From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Virginie's TV violence petition
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:07:56 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Nov19.185703.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>> In article <Bxz3xn.1zu@DMI.USherb.CA>, paien00@DMI.USherb.CA (Nick) writes:
>
>(quoting myself here :-> )
>>>In Montreal few people would go to war over sexy signs advertising "danseuses
>>>nues" (that doesn't include City Council). Few people complain about the 
>>>amount of sex in programs like Lance et Compte or Les Filles de Caleb (which
>>>had a record 3 million audience watching one night). If you told a Quebecer
>>>that sexy signs or a near naked Mitsou causes men to go and rape women, they
>>>would laugh in your face. So why the f**k would people make the
>>>same infantile conclusion regarding violence on TV.
>> 
>> Is sex scenes suppossed to be violent????
>
>No, you have not read this correctly at all. Lance et Compte did not cause
>the rape of women any more than the A-Team or Wile E Coyte is responsible for
>the death of Virginie's sister.

I think the point (and you missed it), violence on TV is present enough
to show to children that violence is "natural", like the sky is blue
or the sun is hot or people are (usually married).

My parents were not nudist.  So, showing myself nude on a beach is
something I don't feel as natural.  But, if TV was continuously showing
nude people on TV at prime times when I was young, I would find it
natural.

If I want to buy a soap and I saw the adv of Lux 100 times, I will be
biased for this brand if I saw only 10 times the other brand.  Obviously
if the other brand was better advertised or using concepts I prefer
(i.e. say Ivory presents its soap as less polluting and say I an a green),
then I will chose the other brand.

If a child see 100 scenes of violence and people on both sides are
having fun (in most comics TV shows, the victim is still OK at the
next scene), s/he will believe it is OK to kill the sister, she
will be alive for the dinner anyway.

I think one major point is that TV present violence in a way that
there is no hurt associated to it.  See the Road Runner show.  The
coyote is continuously victim, but is still alive.  This is not correct.
If you fall a 1000 feet hole, you are dead.  If the road runner show
was using different coyotes (i.e. with variable colors or some wearings),
then the child would understand that when you're died, it is final
and you won;t survive at the next episod.  But, violence is shown as
of no physical effect, just for the action or for the special effect
(like in Terminator II).

>Yeah, there are "weirdos" everywhere and TV caused all of them to go and rape
>and kill, right? That's like Hitler blaming Jews for Germany's economic woes!
>(ou Duplessis et les communistes!)

But, there is a true effect in this case.

>Upbringing, violent homes, poverty...... stuff that has been around a LOT 
>longer than TV (TV didn't start World War I either).

You are right and wrong.  These are some sources.  TV is just adding
more reasons or reaching more persons.

WW II did not started because of TV.  But Nazi germany was thoroughly
using propaganda, like communists.  Without that level of propaganda,
it would have been impossible for the Nazi to even start the war.

Violence on TV is using exactly the same concepts as propaganda.
By repeating some phrases or actions, by targetting peoples to
have more viewers (although TV violence is not shown for itself
but for the action it accompany).

>John P. LaRocque

C'est vrai, le probleme reel, c'est que la violence montree de facon
repetitive fait accepter a ceux qui offre moins de resistance qu'elle
est naturelle, omnipresente, non-punie (quand Arnold tue 500 personnes
pour delivrer son enfant, ceci sans la moindre egratignure, son "heroisme"
est en fait de la violence pour laquelle il n'est pas puni), revancharde
(beaucoup de violence provient d'une vengeance parce que des mechants
ont tue un innocent; son pere decide alors de le venger), etc.

Ce qu'il faut voir, c'est la violence a la television comme s'ajoutant
aux autres facteurs pour augmenter la violence reelle.  Si son
effet est de doubler le nombre d'actes de violence parce que, par exemple,
untel n'aurait pas fait tel crime par crainte d'etre puni, mais qu'un
tel crime a ete diffuse et que le coupable n'a pas ete puni.  La violence
utilise souvent un contexte irreel.  Est-ce que c'est normal que Willy
le Coyote soit toujours vivant apres etre tombe d'un precipice de 1000 pieds?
Est-ce que c'est normal que Arnold Schwarzenegger puisse affronter
100 ou 500 personnes armees jusqu'aux dents (dans Commando) sans avoir lui-meme
la moindre egratignure?

Quand j'etais plus jeune, je voyais regulierement la scene des Arpents Verts
ou le fermier manie une fourche et la lance par accident.  J'ai fait la
meme chose, le meme geste en imitant le fermier.  Quelqu'un l'a recu dans
le dos.  Si je n'avais pas eu cet exemple, je n'aurais jamais eu l'idee de le
faire.  Les exemples pourraient etre nombreux, comme le petit gars de 10 ou
12 ans qui vient de poignarder sa soeur.

Au lieu d'utiliser uniquement les points positifs de la TV, on utilise
aussi ses points negatifs.  La TV pourrait permettre d'augmenter la
tolerance en montrant certaines situations comme naturelles.  Elle peut
avoir un effet positif.  Alors, pourquoi ne pas faire l'effort dans un
sens (humanitaire) plutot que dans l'autre (violence)? 

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Ope'rateur de "Racines du Que'bec" (514) 922-9636 BBS/Genealogie