The Killing Screens: Media And the Culture Of Violence; Mtv Examined; Popular Culture: Rage, Rights And Responsibility

Ever since Cain became the first troubled teen, society has wrung its collective hands over the unpredictable nature of adolescents. Throughout history, they've done things like start revolutions, listen to noises which they insist are music, and live dangerously (such as drinking cheap wine like Mogen David 20/20, a.k.a. "Mad Dog," that only hardcore winos would touch). With the rise of the modern media during our century, the question has been repeatedly asked: just what is the telephone, radio, TV, cinema, video game, and computer bulletin board doing to our young people? The answers, of course, range all over the board. The first of three new releases to take a stab at the relationship between media and mayhem is The Killing Screens: Media and the Culture of Violence, which is basically a talking head monologue by Dr. George Gerbner, the former dean of the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania, that is interrupted by a lot of violent scenes from Hollywood films like Terminator 2 and much lesser films (free clips, no doubt, since this is educational use of the footage). Gerbner is an articulate and thoughtful spokesperson for the view that watching violent acts on TV or in the movies is harmful--either through desensitization to real violence or by encouraging violence. His most convincing arguments are not those drawn from his 25 year long "cultural indicators" study of violence in media (where a finger poke by one of the Three Stooges is treated as the equivalent of Schwarzenegger blowing off some bad guy's head), but rather some general observations. Namely, that people who watch a lot of TV see the world as much more dangerous than it really is; that movies must steadily increase the "dosage" of the violence to elicit the same level of thrilled response from the audience (though this summer's blockbuster hit Speed--which has much less graphic violence than most action films--suggests that there are exceptions to this trend); and finally, that "happy violence" or violence played for laughs is an increasing (and disturbing) feature of action films. The program concludes with suggestions for parents, educators, and mediapersons to become more active participants in the debate. Overall, Gerbner makes some good points (for a direct rebuttal, see David Bianculli's book Teleliteracy [Continuum, 1992]), but weakens his argument by relying too heavily on quantity over quality (not everyone would agree that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is the worst program, violence-wise, on TV). Still, a good choice for larger collections.Produced by Reel to Real Ministries, MTV-Examined offers the religious right's take on Robert Pittman's music television empire. The program opens with the tragic case of the 5-year-old boy who set a fire which claimed the life of his 2-year-old sister last fall. Purportedly, the boy got the idea from watching the popular MTV show Beavis and Butt-Head (although it was later reported that the family didn't actually have cable TV). Admitting that not all of MTV is bad, host Eric Holmberg uses the rather extreme metaphor of Russian Roulette to describe watching music television ("you never know when the gun is going to go off"), before launching into segments on music videos, original shows, and MTV logo skits; educational programming; and Beavis and Butt-Head. At its worst, MTV-Examined carps about positive images of gays and lesbians being portrayed in music videos (it complains about sexual content in music videos, in general, but the singling out of gays and lesbians--while keeping in line with right-wing Christian theology--mars an otherwise thought-provoking presentation). Because MTV is so youth-culture oriented, as well as shamelessly materialistic, and committed to breaking taboos in order to maintain the attentions of a notoriously fickle audience, it presents such an easy target. Condom ads, anti-religious songs, urgings to "kill all those" who disagree with you, nestle comfortably with harmless pop stuff and occasionally socially responsible tunes. Zeroing in on the "educational programming" aired on MTV, the video makes its strongest point: a journalistic piece on sexual harassment can easily be preceded or followed by a music video in which women are treated as objects or even called "ho's." With a perfectly straight face, MTV would call the former social education and the latter artistic freedom. That's why they're so easy to knock around. Obviously, an equally compelling argument can be made about the benefits of presenting many points of view, or the responsibilities of parents to oversee their children's television consumption. Larger collections may want to consider.The best of the bunch is Popular Culture: Rage, Rights, and Responsibilities, from the Fred Friendly Seminars Collection. Here, Professor Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School (the charismatic facilitator for the Ethics in America series [VL-3/89]) leads a discussion on violence in movies and music lyrics. Participants include representatives from the entertainment industry (actor Richard Dreyfuss, rap singer Michael Franti), Congress (Barney Frank, Henry Hyde), the ACLU (president Nadine Strossen), and the medical profession (Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Harvard School of Medicine), among others. Ogletree creates a fictitious film "The Michael Stormer Story" (whose larger outline resembles the Jeffrey Dahmer story) and then explores with panel members the ethical issues raised by the film, video release, and network television premiere. Questions over where producers draw the line (if at all), what the responsibilities of parents should be, and whether or not violent and/or sexual programming is harmful to children and young teens are vigorously debated, and Ogletree keeps the proceedings moving at a rapid pace. Some interesting exchanges occur: Strossen offering a party-line ACLU version of freedom of speech is upstaged and out-reasoned by Congressperson Barney Frank, rap artist Michael Franti makes a good case for artistic freedom, and in one of the most uncomfortable exchanges, David Harleston, Def Jam Records' president, argues why he would accept and promote songs about killing teachers and cops from a fictitious group called Black Nightmare Messengers, but would not sign an act called the Aryan Brothers who promoted killing blacks and Jews (on the grounds that the latter didn't agree with his "political convictions"). Popular Culture: Rage, Rights, and Responsibilities looks at the broader spectrum of mass media and offers not a lecture but a forum for differing viewpoints, thereby allowing the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions.The Killing Screens: Media and the Culture of Violence is recommended. MTV-Examined is an optional purchase. Popular Culture: Rage, Rights, and Responsibilities is highly recommended and an Editor's Choice. (R. Pitman)