Are the entertainment industries the unofficial advertising department of the illegal drug industry?

[Bogan]

Wrong again, USR. The impact of television violence has been studied scientifically.

With the coming of Television in the mid 50's, public officials and law enforcement officers in the US, began to suspect that a small but significant rise in delinquent and criminal behaviour may be due to the influence of the new medium. These concerns had prompted President Lyndon Johnson, to empanel a scientific study to investigate if there really was such a link. Fearful that this committee would find data that was harmful to the media, the media began a campaign to attack the credibility of the scientific experts assigned to conduct the investigation. When this did not work, they insisted that scientists known to be sympathetic to the media be assigned to the research. In this aim they succeeded, five of the twelve scientists were media appointees.

It was fortunate for the researchers that many remote parts of the US and Canada, for technical reasons, had still not obtained Television coverage in their geographical locations. The researchers were able to make direct studies of the crime rates of towns in these areas, and guage the impact of television as the new medium was finally installed. The report that these scientists released was the US Surgeon General's 1972 report, TELEVISION AND GROWING UP: THE IMPACT OF TELEVISED VIOLENCE.

http://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-librar ... rt-surgeon

Despite the fact that the committee was made up of scientists with widely divergent views, they unanimously came to the unequivocal conclusion, that a direct relationship existed between aggressive behaviour and watching violence on television. But before this startling result could become public, The New York Times newspaper, featured an article on the committee with the headline , TV VIOLENCE HELD UNHARMFUL TO YOUTH.

The article was written by the Times television columnist John Gould, who had obtained an advanced copy of the report, and who chose to completely misinterpret it. He wrote the "Surgeon General's report has found that violence in television programming, does not have an adverse effect on the majority of the nations youth, but may influence small groups of youngsters predisposed to aggressive behaviour"

Committee members were outraged, and the Surgeon General, Jesse Steinfeld, immediately called a press conference where he read out the findings of the committee to the assembled press core. But the damage had already been done. Newspapers nationwide had already picked up on the Time's story and heralded the news far and wide, that an official Government committee, had found that violent television was harmless. . Members of Congress, academics and children's advocates, called the report a whitewash, before the full story of what had happened emerged. With media advocates first praising the report and them condemning it, and with child advocates condemning the report and then praising it, the entire report was completely discredited. This was a happy outcome for the television media, some of whose owners also had interests in the newspapers transmitting the misinformation.

[lisa jones]

>> thinks to herself <<

If only everyone enjoyed watching Foxtel's Comedy, Sports and Documentary channels ... like me

[UnSubRocky]

Despite the fact that the committee was made up of scientists with widely divergent views, they unanimously came to the unequivocal conclusion, that a direct relationship existed between aggressive behaviour and watching violence on television. But before this startling result could become public, The New York Times newspaper, featured an article on the committee with the headline , TV VIOLENCE HELD UNHARMFUL TO YOUTH.

Indeed there is a relationship between drinking coffee and aggressive behaviour. Colombia, in one case study, showed that they were a big exporter of coffee. The Colombians also have one of the highest murder rates in the world.

So, the obvious conclusion is to switch to decaf or cut coffee out of the diet all together. But, increased aggressive behaviour does not seem to correlate with the generally lowered rate of murders and violence in Australia since the 1996 gun laws came into effect.

[Bogan]

To USR

It is interesting how a person like your good self can hold an opinion based upon the flimsiest of "evidence", but when confronted by an avalanche of facts which clearly shows that you are self evidently wrong, you won't budge.

On the principle that it is impossible to make a person understand anything, if his job depends upon his not understanding it, then could I surmise that you are in one of the entertainment industries, yourself?

Or is it something else? Have you been conditioned by the media to think that "intelligent" people defend the entertainment industry from the heavy hand of censorship, and you are trying to display how intelligent you are by sticking up for the entertainment industry? If so, could I submit that you are not thinking intelligently at all? On another debate site, I am debating a woman who seems perfectly sensible and intelligent in many ways, who honestly believes that the world is flat. Another poster on the same site who is a retired senior policeman, thinks that Darwin's premise of evolution is a communist plot. Just like your good self, no amount of evidence or reasoned argument can shift them one iota.

I used to think that intelligent people could be swayed by the force of reasoned arguments. But I am realising that this is not so. Even intelligent people have potty ideas and beliefs which they hold so dear that nothing can change their minds. I only persist on these debate sites because i know that this is not always the case. Some people, if presented by reasoned arguments which are clear and precise, give relevant examples and compelling evidence, can be swayed by good arguments.

[UnSubRocky]

Or is it something else? Have you been conditioned by the media to think that "intelligent" people defend the entertainment industry from the heavy hand of censorship, and you are trying to display how intelligent you are by sticking up for the entertainment industry? If so, could I submit that you are not thinking intelligently at all? On another debate site, I am debating a woman who seems perfectly sensible and intelligent in many ways, who honestly believes that the world is flat. Another poster on the same site who is a retired senior policeman, thinks that Darwin's premise of evolution is a communist plot. Just like your good self, no amount of evidence or reasoned argument can shift them one iota.

To put things quite bluntly, I have done the research on this topic. Concluded 18 years ago that media violence is far more effective in lowering the rates of crime than whatever it is that you believe is causing crime. That is not to say that I have always held this view. From childhood until I was about 17 or 18 years of age, I too believed that television probably conditioned people into thinking a certain way. Conditioned to learn a way of thinking so that we would act a certain way to certain stimuli.

But, that kind of thinking changed when I was old enough to earn my own money. That kind of thinking changed again when I moved out of the home. For one thing, in 1997, I was introduced to the world of cyberspace. And if you can remember 25 years ago about the standards of the internet, it was not a regulated media outlet. You could find out many things that are outright illegal in today's world -- as it was back in 1997. But, there was no considerable policing to rid the depravity and illegal activity that was freely available doing a search.

That discovery of the internet had a profound effect on me. I was very disillusioned. I could not believe that there was a world of people where there was no concern for people's welfare. But, then I discovered a new term: "Keyboard warrior". People were expressing their views from the safety of their homes so that they do not reap the consequences of saying things in person. I then realised that I had been going about my theory of media violence the wrong way. People do not want to get involved in fights where they run the risk of getting their arses beat. They want to get infuriated thoughts expressed anonymously on the internet where other people can give feedback anywhere from harshly to constructive criticism.

I am not a heavy critic of censorship. I think movies work better when the viewer is left to their own opinions of what happens off-screen. But sometimes, censorship gets a bit too much and you are left wondering the context of the narrative. This week, I have been reading the book "11/22/63" by Stephen King. I watched the miniseries based on the book before I found a copy of the book at the last book fair. The book expresses ideas and thoughts of the main character that is not told in the tv series. So, you are left with this expanded knowledge of what the character's motivations were and why he was doing what he does.

In reality, I am working on writing a book myself about a horror situation that I would love for Screen Australia to make into an internationally successful horror movie. And although it is in the early stages of conception, coming across topics like this is disheartening. I normally find that Aussies are a tough bunch. And having known of many cultures from around the world, I had concluded that Australians have a stoicism that few other cultures match. But, when I come across a fellow Australian who comes to the idea that we should walk on eggshells in regards to media portrayals of violence, I find it irritable that someone would propose our culture should become weak. In some ways, it seems that there is an idea of adopting an inferiority complex about our lives. In other ways, it feels like you want society to become passive.

[lisa jones]

Or is it something else? Have you been conditioned by the media to think that "intelligent" people defend the entertainment industry from the heavy hand of censorship, and you are trying to display how intelligent you are by sticking up for the entertainment industry? If so, could I submit that you are not thinking intelligently at all? On another debate site, I am debating a woman who seems perfectly sensible and intelligent in many ways, who honestly believes that the world is flat. Another poster on the same site who is a retired senior policeman, thinks that Darwin's premise of evolution is a communist plot. Just like your good self, no amount of evidence or reasoned argument can shift them one iota.

To put things quite bluntly, I have done the research on this topic. Concluded 18 years ago that media violence is far more effective in lowering the rates of crime than whatever it is that you believe is causing crime. That is not to say that I have always held this view. From childhood until I was about 17 or 18 years of age, I too believed that television probably conditioned people into thinking a certain way. Conditioned to learn a way of thinking so that we would act a certain way to certain stimuli.

But, that kind of thinking changed when I was old enough to earn my own money. That kind of thinking changed again when I moved out of the home. For one thing, in 1997, I was introduced to the world of cyberspace. And if you can remember 25 years ago about the standards of the internet, it was not a regulated media outlet. You could find out many things that are outright illegal in today's world -- as it was back in 1997. But, there was no considerable policing to rid the depravity and illegal activity that was freely available doing a search.

That discovery of the internet had a profound effect on me. I was very disillusioned. I could not believe that there was a world of people where there was no concern for people's welfare. But, then I discovered a new term: "Keyboard warrior". People were expressing their views from the safety of their homes so that they do not reap the consequences of saying things in person. I then realised that I had been going about my theory of media violence the wrong way. People do not want to get involved in fights where they run the risk of getting their arses beat. They want to get infuriated thoughts expressed anonymously on the internet where other people can give feedback anywhere from harshly to constructive criticism.

I am not a heavy critic of censorship. I think movies work better when the viewer is left to their own opinions of what happens off-screen. But sometimes, censorship gets a bit too much and you are left wondering the context of the narrative. This week, I have been reading the book "11/22/63" by Stephen King. I watched the miniseries based on the book before I found a copy of the book at the last book fair. The book expresses ideas and thoughts of the main character that is not told in the tv series. So, you are left with this expanded knowledge of what the character's motivations were and why he was doing what he does.

In reality, I am working on writing a book myself about a horror situation that I would love for Screen Australia to make into an internationally successful horror movie. And although it is in the early stages of conception, coming across topics like this is disheartening. I normally find that Aussies are a tough bunch. And having known of many cultures from around the world, I had concluded that Australians have a stoicism that few other cultures match. But, when I come across a fellow Australian who comes to the idea that we should walk on eggshells in regards to media portrayals of violence, I find it irritable that someone would propose our culture should become weak. In some ways, it seems that there is an idea of adopting an inferiority complex about our lives. In other ways, it feels like you want society to become passive.

Take your medication UnSub. You're talking serious crap here.

[UnSubRocky]

No crap is being said in my posts. I have done the research on this topic up to 18 years ago. I wish I could find the post I wrote and repost it here.

[Bogan]

To USR (from the USSR?) Sorry, bad joke.

Okay, so you admit that you work, or you wish to work, as a writer for the entertainment industries? And you do not want your creative style cramped by censorship? Well, all I can say is, that this conforms to one of my premises, that the people most opposed to the censorship of the entertainment industries are those who work within the industry itself. And it also confirms my premise, that it is impossible to make anybody understand anything, if their job depends upon not understanding it. Now, your ability to completely ignore the avalanche of facts I have submitted proving that your opinion is wrong, including scientific evidence, makes sense.

You seem to be denigrating me by inferring that I am a "keyboard warrior"? I am a typical (stereotypical) loner gun nut racist and my social skills have always been very poor. But I have a couple of talents. One is, a lifelong interest in Psychology (probably to offset my miserable social skills) and, I am very good at expressing myself in writing (even though I am poorly educated and my grammar and punctuation is all over the shop). When dealing with the problems that affect me it is natural that I use my writing skills to express my opinions. So, I reject your implication that I am some sort of weak "keyboard warrior", if that is what you were implying. If you think that writing reasoned arguments in on line debate sites is a form of weakness, then what are you doing here?

I think that the "horror" movie genre is like the "superhero" genre, it has been done to death, and it only appeals to adolescents. As such, it can seriously affect their behaviour. I understand that I am telling you what you do not want to know.

R rated high school slasher movies have been produced starring teen idols, as well as movies about violent youth gangs which feature teenage pop stars. The appeal of these movies is obviously to teenagers and adolescents. Filmmakers know that adolescents and young teenagers are their main customers for these movies, which mix sex with exceptional scenes of violence, gore and gruesomeness. These films have become a favourite among children, who are dared by their peers to see if they can stomach the content. This demonstrates just how ineffective the entire film classification system is.

If a child wishes to see the R rated "slice and dice" movie SCREAM, it is easy to circumvent adult controls. This is aided by the layout of modern, multi screen movie theatres. After buying the ticket at the counter, they hand their ticket to a teenage usher and slip into the darkened alcove of the foyer. From there it is easy to slip into whichever movie they wish to see. An adult who actually went to see the R rated cartoon show SOUTH PARK, reported in the Sydney Daily Telegraph letters column, that the audience seemed entirely composed of children.

The teen slasher films SCREAM and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET are perfect examples of what we do not wish kids to see. The movie SCREAM stars Neve Campbell, a popular actress from the teen soap TV series, PARTY OF FIVE, and Courtney Cox from another teen soap FRIENDS. SCREAM opens with a scene where a schoolgirl watches her schoolboy boyfriend being tortured and disembowelled by two fellow students. These students want to (as usual) get revenge on anybody in the school who has ever crossed them. After the schoolboy's stomach is cut open and he dies screaming, the boys stab and torture the girl, cut her throat, eviscerate her, and hang her body from a tree for her mom to find. The hanging girl is completely cut open and her bottom half is only hanging by her spine. Beneath the girl is a steaming pile of guts. And this is just the start of the movie, it gets progressively worse. Do you want to out gore a movie like this, USR? I think you would need to possess a diseased mind to top that.

In NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, a young girl is murdered right after having sex with her boyfriend. Her flimsy nightgown is shredded by Freddy's knife like fingers until she is soaked in blood. Next Freddy murders another naked girl who is lying in a bathtub, his hand rises between her spread legs until she screams and dies. And on and on it goes, young girls being stripped, butchered, skinned, disemboweled, eviserated, fornicated, and decapitated. Great stuff for kids huh?

The most frightening thing about these movies is that adults have been known to vomit in these shows or just get up and walk out feeling ill. But the kids of today think that they are great, and they can laugh right through the entire movie. This clearly shows the degree to which children today are already desensitised to violence.

Another high school movie which is cause for concern is the movie APT PUPIL. A high school boy discovers that an old man is in fact a NAzi war criminal and a former Kommandant of a Nazi concentration camp. He promises to keep the man's identity a secret if the Nazi tells him gruesome tales about what happened in the death camp. When a caring teacher discovers that the boy is up to some kind of mischief and threatens to speak to his parents The boy then demonstrates to every watching teenager, just how a smart young dude handles any caring adult authority figure that crosses him. The boy tells the teacher that if his parents are informed, he will tell the school authorities that the teacher has been making sexual advances to him. He informs the teacher that even though the charge can not be proved, it will have to be recorded and the cloud of suspicion will plague the teacher for the rest of his life. The frightened teacher backs off. Is this a method of verbal negotiation between children and teachers that movies should be instructing children in? In NSW, teaching is becoming an exclusively female profession. The NSW Education Department, has stated that males are shunning the profession, because they fear the consequences of being accused of vexatious sexual molestation charges by children.

Even Disney, long respected as as a maker of adventurous children's films endorsing family values, has decided that what children need is more violence. Their 1998 movie MIGHTY JOE YOUNG, begins with an 8 year old girl watching her mother being brutally murdered. By the movies end, it is 20 years later and the killer returns to stalk the now grown up daughter. He finally manages to catch her alone, points a gun at her head and sneers, "Join your mother in hell!" A Disney movie.

In video stores, adult controls are easily avoided as the store is often under the supervision of a teenager. Some stores may strictly enforce classification standards but others do not. But it is those stores that do hire R rated video's to children, that are most likely to be in depressed areas where the parents are more likely to be either neglectful, or through circumstance, are unable to properly supervise their kids. Kids from these areas are the ones most at risk from being affected by the saturation of sex, drugs, violence and profanity.

The claim by the entertainment industry, that R rated movies are solely aimed at adult audiences is contradicted by the way their movies are promoted. The toy industry markets a whole range of products, that are spin offs from R rated movies. Adults do not buy toys, (at least not child toys) and kids are more likely to want toys, that they can use to imitate the behaviour of their role model movie heroes. Thus we have a RAMBO doll and a RAMBO, 81MM MORTAR AND MULTI ASSAULT TUBE. There are also rubber RAMBO knifes and a RAMBO SURVIVAL KIT. There are Freddy Kruger dolls and X-MEN dolls. SPIDERMAN dolls and ROBOCOP dolls.


It has been speculated, that the profusion of violent heroes in the latest R rated action movies, has come about for the sole reason that toy makers like MATTEL can sell multiple dolls and figurines for each movie. So for the X-MEN movie, kids must buy WOLVERINE, KRULL, TUSK, LOGAN, TOAD, ROGUE and MAGNETO. ACTION MAN is a movie that seems to have been produced for no other reason than to sell toys. Not only are there various ACTION MAN dolls, but ACTION MAN hovercraft, BMX bike, go cart, moon buggy, jet ski, jeep, submarine, space explorer, canoe, gyrocopter,survival base, skateboard and assault vehicle. In addition there is a wide range of costumes and uniforms, plus a plethora of military equipment and weapons.

If you wish to write a horror movie, USR, could I recommend that you have lots of characters the toy manufactures can make dolls and toys out of? You can then rest assured that your movie will be a endorsed by the toy manufactures, who are mates with the movie industry, and your script will be a success. Your belief that movies do not affect behaviour, is easily countered by the fact that every civilised country on planet earth has movie and computer game classification standards to protect children, because they know that you are wrong.

[Bogan]

USR wrote

No crap is being said in my posts. I have done the research on this topic up to 18 years ago. I wish I could find the post I wrote and repost it here.

So do I, USR, so do I. Please look harder and find it, then post it up. I want to tear it to shreds.

[UnSubRocky]

USR wrote

No crap is being said in my posts. I have done the research on this topic up to 18 years ago. I wish I could find the post I wrote and repost it here.

So do I, USR, so do I. Please look harder and find it, then post it up. I want to tear it to shreds.

That is not going to be possible. Eighteen years have passed since I wrote a good essay on why we are a safe society because of the distraction of television. I cannot be bothered to rewrite the 5000 word essay. But I have some idea of what I remember writing. I have a number of books on psychology. Some of the chapters focus on aggression traits. If I can get around to reading the chapters sometimes, I might be motivated to write another essay on the topic of media violence and its impact on society. However, I won't be able to do that until I get around to having this house cleaned.