Are we influenced by TV and film? Briefly discuss the evidence and arguments for and against censorship.

Authors Avatar

Media and Ideology

Q1. Are we influenced by TV and film? Briefly discuss the evidence and arguments for and against censorship.

Censorship of the media allows either the government or a governmentally appointed department the right to dictate to individuals what they are allowed to view. In a democratic society, personal freedom is of paramount importance and therefore we should have the right watch what ever we want. But, the most vulnerable in society, for example young children need to be protected, and consideration must be given to the feelings and sensitivities of minority groups, for example racially motivated violence or hatred. It is only though legislation that society is able to ensure that the vulnerable are protected. Censorship of television, film and videos allows our children to be shielded from unsuitable material, including bad language, sex and violence.

All societies have some form of censorship or control over the media. Although there will always be differences of opinion on what is suitable or acceptable, the issue is who do we allow to control media output and how do they do this. Every film and TV programme that is going to be shown at the cinema or released on video or DVD must be classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). The BBFC was formed in 1913 and they view each film prior to release and give it a certificate. They decide on a classification for each film depending upon the content in terms of language, sex, violence, morality, and horror.

The government can also put restrictions on any broadcast that reveals information on their work that may jeopardise the security of the country, under the Official Secrets Act. They can also stop publication of anything that could raise racial conflict, under the Public Order Act, and can use the ‘D’ notice to contain any information that may not be in the public interest to divulge.      

Mary Whitehouse was a leading campaigner in the fight to censor violence on television. On the 5th May 1964, she said, ‘If violence is shown as normal on the television screen, it will help to create a violent society’, and believed that the unprecedented levels of social and criminal violence in western society was caused by the saturation of violent crime on television. In 1963 she launched a ‘Clean-Up TV Campaign’, and obtained half a million signatures on a petition, which she presented to the Governors of the BBC. This had little effect, so in 1965 she co-founded the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association who attempted to pressurise the Broadcasting Authorities into improving public accountability on policies of taste and decency. The association also put pressure on governments to establish an Independent Broadcasting Council, but it was not until 1989 that the Broadcasting Standards Council was formed but because it was, and still is, an advisory body it had little impact on the standards of programmes.

The impact of television and film on people has been well researched and documented by sociologist and psychologists. The most extensive studies were carried out by Gerbner, who analysed samples of American television for each year after 1967. In his research violence was defined as the threat or use of physical force, in which physical harm or death occurred. Over eighty percent of television dramas contained violence, with 7.5 violent occurrences per hour. Higher levels of violence were recorded in children’s programmes, and cartoons contained the highest number of violent acts of any type of programme recorded.

Research to establish the impact of television and film is usually carried out in one of three ways, laboratory experiments, field experiments, and correlational surveys. Bandura carried out one of the most famous Laboratory experiments in which he showed a selection of nursery school children a film in which an inflatable plastic doll was violently abused. His study concluded that the children that had viewed the film showed greater aggressive behaviour than those that had not. Laboratory experiments tent to support the view that violence is readily imitated and that aggression may be ‘aroused’ by viewing certain types of violence. However there have been many criticism of this type of work, including, that responses are not carried out in a normal, ‘real life’ environment, and that sample sizes and make up are not representative of the population.

Join now!

Field experiments examine behaviour patterns in natural surroundings. A study carried out by Feshbach and Suger in 1971 looked at the affects of violent television on adolescent boys. A sample of boys aged between 8-18 were given set television programmes to watch over a six week period. They were randomly selected into two groups, with some watching ‘aggressive’ programmes and the others not. The results concluded that the boys that had watched the aggressive programmes showed signs of reduced or limited aggressive tendencies. Many methodological criticisms have been levelled at this work, including the fact that only those observing ...

This is a preview of the whole essay