On Issue of Media Violence, Are Finger-Pointers Aiming Straight?

Dale Kunkel concludes in his Counterpunch article (“Evidence on Media Violence Still Stands,” Nov. 6) that “statistical probabilities show us that children who view a lot of violence are more prone to physical aggression than those who don’t. That’s what we know, not just what we think.”

Kunkel fails to point out a maxim of statistics science: Correlation does not imply causation. It is just as likely, as far as studies show, that children prone to aggression prefer to view a lot of violence, rather than that viewing the violence causes their aggression.

Most children are exposed to media violence at an early age: “Grimm’s Fairy Tales.” Murder, child abandonment, dismemberment . . . almost as violent as the Bible, the Koran and the Vedas. There is a reason we tell our 3-year-olds about a little girl devoured by a wolf, or the slaughter of an entire city. And those who are pointing their fingers at media violence in film and TV are pointing in the wrong directions, and for the wrong reasons.

DAVE SUESS

Hermosa Beach

Dale Kunkel gives a condescending response to Brian Lowry’s article, which questioned the link between media violence and actual violence. For Kunkel, anyone who disagrees is the equivalent of a tobacco executive or a crackpot. I have a background in scientific research, psychiatry and animation, and I beg to differ.

Despite the benefit of a PhD in neuroscience and the ability to deconstruct scientific studies, I’ve found the so-called experiments that indicate linkage between media violence and actual violence a quagmire of sloppy science. As a board-certified psychiatrist, I deal with the causes and consequences of interpersonal violence regularly. The mass media are not the problem. Is it an accident that the violent crime rate is steadily falling, even as violence in the media continues unabated?

As an animator, I see this issue as serving to bowdlerize children’s entertainment, so that the only litmus test of acceptable programming is the lack of overt or imitable violence. The result is some of the blandest and least affecting children’s entertainment ever produced.

When Kunkel says there is no controversy within the scientific community about the effects of media violence, he’s right. That’s because this is a sacred cow of the social scientists, and no debate is tolerated. It was concluded in the 1950s, based on a few studies that are laughable today, that media violence is tremendously harmful to children.

This conclusion continues to go unquestioned for two main reasons. First, it seems intuitively obvious. Most people, including scientists in other fields, are happy to accept this cause-and-effect as fact. After all, violent media is generally offensive, so it must be bad. Second, politicians love this issue, and social scientists who tell them what they want to hear get tons of attention and funding.

Unfortunately, this misguided obsession with media violence blinds us to real issues. Violence will be repeated when it is introduced to children by real people of emotional significance, not by television and film. Until we put the focus where it belongs, we will continue to waste valuable energy and resources.

KEVIN KOCH

Glendale