<doc.id=0133.a3>
<title> CAN VIOLENCE BE JUSTIFIED? </title>
In the article "Locking Out Violence" Ginia Bellafante writes about the problem of violence on TV and children watching it. The proposed solution that the article deals with is a device installed in the TV called a V chip (antiviolence chip). It can block out programmes that are considered too violent, and it would easier enable parents to prevent their children from being exposed to violence on TV. The response to the chip is diverse. Comments on it ranges from parental responsibility to governmental control. Although it is perhaps an "overly simple solution", the V chip is nevertheless a step towards some solution of a "very complicated problem". 
	 One question, or problem raised in the article mentioned above is the inability of the chip to select between different kinds of violence. Ginia Bellafante quotes the vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters saying that this device will not be able to select between Terminator 2 and Schindler's List. Ginia also talks about the "grisly crime footage on the local news", and how a parent might have a hard time protecting a child from the "rude shocks of the tube". When she says this, she must mean that the chip cannot select between pure entertainment violence and violence that can be justified in some way or another. For instance, Schindler's List has as one of its purposes to remind future generations not to make the Holocaust happen again. I don't really understand why this inability is supposed to be a problem. Violence is violence. There might be a good intention behind it or it might be totally pointless, but it is probably just as bad for a child to watch. Besides, if a child is bright enough to understand this difference he or she will probably realise the exaggerated and fake violence in a movie like Terminator 2, and then there is no need for this chip anyway. I don't think that a small child will always understand why things happen in a movie or even if such things, violence for instance, can happen in real life. In movies or programmes this correlation between fiction and fact seems to be of minor concern, and entertainment violence almost has to be exaggerated or else no one will watch. 
	A movie like Terminator 2 or an episode of Tales from the Crypt is made to capture the viewer for a short period of time. A fairly safe guess is that those who make entertainment movies or television programmes try every way to keep the viewer in front of the screen. Exaggerating is one way, how a programme is cut is another, and what kind of music that is used a third; these are just three tricks that can influence the viewer a lot, and perhaps even decide whether or not he or she will return after a commercial break. How something is shown is just as important, or sometimes even more important, than what is shown on the screen. It is merely supposed to entertain the viewer. Of course, this goes for a movie like Schindler's List as well. It has to be entertaining, but in this movie and in other of its kind much of the importance lies in what it is that is being said. The violence in such a movie may even be more shocking since it might be the point of the whole story. The person who made the movie is perhaps saying that this is important, and the violent parts in Schindler's List are probably difficult enough to understand when you are an adult. And my guess is that a child finds this sort of violence even more difficult to understand or perhaps even boring since you almost have to remind yourself constantly that this actually happened fifty years ago. The president of the NAB is probably right when she says that this device only makes a "blanket judgement" about programming, and that there are problems with such a technology. But, even if the chip could select between pointless and justified violence there would surely be borderline cases.
	When Oliver Stone released his movie Natural Born Killers there were much criticism of the excessive use of violence in the movie. I believe that part of his explanation for this was that this is where the movie industry is heading, and is this really what we want?. He overdid the violence to make a point, perhaps for the best of reasons, but how should the chip treat this movie. It is very violent, but it can also be justified as a warning. How should the people making this grading system treat this movie?, and is it really their job to consider Oliver Stones intention? Shouldn't they care about the children? Either way, they will be criticised for being to strict or not strict enough in their judgement. People have different preferences and in the end it will be up to the parents to decide what their children are allowed to watch. Whether they will do this with a V chip or by simply taking the cables to the TV or the remote control with them when leaving home; the parents will decide what kinds of violence that are too violent.
</doc>