Class Debate-Stricter regulations on violence and sex on TV

I am sure most of you are aware of Albert Bandura's social learning theory and the results of his research. The Bobo doll experiment clearly proved that children exposed to filmed violence are likely to imitate what they see.Yet the mass media is filled with sex and violence-right from TV,radio,video games the internet,you name it. The problem is that these children grow up to be adults. As much as we would like to say everyone recovers from that childish mindset and moves on to better things, the evidence is overwhelming. Look at the number of violent crimes,rape cases,teenage pregnancies or divorces related to extra marital affairs and domestic violence in America today to find your answer. This does not mean that TV is the only factor but it is certainly a key contributor. Let us look at a few case examples:


1. Dec 7,1981 Olivia N. v. NBC Olivia sued NBC for damages and injuries suffered after a group of minors artificially raped her with a bottle. Olivia N. alleged that her attackers had viewed and discussed the artificial rape scene in a broadcast of the movie Born Innocent and that led them to commit the crime.
2.In December of 2007, 16-year-old Daniel Petric shot his parents, killing his mother,because they would not let him play a violent video game called Halo 3
3. In 1999, Lionel Tate killed his 6-year-old cousin with whom he was practicing professional wrestling moves that he had seen on TV.


Just how much violence do kids see on TV? According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the average american child witnesses 200,000 violent acts on television by the age of 18.
Similarly,children who watched a lot of TV with sexual content are about twice as likely to start having intercourse during the subsequent years as those with little exposure to televised sex. This constant exposure leads to desensitization to both violence and sex. It is the good guys that our kids are taught to emulate. So, despite all the lectures from mum and dad about how wrong it is to hit others,TV says it is okay if you are the good guy. It is okay if you are wonder woman, batman or superman.


When we watch TV, there are no discussions of whether premarital sex is right or wrong, it is just portrayed as something that is done. TV sex rarely shows the negative effects of irresponsible sex, instead it is portrayed as something that everyone is doing. And if everyone is doing it, then it must be right!Despite what research on harmful effects of TV has proven, very few parents are able to restrict what their children watch. Yes, there are parents who do their job right by using parental control. These are the ones who make enemies of their children. But, what about the ones who grew up in the same setting of sex and violence and see nothing wrong with it? What about the technologically challenged who have no idea what parental control is, or don't know how to use it?


For adults what kind of values do shows like A Real Chance at Love, Rock of Love and the Bachelor promote? Adultery and promiscuity over marital intimacy,profanity, and irresponsibility are certainly a few of them. Our moral standards are degrading by the second  through the content we let into our minds. If we don't want to become immune or numb to the horror of violence, if we don't want to become a society that accepts violence as a way to solve problems, if we don't want to see our children pregnant at age 16 or even 9, we should urge the government to enact stricter regulations on sex and violence, not just on TV but on all mass media outlets.

When a woman wears the pants.

Sudan is under scrutiny, this time not because of Darfur, not because of the war. But, because a woman was found guilty of wearing trousers. Lubna Ahmed Hussein, faced upto 40 lashes if she was found guilty or had to pay a fine of $200. As reported in BBC news, international pressure was on Sudan to set the woman free. Amnesty International called on the government to withdraw the charges. The French foreign minister is one of those quoted to have strongly condemned the flogging.  But, the fact remains that the woman was found guilty under article 152 of the Sudanese criminal law. She was found wearing trousers in Khartoum, which is an area run under sharia law. Someone paid the fine and she is now out of prison and receiving heavy media attention.

 Out of curiosity, I looked up Hussein's story in the Sudanese newspapers online, none of them carried the story. Not even the Sudan's southern newspapers. The south is considered largely Christian and according to BBC news, in support of women's rights. Do the Sudanese people consider wearing trousers an essential human right for their women? Could this be something cultural that everyone outside Sudan is blowing out of proportion? Hussein did mention that under Sharia law she committed no crime but under a section of Sudanese law she was found guilty. If this is true, the issue has nothing to do with Islamic faith or Christian faith but Sudanese culture.
Even as I skimmed through the New Sudan Vision, the Sudan News Agency, and the Juba Post, I could not help but notice the male oriented articles and written by the predominantly male authors.

Although I am going off on a tangent here, I have one last thought to share.  All the hype over the trouser issue and all the coverage it received from western news media, led me to the curious question, why was the UN so quick to condemn the conviction of this woman when it still struggles with the definition of genocide. The UN human rights office was quick to tell the Sudanese government. that Hussein's arrest was a violation of international law. An article in the Economist defines the Darfur conflict as neither an all out war nor a proper peace. It also stated clearly that despite the fact that 300,000 people had been killed, the conflict in Darfur is "widely accepted to be below what aid agencies consider the threshold for emergency." All I could do was gasp as I read these words.
So what is the threshold for emergency?

South Africa's Golden Girl.

Poor Castor Semenya. I can only imagine how betrayed and embarrassed she felt when her story hit the news. To grow up a woman all your life and suddenly have a bunch of strangers accuse you of being a man. I can imagine the shock that swept over the rural parts of South Africa that she came from. Things the traditional African has never heard of before. A woman with too much testosterone may be considered a man? For us, when God gives you a child it is either a girl or a boy, nothing in between. I can imagine their confusion, 'what kind of  crazy people would call Castor a man', they must have thought. 'We should never have sent our daughter to those competitions'. That is Africa, where a child is raised by a village and children are not judged by their testosterone levels. South Africa proved that when they gave her a hero's welcome at the airport. They even have a fond nickname for her, "The golden girl."

Is it ethical for the media to put anybody's personal issue on the spotlight like that? Particularly an insecure teenager who was half the world away from home, running for her country? Castor was too embarrassed to even come out and get her gold medal. The media is too wrapped up the legalities of it to see that they may have destroyed a young girl's self esteem. Castor got home and immediately got a makeover. Of course she said whatever happened did not hurt her feelings and she loves herself just the way she is!Did anyone really expect her to say any different? The media overstepped their boundary. It was not only unethical what they did to Castor, it was uncalled for.