recent examples are seldom considered sufficiently noteworthy to make headline news though.

[nomadpete]

3 minutes ago, red750 said:

Have any of you watched WWE wrestling. "Sports entertainment" they call it.

Yes, as kids WWE became available. The concensus amongst us was 'what a crock!'

It was just beyond belief.

And that was in my later highschool years, when it was common practice to adjourn to the nearby saleyards to resolve any schoolyard disputes. The yard rails would be lined with spectators to the fight. Our school had a 'no tolerance of violence' (upmarket state school, with an image to protect) so such things couldn't ever happen on school grounds!

[octave]

8 minutes ago, red750 said:

Have any of you watched WWE wrestling. "Sports entertainment" they call it. Huge guys beating up on smaller guys. Bashing one another with steel folding chairs, banging heads into steel corner posts, punching each other with steel chains around their hands and arms. And the women are just as bad. It may be choreographed and rehearsed, but do kids watching that realise this? And participants do occasionally get seriously injured.

 Yep that was going on in 70s also.   When I was growing up this was bigger than today.  There were wrestlers with names such as Abdul the Butcher and Killer Kowalski  

 

The Original WCW: The Glory Days of Australian Pro Wrestling (VIDEOS)

[willedoo]

I remember Skull Murphy, Brute Bernard and Mario Milano. Mario was the good guy; all the old ladies in the audience loved him.

[Jerry_Atrick]

As is usual with these sorts of questions (great one, OME - really got the conversaton going), is that there is no black and white answer - there will an element that moves one way or an element that moves another. So, reframing the question somewhat, does TV have an impact on the behaviour of people (let's not discriminate against the adults here). It would be absurd to suggest that TV (or mass media) does not have an impact. Otherwise, why would Murdoch be coming under so much fire for his orrganisations' political bias and the ability to infuence election results - and that is influencing the part of the population whose frontal cortexes (the thining and reasoning part of the brain) is supposedly fully developed.

 

So to argue that kids TV (or other mass media) doesin't influence kids inuitively is a furphy. And the study I mentioned bears this out (or at least provides evidence in favour). Yes, we had all sorts of things before TV (and other mass media) - it didn't turn a completely passive and calm population into raging violent lunatics. There always has been and always will be issues. The question is, is TV (and other mass media) making bad thigs worse. Well, the, let's call it, programming promiscuity that is today compared to days gone by in some areas would appear to be yes... In other areas, where things have tightened up from a programming perspective, they may have been improved.

 

I agree with Octave that on the whole, the kids that I know are on the whole better than when I was a kid. However, I do live in a bubble. But also, it could be a product of other balancing influences that have had to be developed to address the poor influence of programming promiscuity that is today. Speak to any adolescent psychologist and the problems are different today - and many are entirely avodiance if society were preapred to act. For instance exposure to hard core pron to adolescent males is a big issue, which has been around now for a few years, and in all sorts of life this is coming out in increased sexual abuse, but also a bunch of young men who can't hold serious relationships because their perception of women is so far from reality  - it is not just that they would become rapists. Of course, sexual abuse has always been a part of society (the private school abuse scandal here, and I think in Aus, as well illustrates this). However, warping a kids mind doesn't necessarily produce violence, but it can warp their adulthood (Nomad - agree with what you say re it is not all statiscal BTW).

 

Most psycholigists believe there is a pandemic of mental and behanviooural issues that weren't there (for various reasons) in earlier generations and there is the rage about nature v nurture..  The answer is varied.. yes the news highlights society's ills, but it has done for ages..

 

Again, going back to the toy solders.. yes we had them when we were kids.. But from what I have seen, there is more agression vented through them than when I was a kid. Maybe I am looking back with rose coloured foggles, it's purely anecdotal and there may be confirmation bias in there.. But I seem to recall even the next generation from me being not quite so intense as some youngans I have seen today.

[old man emu]

I looked for scientific papers dealing with the effects of TV on child psychology, but the papers I found after a quick search were more than a few years old. I figured that the nature of TV programming has changed significantly in the past 10 years, so those older papers, whild providing some generalisations, would not reflect the present situation.

[pmccarthy]

Saturday matinee, Perls of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Tarzan, etc. with a colour cartoon.

[nomadpete]

Good point OME, about the lack of current data. I'd say that although TV program quality has been deteriorating for years, its now reached the point where it is so poor that most young (under 40) hardly watch it at all. For instance the youngest of my family tribe (5 kids, ages 3 to 9) don't have a TV at all. And the rest think TV is what grandma's watch whilst waiting for goddo. So, our discourse on TV's influence probably applies to the adults aged 40 - 50! 

 

However, now the worry is about small screen time which, to its credit, offers a much wider scope of brain input. The only way to start research into that would require access to metadata, which our government has been storing. And that would require Big Brother to take an interest in doing the research. Oh, wait! China already does it. Can we buy the algorithms from them?

[red750]

You are not wrong about the deterioration of TV programming. It's so bad I turn off, either literally, or just ignoring what is going on in the background. It helps to drown out the tinnitus. These incessant moronic reality programs and game shows - Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity, get me out of here, Married at First Sight, The Batchelor/ette and that other Greg Norman piece of garbage - I can't remember the name. That and gambling ads - Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, et al. Should be banned like cigarette advertising. Incidentally, saw a picture of Peter Brock's Torana with the Marlboro logo blurred. Quiz shows are different - Millionaire Hot Seat, The Chase, etc are interesting. However, that English one my wife watches, Tipping Point - should be Tipping Pointless.

 

(Edit: You have to wonder what brainless morons go on these reality shows.)

[octave]

12 hours ago, nomadpete said:

You're getting desperate now, that was back in 2004.

When I was young these demos were much more frequent.

 

But you've made a point that basically confirms my opinion. Yes there have been a few marches against our military presence in the middle east over the past years.

Recent examples are seldom considered sufficiently noteworthy to make headline news though.

 

When was the last new deployment?      Yes people are not by and large out protesting our continued involvement such as during Vietnam,  the difference is that our troops are not and have not been involved in combatant roles for some time.    Your thesis (and correct me if I am wrong, and I am simplifying what I think you are saying) is that TV consumption has caused young people to be more pro war since 2004.    My question would be which wars has Australia committed troops to since 2004 that have not elicited protests amongst young people (as well as older people)? 

 

We must move in very different circles.  Most of the young people I know tend to be more left of centre and less conservative and most definitely not pro war.  Sure they may not have the fervor of the Vietnam days but it has been quite some time since prime ministers have had press conferences announcing troop deaths.

 

According to Roy Morgan research in 2015 61% are against sending ground troops to Syria or Iraq this compares with  52% approval for troops in Vietnam.

 

A special snap SMS Morgan Poll shows a majority of Australians (61%) disapprove of Australia sending ground combat troops to fight the Islamic State in Iraq & Syria and 39% approve. This special SMS Morgan Poll was conducted last night (Thursday) with a cross-section of 973 Australians.

A Morgan Gallup Poll conducted in May 1965, near the beginning of the Vietnam War, showed a majority of Australian electors (52%) were in favour of the decision to send 800 Australian troops to South Vietnam compared to 37% that were opposed and 11% were undecided.

 

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

9 minutes ago, octave said:

According to Roy Morgan research in 2015 61% are against sending ground troops to Syria or Iraq this compares with  52% approval for troops in Vietnam.

I don't think that there is a connection between what people think about sending military forces into other countries for belligerent purposes, and the level of interpersonal violence within our communities. 

 

I would say that the swing against involvement in overseas conflicts is a result of our learning that we can't solve what are really internal civil wars. Vietnam was a failure. Why should our involvement in conflicts that have been bubbling along for centuries do any good? 

 

Another thing is to look at the respondents of the 1965 and 2015 surveys. They are 50 years apart. A good proportion of those surveyed in 1965 are now deceased. They were also the generation that fought WWII, so linked Communism with Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. In 1965 the people didn't know what a cluster fvck Vietnam would become. (No insult to those of you who served there.)

 

If military intervention was such a great thing, why aren't potential recruits clamouring at the doors of the recruitment centres? It seems that recruiting advertising now concentrates on what a fun life it is in the Services. Not that gaining skills is a bad thing, but no recruiting ad ever shows the physically and mentally maimed returnees.

[octave]

1 minute ago, old man emu said:

If military intervention was such a great thing, why aren't potential recruits clamouring at the doors of the recruitment centres? It seems that recruiting advertising now concentrates on what a fun life it is in the Services. Not that gaining skills is a bad thing, but no recruiting ad ever shows the physically and mentally maimed returnees.

 

 

I could not agree more.   We are making the same point on this.

 

 On interpersonal violence, I would have 2 questions.  The first would be is there more interpersonal violence now than in the past?     This can be difficult to perceive.   I gave the example of my grandmother being abused by her husband.  At that time the percentage of reported domestic abuse would have been very low because it was not considered a big deal.    When society becomes aware of a problem we begin to notice it more.  As an example take child sexual abuse, i would suspect that it has always  happened but today we are on the lookout for it and we have a broader definition such as grooming a child. It does not mean it is more common now.

 

The other question I would have is whether or not there is strong link between TV movies or books with instances of aggression or violence?    I suspect that for some people the answer could be yes but then again we could probably say the same about team sports.        

 

I don't want people to get the idea that I am pro violence in the media I most certainly am not.  I do think violence does have its place on order to tell a story although it should be used cleverly and sparingly.   I do have a problem with the old war films though in that they do not portray the true horror of war. As a teenager I used to think that being shot meant dropping down dead instantly or perhaps making some kind of heroic speech before drifting off.  this is far from the reality.    People get shot and spend time in agony before bleeding to death  or are maimed for life.   I recall a movie that had a great affect on me.  The opening scene of "Saving private Ryan", it is harrowing and certainly doesn't romanticize war like many movies of the 50s.   I am definitely not recommending this for a child (or even many adults) however I believe sanitizing violence is a problem every bit as bad as the desensitizing effect of constant violence.

 

In the end kids under a certain age watch what WE let then watch.    My son grew up with no TV not because we had huge objections but we lived in a bush area where reception was patchy so we did not bother.  

[octave]

Don't get me wrong folks I am in no way pro TV.  In our house we watch online or by subscription where we make an active choice rather than spinning through the channels to find the least worst thing to watch.  Free to air TV as far as I can see is dying.   I am just wary when we contrast our generations "wonderfulness" with "nasty young folk" today.   We tend to remember the past selectively.    I am skeptical that todays young are more aggressive or warlike than my generation. ( by the way I suspect I am a generation younger than some of you, perhaps this makes a difference in outlook)   a friend and I (about aged 10) would gather up our airfix aircraft models (the ones that were a little the worse for ware) and around fire cracker night we would blow them up. I guess we were influence by the WW2 films on TV. 

 

One of the best things a parent can do is to watch with your child and play the computer games your child  this way even examples that are poor can be commented on.  When watching a movie with my son when he was a child we would often comment that "If you punched someone in the face like that you would certainly break their jaw and possibly cause brain damage"      I think the point is that "unsupervised" access to media for a young child is probably a bad thing.

[spacesailor]

As a ' war baby ' every thing was violent around children !.

There wasn,t a moment when you Didn,t keep a Good lookout for the next punch, kick, or smack across the back of the nead.

Who !

Evemry cop teacher adult or parent, thought it important to keep kids under Their control. 

Whith !

The Cosh, the Cane, the kick, or leather strap, ( belt ).

And 

They, wonder why we KILL.

ALL READY FOR THAT NEXT SHIPMENT OF CANNONFODDER. 

TV is great, it shows what Life is, with the Dark side, thats only just under the carpet.

spacesailor

[octave]

6 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

The Cosh, the Cane, the kick, or leather strap, ( belt ).

Although I am not quite your age spacey, in my early schooling (it was in infant school) I had a teacher (Miss Copass) who would regularly and repeatedly jab you in the shoulder with a pen (yes the sharp end).   You have to wonder what kind of bully would do this to a 6 year old under any circumstances.   This probably made me anti bullying but bullying was rife in the playground so perhaps some kids dealt with it by  bullying other kids.  Ah the good old days.

[spacesailor]

Thankfully l wasn,t a bully.

But l stood up for myself, then got clobbered by the other kids dad !.

Can,t win, and now can,t pass an exam, bad Teacher symdrone.

Never spoke about my upbringing, or spoken to others as much as l have done, on this forum.  ( notice its Finger speak not face to face ).

Thanks Everyone.

spacesailor

[facthunter]

You're welcome Spacey. Sometimes there's no justice.. (MOST times). Music is good for the soul (whatever that is). Modern Kids are OK. WE don't help them much often forcing them to be what we wanted ourselves to be. I certainly didn't do that. NONE of them fly or wish to. Everyone has to chart their own Path..  For some reason what your father is/was like is important to offspring..   Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

I would say that the swing against involvement in overseas conflicts is a result of our learning that we can't solve what are really internal civil wars. Vietnam was a failure. Why should our involvement in conflicts that have been bubbling along for centuries do any good? 

I'm pretty sure that many adults are vaguely aware of the Viet Nam war. And thus share your belief about its futility. And they connect that thought with our more recent involvements.

 

The only down side is the general belief that it's all too far away to affect us.

 

I agree that there is probably little direct connection between attitude to war, and domestic violence. My point was that desensitising people risks making them easier to manipulate by unscrupulous governments AND increases acceptance of the notion that violence is the quickest easiest answer to conflict resolution, even domestically. Two separate outcomes from a common cause.

[octave]

7 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

My point was that desensitising people risks making them easier to manipulate by unscrupulous governments AND increases acceptance of the notion that violence is the quickest easiest answer to conflict resolution, even domestically. Two separate outcomes from a common cause.

 

I don't disagree but I think we are underestimating the role that old 50s and 60s war films on promoting certain unrealistic attitudes to war.        I  believe there is less tolerance to death and injury now than in the past.    If we had the same number of casualties in say the gulf war that we had in Vietnam the government would have a hard time explaining it.  We also have less tolerance when it comes to safety issues, sometimes derogatorily described as health and safety gone mad.    Many years ago we tolerated a much higher road toll.  Even in the ultralight area when I first flew in 1988 the death toll was pretty high amongst a small pool of flyers.   In school bullying is actually taken seriously not like when I was in primary school.  

 

I guess I doubt the assertion that society is more violent than it used to be.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, octave said:

our generations "wonderfulness" with "nasty young folk" today.

Octave, I certainly don't have that attitude towards younger or older people. That would be a severe generalisation.

But some things do stand out.

For instance the incidence of one punch deaths wasn't heard of when I was young, although drunken fights were. Violent road rage up to and including death was not heard of, but is common now. The amount of what we once considered 'jail bait' binge drinking, alluringly dressed young girls partying from nightclub to nightclub, seems all to common in recent years (as commented by my 23 yo daughter who thankfully has decided it is risky behaviour). These examples are current. They are culturally acceptable behaviour that invites personal violence, and I don't recall it in my younger years. The high tech graphics used to portray massive violence without the reality of gushing blood and exposed broken bones that would surely result, desensitises the viewer to the reality of the consequences.

 

I'm not glorifying the 'good ole days'. Every generation has its growing problems. I'm just linking long term viewing with human behaviour.

 

As mum used to say "What IS the younger generation coming to?....... Slowly but surely the younger generation is coming to the day the ask... 'What's the younger generation coming to?'"

 

BTW, school bullying still happens today. My SIL has been trying to deal with it with her kids (10 - 13), both in school and out of class. And mummy bullies also have been seen on the sidelines of the footy field yelling encouragement to little Johnny, "Don't let him do that! Trip him." And "get into him!" Etc.

I had seen such behaviour myself as recently as 10 years ago, and I thought things had improved since. Fortunately the times I saw that, my boy wasn't on field. Sometimes the parents are worse than the kids. I wasn't about to step between two enraged women, that's too risky.

It seems that as soon as rules are introduced to stop bullying, it just changes the behaviour to make the bullying harder to detect.

Edited April 9, 2021 by nomadpete

[octave]

Nomad the fact that one punch hits were not heard does not mean they did not happen. The term one punch hit is relatively recent and in the past it would have been called a fatal assault.    When an airliner crashes my old mum says 'isn't terrible how many plane crashes there are these days" But the stats tell a different story.     Many sex crimes that are in the news are not things that have just started happening they happened in the past but were not reported or taken seriously.

 

I grew up in the 60s in Adelaide.   Our parents used to scare us into fearing strangers with tales of the Beaumont children (3 kids abducted and never seen again),  The 2 little girls abducted from Adelaide oval during the cricket (never seen again)   The news readers  15 year old son abducted sexually abused and killed.  The Truro murders etc.   It is hard to think of many cases like this these days, there are a couple I can think of but they are fewer and far between.

 

I don't doubt that the one punch attack happens and this is of great concern however this is deviant behavior by a very small number of people,  We should of course look at contributing factors. I note that it is overwhelmingly males who carry out these attacks and the victims is nearly always male.   Nearly all of these attacks involve alcohol.    There are also questions about male culture.  These are all factors which may contribute to this kind of thing.

 

I am not saying that these things are not happening far to much, I am suggesting that it is just way to easy to lay the blame at the feet of any one demographic.    Just as I believe the majority of men or not sex pests or rapists I also believe that the majority of younger people are not war hungry and violent.  We need to tackle the actual problem. 

 

 

[octave]

The thing I love about these conversations is that it prompts me to look further and not just rely on preconceptions.

 

27 years of Recorded Crime – Victims data

 

Crimes  fluctuate up and down slightly but I wouldn't say we were heading towards violence epidemic.   Still to high of course 

[Yenn]

If TV has a bad influence it is too late. The damage was done when out current mob of politicians were watching.

They are the ones sending our troops to war with their hands tied behind their backs, in the same way as they are behaving to women and opposition in Canberra.

TV has one great redeeming feature, it is easy to turn off and that is its usual state in our household. I like to see SBS and ABC news and try to work out what all the fuss is about, then turn off.

[red750]

Remember when you had to get out of the chair and trudge over to the set to turn it off? Then came the remote with a long cord.

[octave]

Just now, red750 said:

Remember when you had to get out of the chair and trudge over to the set to turn it off? Then came the remote with a long cord.

 

I remember as a child we had a Pye television.     I can remember the panic every time it broke down (which was often)   We used to wait impatiently for the TV repair guy to come and pop a new valve in.   These days TVs seem to last ages, I have 2 TVs in the house and one of them would be about 15 years old.