LETTERS Violent stimulus
Sir: Paul Johnson's useful ability to think clearly deserted him when he was consider- ing television violence CA halt to vio- lence?', 5 September). 'Whatever the programme controllers put into it, the box will churn out in terms of influence and habits.' To deny this is 'a mendacious denial of the power of the medium'.
These blanket denunciations are absurd.
Television is a powerful seller when it is encouraging what most of its audience is predisposed to find agreeable: cats, sani- tised sex, cars, ready-to-eat foods, superfi- cial news, political broadcasts by the par- ties they vote for, etc. It is good at showing what is available in goods and services, and at widening expectations through plays, music, sport, and so on.
Here television is pushing at open doors.
As a changer of minds it is ineffective. That politicians believe an ill-judged phrase can cost an election, and will abase themselves to any extent before a television interview- er, does not make it true.
The fact is that people are equipped to distinguish between behaviour that is or is not imitable. Violence is inimitable, with other possibilities that common sense puts beyond their reach, such as sharing a bath with the girl in the soap commercials or running away with the Milk Tray man.
An accurate indicator of the effect of violence on television is seen in the opinion polls. They place law and order second to unemployment among national problems. It is evident that television stimulates the fear of violence.
The question is: should television pro- grammes be controlled to protect society from the risk of imitative violence by luntics? Can't we stick to that one?
Peter Black 57 The Avenue, Wraysbury,
Berkshire
Previous page
