<doc.id=0120.a3>
<title> Stop glorifying violence </title>
The article points at how easy it is for young people to get in touch with violence on television. If parents are not with their kids all the time when they watch TV the children could easily watch things that are not appropriate for them. Many parents are worried about what the children watch when they are not home, and believe that if their kids watch violent movies they will grow up to be drug-addicts, child-abusers or remorseless serial killers. With violence becoming a familiar part of TV entertainment, protecting the children from it has become harder and harder. Therefore television violence is an issue that is of more and more importance in modern society. Especially in the United States where they seem to have a tendency to blame television and movies for a lot of the crime and violence the country is experiencing. I don't believe that television plays such a big part in that. And I don't think it will in the future either. Of course there are people that are being badly influenced by the violence on TV, but people get influenced in the same way through music, sports and other things as well. People that get influenced by television would probably get influenced in other ways if the violence on TV would not exist.
In Sweden the movies that has a lot of excessive violence are mostly shown late at night and I believe it is the same way in the United States. Younger children that should be protected from the violent movies are hopefully sleeping in their beds at that time of the day. Older children should be able to see the difference between what happens on the TV-screen and how people behave in reality. They should not get more violent or prone to commit violent crimes just because they watch a lot of violent movies.
The thing about television violence I see as most dangerous and influential for children is that it is often very unrealistic. Especially in fist-fights when people take massive punishment but never get struck down. In the end when someone has taken a lot of hits he is just knocked out and comes around after a while with some bruises and a headache. The same thing happens when someone (most often the hero of the movie) gets shot in a non-vital part of the body, he often continues like nothing has happened. Another thing is when the hero must neutralise an enemy but does not want to kill him, then he just hits him with a solid object in the head and the enemy is unconscious for a while. These things most often occur in action movies. In these kind of movies the human body can handle a lot more punishment than in real life. Someone could take a severe beating and not bleed at all. I believe this glorification of violence is the worst kind, that would most likely influence young kids. They think they can beat someone up or shoot someone (in a non-vital body-part) without risking the victims life. On the other hand very realistic and terrifying violence could work the other way. It could discourage young people from using violence, in the same way as showing the reality behind drug abuse would discourage children from doing drugs.

I don't think that the most dangerous kind of television is as mentioned in the article scary movies about serial killers, Tales from the crypt or a crime footage from the news, because that is either very exaggerated or very realistic and frightful. The dangerous kind is the glorifying one, when the hero beats up hundreds of bad guys with excessive violence and in the end gets the girl and shakes the hand of the president.
</doc>