Lessons from Littleton [Reprinted from Madison Magazine, August, 1999]
The school shootings in Littleton, Colorado have focused attention on the impact of media violence as nothing ever has before. Perhaps it was the sheer scope of the rampage, or the fact that television covered the ongoing mayhem live, or the reports that the assassins laughed while committing murder. Perhaps this incident was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.
Is media violence to blame? Violence in the media does not "cause" teenagers to plan and carry out massacres. Tragedies such as these are the result of many unhealthy influences acting together. However, research shows that repeated exposure to gratuitous violence desensitizes children to the horror of violence and contributes to their adoption of violent attitudes and behaviors. There is an overwhelming consensus on this point among researchers and public health organizations, and a recent meta-analysis of more than 200 studies supports this consensus. Habitual exposure to glamorized, sanitized, and trivialized violence may well encourage adolescents who are already angry, alienated, and depressed to express their rage through actions that might otherwise have been unthinkable.
The debate over the impact of media violence is not new. However, this most recent tragedy has added some new dimensions to the well-worn arguments:
First, it has focused the public's attention on the actual content of violent media. Most people were amazed to watch leather-trenchcoat-clad Leonardo DiCaprio blow away his classmates in "The Basketball Diaries," and horrified to learn of the "plots" of video games that make winning contingent upon shooting, decapitating, or disemboweling not just evil villains, but often innocent victims.
Second, it has turned our attention to the marketing of violence to children. The same industry that self-righteously rates its movies or video games as suitable for "mature audiences only" markets this fare to young teens - and in fact depends on young teens for the commercial viability of their products. At the suggestion of Congress, President Clinton has announced a Federal Trade Commission inquiry into the entertainment industry's marketing of violent products to youth. And at the prodding of the President, the National Association of Theater Owners has agreed to start checking the I.D.'s of teenagers who buy tickets for R-rated movies.
Third, it has forced us to grapple with the impact of television news. For one thing, the way the story was covered, and particularly the intense focus on the lives of the perpetrators, spawned an unprecedented rash of attempted copycat shootings and bombings. For another, the round-the-clock coverage caused many children to have nightmares about the incident and to be worried about violence in their own school. More and more parents are recognizing that watching the nightly news should no longer be a family ritual.
If it takes mass murder to get the media to cover its own role in contributing to the ills of society, we should not lose the most important lesson of this tragedy. School shootings, as heinous as they are, are still relatively rare. However, these extreme outcomes should force us to acknowledge that exposure to gratuitous violence is unhealthy for all of our children - not just those on the verge of acting out violently.
We need to capitalize on the media's obsession with this story to educate parents and give them tools to help them protect their children. We need to inform them that TV shows, movies, and video games can be as unhealthy to children as eating junk food, riding without a seatbelt, neglecting sleep, and drinking alcohol. We must insist that the media cover its own impact fairly, allowing scholarly experts the same access to the airwaves as their paid media apologists. [At the recent White House Conference on Mental Health, I was in the position of setting the record straight for a well known senator, who contended (using MPAA President Jack Valenti as an authority) that there is no evidence linking media violence to children's violent behavior.]
When I wrote "Mommy, I'm Scared," it was under the assumption that parents needed to know not only about the risks of media exposure, but also how to predict what effects will occur for which children, and how to remedy the effects once they occur. Television will not willingly promote parental education about the risks associated with watching programs, nor information about TV ratings and the V-chip, which permit parents to block them. So we need to redouble our efforts to get these messages out. And we need to encourage parents speak out about TV, movies, and video games - informing policy makers and electronics manufacturers about the kinds of tools and information that will help us do the job of protecting our children.
The lessons from Littleton should not be about blame. They should be about recognizing the risks associated with guns, with inadequate teen supervision, with misdiagnosed mental health problems, and yes, with media exposure. And about the need to inform parents not only about the risks, but about ways to prevent the harm from occurring.
---------------------------
Joanne Cantor, Ph.D., is Professor of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and author of "Mommy, I'm Scared": How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them" (Harcourt Brace, 1998). She has published more than 75 scholarly articles on the impact of the mass media; she has testified before both houses of congress and has advised the Federal Communications Commission, the American Medical Association, the National PTA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on issues related to television and children. She has appeared on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and her research has been featured on ABC's "20/20."