<doc.id=2048.a3>
<title> Trouble Shooting: Why TV Violence Must Not Be Seen As An Isolated Problem </title>
On the title track of her latest album To The Teeth, the American folksinger Ani Difranco sings about the increasing amount of violence in American society, and how it is tied to the media and the profiting broadcasting networks. Difranco argues that TV violence, teenage school killings and the entire gun-control debate are all aspects of the same issue, which has more to do with poverty and alienation than violence. She argues that violence in society is merely a symptom of the real problem, and she sings: "...look at where the profits are, that's how you'll find the source..." Other aspects of TV violence are discussed in the article Locking Out Violence by Ginia Bellafante, but there the problem is approached from a completely different angle. In Bellafante's article, the problem is TV violence in itself, and a solution to the problem is presented in the form of the V chip. In this essay I will try to explain why I think Ani Difranco is right: why it is necessary to see TV violence as a part of a much more complicated issue, in order to come up with suitable solutions for it.

In the article Locking Out Violence, everyone seems to agree that TV violence is a big problem, and that young children ought to be protected from it. The V chip is presented as a possible solution, and it is discussed whether or not it will be effective. But nowhere in the article is the cause of the problem mentioned, and this is what bothers me. I don't think the question should be how children can best be protected from being exposed to excessive TV violence, but why the protection is needed in the first place. Why is violence such a big part of the entertainment industry, and what does it say about American society in general? If it is true that art imitates life, then that means that the extreme violence on American TV mirrors a reality that is far from safe for children. The increasing number of school shootings and hate crimes among teenagers in the past few years seems to support that theory. And if that's the case, then what is the V chip actually supposed to protect the children from? The cencoring of TV entertainment and films is just a way of dealing with the symptoms, and it won't get rid of the actual problem. 
 
 Most people in favour of the V chip are realistic though, and appreciate its limits. Defending it in the article, the democrat James Moran says: "We are not suggesting this is the perfect solution. All we're doing is offering somehing to parents who have to be in the work force. They have no way to effectively control what their children are watching when they are not home." He points out an important side of the problem, which concerns a great deal of American families with children. The trouble is that Moran doesn't seem to realise that the problem is not that the children are left alone to watch violent TV shows, but that they are left alone, period. Even if the parents did have the V chip installed into their TV sets, the social situation wouldn't change, and the children would still be left to their own devices. Daycare may not be as widespread and convenient in the United States as it is in Sweden, but to let the TV become a babysitter can't be a very good alternative. 

If we return to the expression "art imitates life", it becomes clear that these children would not escape violence in any way, even if the V chip were to be installed. Guns and other weapons are becoming widely available to young people, even to the extent that metal detectors are becoming a common sight in schools in many states. While the opponents of gun control claim that the right to bear arms is a human right, and an expression of personal liberty, the tragic results of this philosophy becomes more and more apparent as guns get into the hands of children. The recent death of a six-year-old girl in Pennsylvania, shot by a boy in her class, is an example of this, and shows how reality sometimes can be even more tragic and violent than television. 

At the end of the article, Bellafante has this to say about the V chip: "...it is a solution that enebles politicians to take a stand on violence with relatively little pain..." Little pain, because they don't have to take on the whole problem, just one of the symptoms. What's dangerous about this approach is that the big picture is easily forgotten, and the connections between TV violence and the reality of the contemporary American society, with all its problems, are ignored. In the long term, that would have the same effect as re-painting your house because the wood is rotten; it will look better, but sooner or later the house will fall down.
</doc>