|
 |
SCHOOL
WORK |
 |
|
Screen Violence on Free-To-Air Television
|
|
Year: 2004 | School year: 10 | Subject: English | Format: 5 minute oral presentation | Grade: A-
Ladies, gentlemen, tables and ceiling fans, welcome to this Erin Walsh presentation. The topic is one that surrounds us and, indeed, consists of our opinions as the Australian public. Screen violence on free to air television, and the opinions Australians have on its use, frequency and depiction. Also, how these opinions have evolved over time.
I am here to illustrate that onscreen violence, in moderation, is necessary. This talk uses an official governmental surveys findings as a basis for facts and figures. More about this survey is on a handout Ill be passing out at the end of the speech.
Free to air television is the term used for stations such as SBS, ABC and Prime. No fees are associated with their viewing, and they are available all over the country. This is an important point when one considers the facts presented, as the demographic is rather statedly different to that of pay TV channels such as Foxtel.
Onscreen violence is not all the same- there are two broad categories. Fake and Real. Fake violence is the type you would see in fictional stories or dramas, a prime example of this is the film of Kill Bill. The violence shown is so obviously over-the-top, with blood strongly resembling colored water and limbs flying everywhere, I dont find it overly offensive. Indeed, the depiction of the violence is extreme, but it does not compel me to pick up a samurai sword and start chopping Chelseas legs off. I do not believe that this form of violence on television corrupts the public into committing violent acts. Indeed some people may emulate the violence they see on television, but I am strongly of the opinion that these people were sure to commit some act of cruelty regardless of influence.
49% of the Australian populous find False of violence of any concern. This is 15% less than the figure of concern for Real violence. Real violence is an actual image of the event taking place, such as one would see on a news or current affairs program. 64% of Australia found this violence to be overly disturbing. Can you try to imagine a news report talking about horrific wars and showing nothing? The impact of the news would be lost. The fatalities would simply seem like numbers. Showing Real violence reduces the anonymity of those suffering. I find Real violence far more repugnant than the False type, but see it as an influence for good. The confronting images of pain and horror shown on some news programs should show the populous just how pointless and horrendous violence can be.
This 15% difference is an interesting indicator of peoples growing ability to discern false situations presented on the television from real ones. This is a good thing violence is often an integral part of dramatic storytelling. The more people can grow to discern False from Real, the more televisiual storytelling can engage the viewer.
The household censorship of violence is far more intent on the False type. 30% of teenagers have parents regulating their viewing. The most censored area is not actually violence, but sex scenes, with 26% of teenagers banned. False violence is in fact the lowliest censored about the home, with only 17% of teenagers reporting restriction on their viewing.
Unregulated teenagers and young adults, people from 15 to 24 years are the group with the lowest objection to all screen violence. Only 17% are concerned that it is too graphic and frequent. People over 55 are the group with the highest percentage of objection, 56%. This links in with 50% of parents also worried about the current amount of onscreen violence.
There are four basic groupings of opinion on screen violence: The opposers, the worriers, the tolerators and the acceptors.
Opposers: Those who vocally disagree with most violence on television.
Worriers: Those who are concerned with television violence, see it has a place in current affairs and dont take it seriously in comedy and cartoons. This portion is 30% of survey.
Tolerators: Those who dont see any big problem with television violence but dont endorse it.
Acceptors: people comfortable with the current level of television violence.
I am personally in the Tolerators group. I do sometimes agree that violence shown on current affairs programs is too disturbing for the timeslot, but False violence is usually justified. A drama uses whatever modes it needs to produce a compelling story, and violence is often required. If the viewer does not like this level of violence, there is nothing preventing them from simply switching off the television.
Societys collective opinions screen violence on free to air television are evolving as television violence becomes more mainstream. The trend is one of growing acceptance. This further supports my belief that violence on television is correctly used and justified. Tomorrow when you sit down to watch whatever program takes your fancy, think just where you stand in the myriad of views on screen violence.
<- Back to school work
This is ERIN's schoolwork,
put on the internet for safekeeping and posterity. Not to be copied or taken
orally.
|
 |
