September 14, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition
SECTION: Calendar; Part F; Page 1; Entertainment Desk
LENGTH: 1159 words
HEADLINE: ON TV;
HIS OPINION DOESN'T FIT THE AGENDA
BYLINE: BRIAN LOWRY
BODY:
Someone at MSNBC (she sounded 12 but claimed to be a producer) called not
long ago asking
me to appear on the channel as a naysayer regarding the efficacy of the
V-chip. She wasn't looking
for any TV "expert," mind you, but one willing to espouse a specific viewpoint
to balance out some
talking-head panel.
The moral of the story? Only that you tend to be lonely in the media world
if you won't speak the
lines expected of you. Just ask Stuart Fischoff.
After the school shootings at Columbine High, dissecting the media's role
in societal violence became
the topic du jour. The American Psychological Assn. said: "To argue against
it is like arguing against
gravity." Susan Linn, an official at the Judge Baker Children's Center
in Boston, wrote, " . . . as surely
as cigarette smoking is linked to cancer, exposure to media violence is
linked to aggressive behavior."
Politicians--including President Clinton, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)
and Rep. Henry Hyde
(R-Ill.)--all chant this mantra. Some have pushed for legislation.
Yet Fischoff, a professor of media psychology at Cal State Los Angeles,
doesn't share the APA's
view, something few media outlets wanted to hear in the "looking for answers"
hysteria that followed
Columbine.
While hardly an apologist for Hollywood (he calls certain violent films
"pornographic in their
explicitness"), Fischoff offers no simple solutions, contending that decades
of research have not
proven, and probably never can definitely prove that the media cause violent
behavior in the real
world.
Simply put, Fischoff maintains lab tests staged to chart "aggression" after
exposure to violent images
can't predict behavior in real-life settings, and that the scientific leap
from controlled environments to
crime in the streets is "monumental."
Moreover, numerous studies fail to support a causal media-violence relationship,
Fischoff said, but
the public hears virtually nothing about them, in part because the major
medical lobbying groups
"have produced such a wall of consensus that it's very difficult to penetrate
it."
If the connection has been overstated, Fischoff blames desperation rather
than disingenuousness.
Scrambling to mollify the public by doing something in the wake of senseless
tragedies like those in
Littleton and Paducah, Ky., politicians zeroed in on the media as a fat,
unsympathetic target.
At the same time, well-intentioned social scientists have enjoyed seeing
their work pushed into the
spotlight, providing them an incentive to come up with what Fischoff calls
"voodoo statistics" allowing
them to make proclamations on the order of the smoking-cancer bond.
"It's a very bad idea to propagate false science," Fischoff said. "There's
no problem in saying, 'We
believe this is the case.' There is a problem in saying, 'It is the case,
and we're going to try to pass
legislation because of it.' . . .
"The issue is that ideology drives science. People come to be true believers,
and they will suspend
otherwise very intact antenna about experimental design and external validity
when it comes to this
kind of issue because everybody believes it must be true. And if it must
be true, soon enough it
becomes 'It is true.' "
Fischoff won't say the link between the media and violent behavior doesn't
exist, only that there are
too many variables to clearly prove it unless someone approves ghoulish
experiments tied to future
acts of real-world violence, which isn't likely to happen for obvious reasons.
Right or wrong, it's a point of view that's been largely omitted from discussion
of the issue; instead,
the media repeatedly turns to the usual suspects, bringing in such media
pundits as Dr. Carole
Lieberman--who would express an opinion about a shopping mall opening--to
trade ripostes with
industry representatives such as Motion Picture Assn. of America chief
Jack Valenti.
In that context, putting a tweedy PhD on the other side of the aisle, even
if it would elevate the level
of discourse, doesn't fit the preordained script. Then again, television
seldom tackles this topic at all
with much depth or ambition, making "Virus of Violence"--a documentary
airing tonight on the Court
TV network--especially noteworthy and compelling.
Hosted by Martin Sheen, the program approaches the issue from the perspective
of Lt. Col. David
Grossman, a former military psychologist who argues that violent media
and video games break
down children's inhibitions against killing, in much the same way the military
trains recruits.
According to Grossman--whose campaign has also been profiled on "60 Minutes"--the
television
industry has arrogantly engaged in "the most profound disinformation campaign
in modern history" to
obscure the media contribution to societal violence, which he says is beyond
question.
As for anecdotal evidence--those of us who watched scads of violent TV
growing up without killing
anyone--Grossman said, "Just because 99.9% of the time when you don't wear
a seat belt you're
OK doesn't mean it's an acceptable risk. . . . When you start laying the
data out in a court of law, the
industry goes down, and they go down hard."
Grossman is persuasive, but in the special it's mostly industry mouthpieces
who offer the rebuttals, not
neutral third parties.
So what would Fischoff say? "When you're in the military, you're in what
is called a 'total institution,'
where everything around you is supporting that ideology; when you're a
kid playing video games in
the mall, you go home," he noted. "There's a whole complex thing called
'society,' and social forces,
that intervene between the time you stop the game and get on with your
life."
Some studies also raise a chicken-and-egg question, indicating people predisposed
to violence are
more apt to seek out violent news and entertainment. In Fischoff's eyes,
the gist of the matter remains
we just don't know--which is fine so long as the conversation involves
a couple of academics, not so
fine when that debate occurs on Capitol Hill.
Fischoff's take isn't one you hear on TV often--not because like-minded
scientists aren't out there,
but because it doesn't follow the pattern 12-year-old producers are programmed
to use: Outsiders
attack the media while insiders defend it. Sadly, it's a formula that doesn't
heighten the level of
understanding, rather producing a lot of high-pitched babble, skewing public
perceptions of what we
really "know."
These shortcomings don't apply solely to coverage of media violence, of
course, so perhaps what we
need is legislation preventing MSNBC, Fox News and CNN from only putting
people on the air
willing to spout a certain opinion. Granted, there might not be proof they
always operate that way,
but let's pass a law anyway. You know, just in case.
* "Virus of Violence" airs tonight at 10 on Court TV.
*
Brian Lowry's column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at
brian.lowry@latimes.com.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Media psychology professor Stuart Fischoff says tests staged
to chart
aggression after exposure to violent images can't predict real behavior.
PHOTOGRAPHER: KEN
LUBAS / Los Angeles Times
LANGUAGE: English
LOAD-DATE: September 14, 1999