Humphrys slams modern TV as damaging society

Just concentrating specifically on the issue of violence on television, it's never been proved that it actually encourages people to go out and be violent. That's simply propaganda put about by the likes of Mary Whitehouse and the Daily Mail.

Ask yourself... Was there a huge upsurge in violence on the streets of Britain after the Big Brother "fight"? Did the number of grannies hit over the head with a crowbar increase after Richard Hillman appeared in Corrie?

No.

I'm not saying that television doesn't influence anyone at all - clearly it does, or advertising wouldn't exist. The point which everyone forgets is that violence is almost always portrayed as a bad thing on TV. In other words, we're made to feel disgust at the baddies - and it's almost always shown that they come to justice. So in some ways you could even argue that the WAY the violence is shown actually discourages people from carrying out similar acts.

I'm also puzzled as to exactly who these people are who we think go out and re-enact violence that they've seen on TV. Clearly they're not normal individuals... but can you honestly prove that if they're violently inclined, they wouldn't have gone out and done something anyway?

The issue of bad behaviour is an interesting one though. Personally I can't see anything in Big Brother which would have influenced anyone to behave any differently. The only really controversial moment was the lame fight, but again it was shown to have been a bad thing, as they all said they regretted it, and it soured the atmosphere - so why would anyone copy that?

The only programmes I've seen in the last few years which I think are genuinely irresponsible are the Club Reps type programmes which seem to make out that drinking til you puke and shagging as many people as possible on holiday is a good thing. Certainly the police in Faliraki bore the brunt of when TV does get it wrong and encourages bad behaviour. For the most part though, I really don't think this is the case.

The big question is - What is the effect on children ?
I assume all you posters are grown up (after a fashion ) , but what was tv like when you were 5 or 6 years of age , and what influence did that have on you as you were growing up? Then add in the trashy tabloids like the sun and the star - what were they like then .I guarantee they were not as bad as today. The problem is pushing back the boundaries so that the extraordinary becomes commonplace - so they push a bit further next time..........
Any body still read books ?

But isn't John Humphreys Welsh?

I'd be interested to know what effect you think 'pushing back the boundaries' has on children.

Also, do many children read The Sun and The Star? I don't know any who do.

There was a series presented by Jeremy Clarkson on BBC2 called 'inventions that changed the world' - on the one about TV, I'm sure he mentioned a country - can't remember where - that didn't have TV because the government didn't allow it, but when the government changed its policy to allow it, and everyone got TVs, incidents of violent crime suddenly shot up. It sounded pretty conclusive. It must be documented in more detail somewhere...

This is exactly what I meant. Programming like this basically encourage people to act as animals.





I agree that many do overreact when confronted with anything sexual or violent on television. But, I think this is mainly because they lack the skills to analyse the situation and think beyond the initial shock. Also, many people are raised in very repressed families where sex, and indeed many social issues simply aren't discussed. Combined with ignorance, this causes aggression and the result is violence or 'yobbish' behaviour.

For me, the main problem with television is that, with the exception of BBC Four (although it could go further), it is very intellectually light.
The current aim of much television seems not to be to broaden viewers minds and challenge existing ideas, but to attract as many viewers as possible with something as sensationalist and unchallenging as possible.

Surely it is unquestionable that being constantly subjected to this must adversely affect individuals and society as a whole?

So how could it be different? I think prime-time should be devoted to stimulating viewers intellectually - making people think, whilst also challenging ignorance and prejudice in various ways. Or, at least not doing the reverse.
This doesn't have to be uninteresting. For example, most Stephen Poliakoff dramas are, for me, totally fascinating and yet not enormously cerebral.
Also, the 11:00 feature stories on newsnight are, usually, easy to watch, and yet in their style, encourage viewers to contemplate issues raised.

Terrestrial television, and especially public service broadcasting, really should focus on being a catalyst which causes people to challenge their preconceptions and also develop a deeper knowledge about important isues - for example cloning and scientific theories. Ideally, all television should encourage viewers to do this, but in a multichannel environment with sky pumping out hours upon hours of mind-numbing, celebrity obsessed rubbish, the terrestrials, or at least the BBC and Channel 4 really should inform, educate and then entertain.

That was a complete over-reaction though. Events as portrayed in Club Reps (and earlier Ibiza Uncovered) have been a part of 18-30 holidays for years.

They will do in households that take the comics in question , they also watch the late night trash on their bedroom tv's. There is no redeeming quality in a lot of the output to which John Humphreys refers.

John's argument doesn't stand up as he hasn't owned a TV for five years and his views are based PURELY on requesting 'top' programmes from the TEN most watched tv channels.

Depending on how he asked the question to these tv channels will determine what was actually sent to him and how he came up with his views.

Possibly each channel only sent the highest rating programmes eg Big Brother, Pop Idol, Im a Celebrity etc etc whereas a lot of great programmes pass the viewers by and as they didnt gain many viewers were deemed poor.

Its a tricky question deciding what the 'BEST' programmes are on each channel where most people would had their own preferences.

I feel John has been too hard on all these tv channels and needs to chill out and watch a few weeks worth of tv before coming up with such an article!

(PS had John got a book or something to promote atm?)