More Experts Than Facts on Kids, Media Violence

It’s nice to be reminded, occasionally, that when it comes to science--and especially social science--there is often a gap between what we truly know and what we think we know.

Not that you normally hear such dispassionate analysis in the media, where George Orwell’s memory hole is alive and well. Each new study is hailed as evidence of some jaw-dropping trend, at least until the next report comes along and raises doubts about the last set of findings--sort of like a jury trial in which an expert witness sounds convincing until the other side’s hired gun takes the stand and cancels out that testimony. (Well, it happens on “The Practice.”)

There’s been a lot of discussion lately regarding the media’s influence on children--how parents, as the Democratic presidential ticket of Al Gore and Joe Lieberman keep putting it, must “compete with the popular culture” to raise their kids. Congress also weighed in on the marketing of violent material to children in the wake of a damning Federal Trade Commission report charting the entertainment industry’s practices.

It’s noteworthy, then, that two studies have come out questioning precisely what we know about whether the media cause children to behave in an antisocial manner--almost as noteworthy, in this case, as the messenger delivering those observations.

That would be ABC News, which ran a piece on Friday’s “20/20” providing a podium to two researchers intent on debunking conventional wisdom regarding violent entertainment and children--a story that could have just as easily been titled “When News Divisions With Conflicts of Interest Attack.”

ABC, after all, is owned by the Walt Disney Co. The executive who oversees the network, Disney President Robert Iger, was among those called up to testify before--and dressed down by--Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his committee examining entertainment marketing.

In the “20/20” segment, ABC correspondent Tom Jarriel interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer Richard Rhodes, author of “Why They Kill,” who said flatly, “There is no good evidence that watching mock violence in the media either causes or even influences people to become violent.” His remarks were echoed by Toronto University psychology professor Jonathan Freedman, who, after analyzing every study on media violence published in English, concluded, “The scientific evidence does not support the view that exposure to media violence causes aggression.”

Such pronouncements are notable, since several major organizations--including the American Medical Assn. and American Psychological Assn.--have determined otherwise; indeed, the latter has stated that expressing skepticism about the link between violent media and aggression “is like arguing against gravity.”

With her typical flair for melodrama, anchor Barbara Walters referred to this as “provocative new thinking,” which is a lot of hogwash. More than a year ago, The Times pointed out that not all academics toe the preordained line, among them Dr. Stuart Fischoff, a professor of media psychology at Cal State L.A. The problem is there’s seldom room for such a contrarian point of view within broadcasting’s usual talking-head formats, which invariably turn to tweedy professors as a counterpoint to oily show-business types.

Given that media violence has become such a popular political issue, what’s truly remarkable is how little time the network news divisions devote to this issue at all, almost never airing a note of dissent to the medical establishment opinion when it does arise.

Perhaps news personnel fear the charge of shilling for their corporate masters, one of the ways concentration of media ownership can subtly skew reporting. While they too frequently disguise self-promotion as news, reporters can also lean too far in the other direction hoping to demonstrate their independence.

ABC News officials stressed there was no input from Disney in coming up with the “20/20” report, which was initiated long before the FTC findings were released.

*

Another reason so little has been heard from skeptics about the media-violence connection may be the way in which the debate is framed. The goals, after all, are wholly laudable, from reducing violence in society and protecting kids (hard to quibble with those aims in public) to related efforts such as curtailing drug abuse--the subject of a $1-billion media campaign by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

If you give any weight to the views espoused by Rhodes and Freedman, however, there’s room to wonder if we’ve wasted time on some of these programs, such as the ONDCP’s approach--already marred by an embarrassing episode in which the government appeared to employ financial incentives to entice network executives to incorporate anti-drug messages into TV shows.

What does it mean if the media’s influence on viewers has been overestimated? Would it even be possible, after expending all that money and time using television to convince kids drugs aren’t cool, for the ONDCP to second-guess its own campaign--to admit seeing an “ER” cast member lecturing teens doesn’t resonate much compared with pressure from a parent or a peer? It’s a thought even childless adults might want to consider, given that tax dollars have underwritten the strategy.

Clearly, many adults feel graphic entertainment is harmful to kids, and that the industry shares culpability for the heinous acts perpetrated by disaffected teenagers. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence supporting this premise, heard from parents who notice kids roughhousing after exposure to some violent movie--even a cartoonish one--or see tots traumatized by something they witness on TV, home video or in a theater.

Still, as Jarriel’s report dared ask, what do we really know for sure, and are the data sound enough to guide the formulation of public policy? If not, cultural warriors--currently armed with the shield of children’s welfare--would have to step into the open and say, “We have a hunch this isn’t good for kids, which makes sense intuitively. But most of all, this sort of filth offends us, and we’d rather not have it out there because we, as adults, don’t like it.”

Of course, such frank talk would run afoul of that pesky 1st Amendment, but it could provide the foundation for a new hybrid of news-reality programming--one Fox might dub “When Honesty Attacks.” It might also compel some people to concede they have overstated their case, so here’s another hunch: Don’t bother looking for such a show any time soon, and certainly not before election day.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.