<doc.id=2007.a3>
<title> Anti-violence policy tied up in the Money Jungle. </title>
In the article "Locking out violence", from Times Magazine, July 24, 1995, there are some lines that touch upon a problem, that I have often thought about. The article lists some of the major arguments opposing the "V chip". It is not surprising that many of these come from broadcasters and other people who benefit from violence on TV. I mean no offense - these people are not necessarily evil - but violence "sells", and the bigger the audience, the bigger the revenues. The problem I would like to discuss is this: Commercial interests may often prevent an anti-violence policy from working out well. (As I see it, this problem is also central in most other issues, as environmental problems, drug policy etc.) 
	Of course there is nothing amazing with that statement. E.g., everyone would probably agree that since there is big profit in selling guns, it is hard to prevent such business. However, an interesting thing with this problem is how it makes people look at each other. Generalizing a little: people representing commercial interests are egoistic and cares only about money. (I confess that I often think that way.) Their opponents, on the other hand, are far too idealistic and unrealistic. 
	I know that I should not make sweeping statements. But often it is very clear that some people are only interested in their own benefits. And if they try to hide this, when they try to seem objective, it is not unusual that they contradict themselves, with the result that they seem ridiculous instead. 
	Broadcasters often boast, when directing their talk to the advertising business, that TV is a superb way of influencing people to buy or do this or that, i.e., to send out a message. But on the other hand, while addressing people worried about what consequences TV violence might have on their children, or people worried about TV:s role in increasing street violence, they turn 180 degrees, and assures that it has no serious effect - people are intelligent enough not to be influenced by what they see on the screen.
	Another example of contradiction, or rather lack of consistency, this one taken from the V chip article, is: "Broadcasters also understandably have problems with any technology that might reduce the potential audience for their shows". This is not further explained in the article, but I should guess that the V chip here is seen as a limitation of the free market. But a main thing with a free market is that the consumers/audience should have a free choice. And then, if a V chip enables parents to choose freely if they want to delete violent programs, what is the problem? It is apparent that the quotation does not refer to an objective view on parental control.
	But commercial interests are of course not only an obstacle. Without a functioning market, there would not be enough money to spend on social welfare. I feel that blind commercialism is a bad thing - everything is not about money, or should not be, at least. But on the other hand one cannot just go on demanding this and that, not being conscious of the importance of money, and of who it is that provides jobs, so that people can earn money and pay taxes, which can be used, for example, in meaures against violence. One can only wish that people with economical power more often would show signs of common sense, and less signs of short-term thinking. 
	Yet, the problem remains; the realization of good ideas is often prevented by commercialism, but depends on money at the same time. There seems to be no simple solution to this complicated problem - only compromises. So here we stand; facing an allegory of the Gordian knot, and without a sharp sword at hand.
</doc>