Should we blame the influences we choose to follow on TV programs?

No

1 of 1

by Mark Waybill

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

To blame the influences of the media, especially television, for the problems in society is to make a scapegoat out of the medium, rather than to address the real issues themselves. Television, like all media, reflects society, and thus, it is society that is at fault, not the media, which is controlled by society, or the majority thereof. Certainly television has many influences that are considered by many to be negative upon viewers, but viewers do have the option to turn the television off.

Television is controlled by people who are part of society and try to do their best for society with the resource at their disposal. To complain about the state of television is to admit one has a minority opinion, or that one exaggerates things. If the majority of the target demographics of television programming were to complain, changes would be made or the issue would at least receive public attention. And it must not be forgotten that there are many groups that attempt to control and censor television, both official and pressure group types. Thus, the influences of television and the acts portrayed on it are both condoned by the majority of viewers.

Viewers would not watch television if they did not enjoy it, and thus the majority of viewers must therefore want to watch what is being shown. Those who complain about what is on television thus are often overlooked and not considered seriously as anything more than people reminiscent of a golden age of moral behavior which unfortunately never existed in the first place. And younger viewers who complain are even less taken seriously, as it is the young and popular who are the main target demographic for most television programming blamed for bad influence, and those members of the young who resent current practices are seen as being different and not as worthy of attention.

Perhaps they are not as worthy of attention, but is the issue itself any worthier? A lot of people dislike many television influences and blame them for declines in moral standards and behavior, but to complain about something is not to address the issue or give evidence as to why it is a negative issue. Perhaps if scientists joined these complainers, perhaps if more respectable people joined them, change would occur? Well, as the young are still the target demographic, if changes were made, they would probably resent this as much as a reasonable civilized person resents the present state of affairs.

The young would react, quite possibly violently in many cases, to any broad social change they would view as being regressive and 'uncool'. The young worship the ideals of freedom, happiness and easy living. To present them with constant images of people with careers, hard working individuals and the realities of existence would not please them, and television would lose its main backer. Thus the young control television. But does television control the young also?

Whilst the young have always rebelled and will no doubt always continue to do so, television is a new phenomenon, only first realised in the 1920s, and as such it can not be blamed for originating the youth movements away from normal moral behavior. However it could be argued that it, by encouraging and 'aiding and abetting' this behavior, prolonged and increased the behavior. However even without television existing the young would no doubt be as immoral, lazy, etc. as they are today, as the original influence behind this behavior has existed long before the advent of electrical communications systems, and it would be hard to believe that just by making television respectable one could solve all of the problems with the behavior of these people.

Learn more about this author, Mark Waybill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.