Television Violence Gets the Chair

"Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!" This infamous chant comes from the TV "talk show" Jerry Springer. The Jerry Springer show is popular because it projects itself to be a circus side show instead of an actual TV talk show. At the peak of the show one would almost always tune in to witness a raging war among the guests, usually involving chairs. Chairs would be hurled across the set accompanied by atrocious punching, scratching and the occasional martial arts move that would leave a guest topless. However, this kind of behavior was later banned from the show. Viewers of the Jerry Springer show will no longer observe outrageously violent stunts. The absence of such acts is due to the popular belief that TV is becoming too violent and the increasing bans that accompany this belief. However, there are critics who believe violence seen on shows such as Jerry Springer should not be pinpointed as a problem in our society. In the essays written by Mike Oppenheim, Richard Rhodes, and Holman W. Jenkins Jr. the authors express their views on why television violence is not a major problem in our society.

Mike Oppenheim, in the first essay, "TV Isn't Violent Enough" argues that television violence is not gruesome enough to be considered "too" violent for the mainstreams of television. As a doctor, Openheim first states that violence on television is so over exaggerated that it comes off as fake, and therefore is not a problem. Secondly, Oppenheim argues that children will not learn anything from violence if they are quarantined from it. Oppenheim

believes that shielding children away from violence is bound to do more harm than good. Finally, Oppenheim states that if society is so worried about protecting children, they need to find other ways besides cleaning up TV, because TV is already too "antiseptic".

Following along with Oppenheim, in Richard Rhodes' essay, "Hollow Claims about Fantasy Violence", Rhodes detests any kind of ban on TV violence. Rhodes first demonstrates that despite previous studies there is no direct correlation between violence on TV and violent human behavior. Rhodes points out that in America, since the increased popularity of television there have been more homicides. However, in countries such as France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, where television is just as popular, homicide numbers have not increased. Secondly, Rhodes clarifies that aggressive behavior is not learned from mock violence. Rhodes theorizes that children learn hostility from violent encounters, perhaps from parents or peers. Finally, Rhodes testifies that the way to stop violence is not to ban violence on TV. Rhodes believes people need to take action to make sure children are not placed into hostile situations where violence is learned.Agreeing with the previous Authors, Holman W. Jenkins, in the essay, "Violence Never Solved Anything, argues that violence on television should not be banned. First, Jenkins explains that violence has been around before television, and just because violence appears on television does not necessarily mean it is the immediate culprit for hostile natured crimes. Secondly, Jenkins comments that there is a small viewing audience of violent TV shows, comprised mostly of young adults. Jenkins states that since there is such a small viewing audience for violent television shows that there is not a need to ban such shows.

Finally, Jenkins points out a small

0.01 percent of the population have the potential to mock a television violence sequence. Jenkins claims this small percentage, is a group of mentally unstable, "sick minded" individuals. Jenkins adds that instead of reprogramming the media to accompany the needs of vulnerable individuals, action should be taken to seek out the homicidally mentally ill before someone gets hurt.

While Oppenheim, Rhodes, and Jenkins each have a variety of opinions on why violence on television is not a problem in today's society, they neglect a probable cause and solution of increasing violence in the United States. The authors' ideas about stopping increasing crime rates appear vague and seem to delegate the duty of solving the problem to "someone else". The authors do not even target specific people or groups who should try to solve the problem. I find their ideas very unconvincing due to their vagueness. All three authors would suggest that if an individual is found heaving chairs and ripping off the undergarments of enemies, a TV show such as perhaps The Jerry Springer show is not to blame. They would agree that there is some other unexplainable reason why such behavior is being displayed, and someone else needs to figure it out.