<doc.id=1060.a3>
<title> Parental guidance-an easy way to avoid nightmares </title>
The question about what children are and are not supposed to be exposed to when it comes to violence on television, is not an easy one to answer. It is not very hard to understand that children are better off without too much television violence, but who is responsible for controling this? I read an article from Time Magazine about a new invention called the V ship, that is supposed to be installed in television sets. The chip would read signals from broadcasters and cable operators, and rate shows on an ascending scale of violence. The chip would then delete any program with a too high level of violence. Is this really a good idea or is it to make things more difficult than necessary? It all comes down to that important and difficult question about who has the responsibility.

But is that really such a difficult question? Why should the broadcasters or even the government have anything to do with what we let our children watch? Should not the person or persons that knows the child best, and takes care of all the other things that concern it, be the ones to decide this to? The parent (or guardian) is responsible for everything that concerns the child, so why leave this important responsibility to someone else? Any normal parent should be able to decide what his or her child will understand and handle, and from there decide what the child will be allowed to watch on television. When I was a little girl the most violent show I got to see was"the Persuaders". Of course I was angry at my mother for not letting me watch "Alien" with my four years older brother, but today I get her point. I would probably not have slept very well after watching small monsters covered in blood crawling out of peoples stomachs. This was not a very long time ago, but there was not half as much violence on TV then as it is today, and the question of parental responsibility is even more important now.

A big part of parental responsibility should be to decide what kind of violence the child is able to handle. After all, they are supposed to know their children quite well, and should know if the child understands the difference between violence in movies and "real" violence on the news. I think there is danger in not letting children see any violence att all. That can lead to a big surprise when the child gets older. The sollution must be to sit down with the child, and explain what happens on the news.

To sit down with the child in front of the TV is a very easy sollution to the problem of TV violence. The problem with parental responsibility is probably that it takes a lot of work, and many parents are taking the easy way by laying the responsibility on someone else instead of themselves. They are uncertain about what is good for the child or not, and are afraid to sound too much like a boring parent by telling the child that he or she is not allowed to watch a certain TV show. This could be avioded by not letting the child watch TV all the time. "The Cable Guy" is a rather stupid movie, but it actually has a point. The movie is about a guy who was raised in front of the TV, and had no idea about what real life was like. What we can learn from this is that "Mr TV" is not supposed to be a babysitter. Make TV watching something special that the whole family does together on special nights of the week. Gather the family in the livingroom, make popcorn, and watch TV shows the whole family can enjoy.

Television is meant to be enjoyed. There are lots of interesting TV shows, documentarys, movies and news, but do not let the TV take control over you and your family. The TV is there for you, not the other way around. You do not have to be an annoying parent to make your child realize this. The parent is responsible for the childs welfare and too much TV violence is bad for children. To sometimes turn off the TV is therefore a parental responsibility in the same way that it is a parental responsibility to see to it that the child has enough to eat.
</doc>