IDSA SKEPTICAL ON BILL TO FUND STUDY OF MEDIA'S IMPACT ON KIDS

Impact of media on children under 6 will be priority of research, Lieberman said. Although he said “we know conclusively that heavy consumption of media violence can have harmful developmental consequences,” gap in research exists that needs to be addressed: “This research gap makes it hard to have an informed debate about what most researchers and children’s advocates are convinced is a serious issue, but what many media producers still contend is an unsettled question. And it makes it even harder to reach consensus on what the appropriate response should be, what parents… and what advocates and policymakers can do to help.”

Question of what’s conclusive in research to date was quickly seized by Lowenstein. “For the last 3 years, Senators Lieberman and Brownback, along with their allies in mainstream medical groups, have claimed that research has proven that there is a link between violent media and aggressive behavior in children. Today’s press conference in which the lawmakers call for new federally funded research into the effects of media violence on kids exposes those claims as a triumph of hope over substance,” he said. “In fact, it represents a clear acknowledgment that the most objective scientific research does not establish any causal link between violent media and violent behavior. This is hardly news to those who have read the latest report on the subject from the U.S. Surgeon General, which concluded that media violence plays little role in youth violence.”

Lieberman said Wed. that some progress had been made by Internet and entertainment industries in setting standards, that they were acting more responsibly and had responded by “working with us to give parents more tools to exercise more control over their children’s media diets.” He said technologies such as V- chip and Internet filtering software had helped parents “to limit their children’s access to inappropriate or harmful materials.” Improvements in rating and label systems also have enabled parents to “make more informed decisions about the products they buy for their kids,” Lieberman said.

Lieberman emphasized that censorship and legislation that would regulate content “are unacceptable responses to our concerns about media messages. It is the responsibility of parents, not the government or the entertainment industry, to decide what media children should consume.” He said that despite that parental responsibility “there are some proactive steps we can take to help empower parents and make the job of raising children today a little easier.”

Brownback said “we have a cultural environment that is polluted” and that extra effort -- and funding -- are needed to determine scientifically how media influence young minds for better or worse. He was to chair Senate Science Subcommittee hearing Thurs. (April 10) featuring panelists from medical community with expertise on neurobiological research “and its use in the investigation of the impact of entertainment media on children’s health.”

In statement issued before Thurs. hearing, ISDA’s Lowenstein questioned need for additional studies. “In the specific case of videogames, the bulk of independent research by those with no preconceived ideological agenda, such as the Government of Australia and the Washington State Department of Health, concludes that there is no basis to believe that violent games lead to aggressive behavior,” he said. “After a review of all current research on the issue, the Washington State Department of Health found, ‘In conclusion, current research evidence is not supportive of a major public concern that violent videogames lead to real-life violence’.”

ISDA also questioned wisdom of funding research specifically on entertainment’s role in childhood development. Lowenstein said that “in a time of trillion-dollar budget deficits, we can’t help but believe that this money could be better spent to find cures to diseases that endanger the lives of our children, treat childhood mental health disorders and improve youth drug and alcoholism treatment, among other things that have a lot more do to do with whether our kids grow up healthy than the videogames they play and the movies they watch.” He contended that any new research on effects of entertainment violence “cannot be conducted in a vacuum, as if films, television, videogames and music are the only factors which influence the psyche of a child.” Narrowly focused research would have “little value,” Lowenstein said: “Fair-minded research would have to examine other factors that are part of the daily fabric of life for a child, from their home environment, their family structure, peer pressure, their exposure to a real war with real victims on television, their access to professional sports that feature contact and violence, and local newscasts which lead with gruesome murders and car accidents.”

ISDA wasn’t only group to weigh in on proposed research and funding. Although Lieberman-Brownback legislation focuses on media research and doesn’t call for regulation of content, ACLU issued statement that warned of dangers of censorship. It also expressed empathy for parents “who are concerned about the effects of media violence, no matter how unproven.”

Problem with “any regulation or ratings system” is that it’s impossible to distinguish between “good” violence and “bad” violence, ACLU said. It questioned assumptions on negative effects of viewing violence, which it said ignored societal value of teaching lessons about history or called attention to societal problems: “Roots was a national television event of enormous educational value that showed the brutality of the institution of slavery. The made-for-television movie The Burning Bed was credited with bringing about reform of existing spousal-abuse laws and included what some would call disturbingly violent scenes.”