by A.C. Staff

Television isolates people from their environment, from each other, and from their own senses. We know that it is an accepted truth about brainwashing that the subjects are unusually susceptible to suggestion. When you are watching TV you are experiencing mental images, and these mental images are not yours. Because the rest of your capacities have been subdued, and the rest of the world dimmed, these images are likely to have an extraordinary degree of influence. Am I saying that TV is a brainwashing device? YES! There is no question but that someone is speaking into your mind, influencing you to do something. First- Keep watching, Second- Believe what you are told, Third- Buy something.

According to the latest Mental Health Alert poll, an amazing 9 out of 10 people say they actually believe what they see on television to be an accurate representation of reality. Experts agree that results of recent studies show people who watch more TV are prone to paranoia, emotional distress and multiple personality syndrome (MPS). Many report being unable to distinguish between television and real life. Others say they feel like they are being "manipulated", and report almost uncontrollable urges to imitate behavior they have viewed on TV.

The greatest educator in the world today is not the school, or the church, or even the home. It is the TELEVISION! A youngster who graduates from high school has spent approximately 50% more time in front of the television than in the classroom.

Sex, according to the networks and Hollywood, is basically an activity one indulges in whenever and wherever one desires. Close monitoring of how sex is handled on the networks easily confirms this. Monitoring done by the Coalition For Better Television of prime-time network television over a five-year period confirms that approximately 80 percent of all allusions to sex are bewteen people not married to each other.

Television continues to have an amazing grip on the average person. Studies have shown that the TV is on nearly one-third of each day in the average home and that millions of people say watching the tube is their favorite pastime. In one of the latest studies on TV habits, pollsters ABC, Epcott and A.C. Nielsen revealed that TVs are on more than 7 hours a day in the average American home. Viewers during their daily TV watching are exposed to some 135 commercials. That means that during the course of one year, the average person will have chalked up 2,520 hours of TV viewing including nearly 50,000 commercials.

Neil Postman of New York University. He says, "What television does is to bring the whole culture out of the closet, because programs need a constant supply of new and exciting stimulation. In its quest for new and sensational ventures to hold its audience, TV must delve into every existing taboo and destroy every moral standard in our culture: Homosexuality, incest, divorce, fornication, corruption, adultery, occultism, satanism, and terrible displays of violence and sadism.

In this generation, there is a plague which is taking it's toll on the moral standards of women, and that plague is the porno-tinged disease known as SOAP OPERAS Soap operas have over the years grown progressively more permissive, more oriented towards the new morality and have implanted into the minds of millions the mentality that promiscuity is okay and that everyone is doing it. The everyday episodes on the soaps convince women that they do not have to maintain fidelity to their husbands but that they should have and "afternoon affair" to add excitement and adventure to their lives. Such nonsense has permeated the average woman's views of sex, fidelity, morality, faithfulness, etc.

The place of women has traditionally been "keepers at home", unfortunately if any women are left at home these days they have become "peepers at home", constantly feeding off of a diet of vicarious enjoyment through other people's sex lives, personal problems and emotional distress in the form of "Talk Shows". The talk show viewing crowd actually comes from every spectrum of life as viewers are captivated daily by the lust, deceit, outrageous conversations and wicked deeds of the talk show hosts and guests. So enthralled are viewers with the sordid love tales, kinky sex habits and personal vendettas of others that they actually become addicted to this constant diet of mind numbing filth.

Every sick, kinky, unclean lifestyle becomes a valid topic of conversation, from lesbian love triangles, transvestites modeling underwear and animal sex, to vampires who are addicted to drinking human blood, nothing is too rude, vulgar or dimented for the modern "talk show".

Fantasies of murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and destruction of every type find their outlet through TV. The number of shows that promote violence committed against women and the homosexual lifestyle are the devil's panaceas for the frustrated male ego. The men, who have long ago given up any idea of true godly manhood, sit in front of the television, receiving their daily dose of perverted and sadistic cheap thrills. And the devil smirks in glee, for he knows that he has them hopelessly clutched in his claws of destruction. And as the children imitate their parents examples, little do these men realize that their sons won't just watch what they see on TV, but they will do what they see... and the old man will wonder why his son is going to prison, never stopping to consider that the son learned his lessons on his father's knee in front of the television!

I know that television can be a baby sitter that will free the parent from close supervision. I know that it is easier to turn children over to the clutches of the television than it is to create a wholesome activity for them. I know that it is easier to yield to the pressures of: 1) the neighbors all have one, so why not me? and 2) my children will grow up to be backward and slow in their studies, and 3) they will resent me in the future for not providing them with a television. But I have found that none of these arguments stand up to the TRUTH. 1) There are many things the neighbors do that I don't wany my children to do. 2) I have found that a lack of television is no impediment to children's scholastic achievement or sociological development. 3) Children usually do not resent parents not having a television if they feel that they are sincere. I cannot shirk my responsibility as a parent. I can't afford to have a TV.

According to Tokyo correspondent Peter Hazelhurst, Miyazaki had murdered three nursery school pupils (all under the age of five) in a gruesome ritual similar to scenes from horror movies. Professor Keigo Okonogi (Psychiatry at Keio University) commented on the case: "... in the mind of Miyazaki, the real world and the fantasy world were probably exchanged. I guess he thought that his victims were dolls or characters in movies he had seen." (Cf. "Straits Times", 18 August 1989).

The Miyazaki case was not the only one of its kind in Japan. Under the heading "Crimes forcing Japanese to examine pornography" the "Asian Wall Street Journal" quoted extensively from a police report about a number of teenage boys admitting to abducting, raping and torturing a high school girl before killing her and encasing her body in concrete. The killers told investigators they got ideas for most of their actions from an adult video. In this context the newspaper quotes a member of a women's action group: "Adult videos serve as textbooks for rape."

According to "The Jakarta Post" (8 September 1993), the Indonesian minister of education and culture, Wardiman Djojonegoro, laid the blame for the upsurge of youth delinquency, particularly schoolyard brawls, on violence on television. The minister was quoted as saying: "Every day, our children are being subjected to films filled with violence."

No written media can do that. And crime rate in the far east is nothing compared to the US.

In 1960, a psychology professor at Yale University, Dr. Leonard Eron, began a study on the causes of aggression among children. [1] He questioned families about the amount of television watched by their children. Ten years later, Dr. Eron interviewed the same families. He was surprised to learn that what he called "the best predictor of aggression" among the boys who were then in their late teens, related to the amount of TV violence they had watched a decade earlier. [2]

1. Leonard Eron, Relationship of TV Viewing Habits and Aggressive Behavior in Children, 67 J. Abnormal and Soc. Psychology 193-96 (1963).
2. Leonard Eron, Parent-Child Interaction, Television Violence and Aggression of Children 27 American Psychologist 197-211, (1982).

George Gerbner, Dean Emeritus of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, who is recognized by many as the dean of research into violence on television has documented these statistics: "We have scenes of violence an average of six times per hour in prime time in the evening. In children's programming there are between 20 and 25 times violent scenes per hour."

Research done by George Gerbner and others has shown that the average North American watches 10,000 hours of violent entertainment before the age of 21, and witnesses 36,000 murders before attaining the voting age.

In a review prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage on the effects of TV violence on children of different ages, Wendy Josephson pointed out that the viewing patterns children establish as toddlers will influence their viewing habits throughout their lives. Josephson noted that "children who are exposed to television violence may become desensitized to real life violence, may come to see the world as a mean and scary place, or may come to expect others to resort to physical violence to resolve conflicts." She added that the effects of television violence lead "at risk" children to be even more aggressive than they would otherwise be. [1]

1. Jospehson, Wendy., Television Violence: A review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages, published by the Department of Canadian Heritage, February 1995.

Eron (1992) in his recent Congressional testimony:

"There can no longer be any doubt that heavy exposure to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behavior, crime and violence in society. The evidence comes from both the laboratory and real-life studies. Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all socio-economic levels and all levels of intelligence. The effect is not limited to children who are already disposed to being aggressive and is not restricted to this country. The fact that we get this same finding of a relationship between television violence and aggression in children in study after study, in one country after another, cannot be ignored. The causal effect of television violence on aggression, even though it is not very large, exists. It cannot be denied or explained away. We have demonstrated this causal effect outside the laboratory in real-life among many different children. We have come to believe that a vicious cycle exists in which television violence makes children more aggressive and these aggressive children turn to watching more violence to justify their own behavior." (p. 1)

John P. Murray, Ph.D
Professor and Director
School of Family Studies and Human Services
Kansas State University

"... All of these reports confirm the harmful effects of media violence on the behavior of children, youth, and adults who view such programming...

...violence in weekend children's programs reached 30.3 violence episodes per hour in the 1982-83 season (Gerbner & Signorielli, 1990). Overall, the levels of violence in prime-time programming have averaged about five acts per hour and children's Saturday morning programs have averaged about 20 to 25 violent acts per hour. A recent survey by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (Lichter & Amundson, 1992) identified 1,846 violent scenes broadcast and cablecast between 6 a.m. to midnight on one day in Washington, D.C. ...

What are the effects of this exposure to these levels of televised violence? The weight of evidence from correlational studies is fairly consistent: viewing and/or preference for violent television is related to aggressive attitudes, values and behaviors...

It seems clear from experimental studies that one can produce increased aggressive behavior as a result of either extended or brief exposure to televised violence...

...The overall results indicated that children who were judged to be initially somewhat aggressive became significantly more so as a result of viewing the Batman and Superman cartoons...

...Finally, the 22-year longitudinal study (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz & Walder, 1984)--a follow-up to the earlier Lefkowitz et al. (1972) study--has found significant causal-correlations (r = .41) between violence viewing at age eight and serious interpersonal criminal behavior at age 30...

most researchers would agree with the conclusion contained in the report by the National Institute of Mental Health (1982), which suggests that there is a consensus developing among members of the research community that "...violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs. This conclusion is based on laboratory experiments and on field studies. Not all children become aggressive, of course, but the correlations between violence and aggression are positive. In magnitude, television violence is as strongly correlated with aggressive behavior as any other behavioral variable that has been measured."

"The average school-age child watches numbing (or not-so-numbing) hours of television every day, yet we are told by the media that what children watch is only fiction and has no effect on them.56 The slightest effort to protest economically or otherwise reduce the countless acts of gratuitous sex and violence portrayed on television and in the movies is met with cries of censorship and fascism. What none of these guardians of the First Amendment have been able to explain, however, is how advertisers will somehow spend a million dollars for 30 or 60 seconds of air time to sell their products, but violence during periods 60 to 240 times that long make no impression on vulnerable children.

The entertainment industry has become much more responsible in recent years about not portraying cigarette smoking and the consumption of alcohol and drugs as glamorous. They are to be commended. Should they not take the same attitude about portrayals of violence particularly against women and children?"

Mario Cuomo:

no longer let "prime-time television assail children with mindless sit-coms and soap operas that present materialism and unrelenting self-gratification as the only goals worth pursuing."

"Homes should be havens for children, not a place where they can become easy prey to those who would exploit and abuse them or where tranquil personalities can be induced to display violent mood swings. "You may feel assured that your child will never become violent despite a steady diet of TV mayhem," said a U.S. university professor addressing parents. "But you cannot be assured that your child won't be murdered or maimed by someone else's child, reared on a similar diet." Then he urged: "Limiting children's exposure to TV violence should become part of the public health agenda, along with safety seats, bicycle helmets, immunisations and good nutrition."

If you would not allow a stranger to come into your home and use abusive language and talk obscenely to your child about sex and violence, then do not allow radio and television to be that stranger. Know when to turn it off or to change the channel. Know what your child is watching, both on television and on the computer, even in the privacy of his room. If he knows his way around the computer and the networks available to him, you may be shocked to learn what his nightly diet comprises. If you do not approve of what your child is watching, just say no and explain why. He will not die if he is restricted."

In a major effects-related study conducted by Robert Liebert and Robert Baron ("Short-Term Effects of Televised Aggression on Children's Aggressive Behavior") they found that viewing a violent scene increased the willingness of children to be an aggressor in a laboratory situation. Liebert, summarizing the research from his own and other studies within the Surgeon General's Report and 54 earlier experimental studies, concluded that children who view media depictions of aggression that is rewarded, subsequently become more violent in their own behavior.

Monroe Lefkowitz and his associates ("Television Violence and Child Aggression: A Follow-up Study") conducted a 10-year longitudinal study that found the television habits that an 8-year-old boy had established would influence his aggressive behavior throughout his childhood and into his adolescent years. The more violence an 8-year-old boy watched, the more aggressive his behavior would be at age 8 and at age 18. The link between his television viewing at 8 and his aggressive behavior at 18 was even stronger than the link between his television watching at 8 and his aggressive behavior at 8. Carefully controlling for other variables, Lefkowitz and his associates concluded that viewing media violence regularly seemed to lead to aggressive behavior.

The "Surgeon General's Report" is six-volume work which includes both extensive reviews of the relevant existing literature and specially commissioned research. The project was managed by the U.S. Surgeon General and coordinated and administered by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). An advisory committee composed of distinguished scholars was created to draw conclusions from the earlier research and the specially commissioned papers.

Content analysis in the Surgeon General's Report was again provided by George Gerbner. He compared programming in 1969 with the results of the analyses he had completed for 1967 and 1968. Again, he applied both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. One important conclusion of his work was the lack of reality in television violence. The people, relationships, settings, places and times of television violence, he argued, all differed dramatically from those in real life.

In Senate hearings looking at the committee's conclusions, the Surgeon General himself, Jessie Steinfeld, expressed his view:

"While the Committee report is carefully phrased and qualified in language acceptable to social scientists, it is clear to me that the causal relation between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action... there comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come."

UCLA Center for Communication Policy Television Violence Monitoring Project:

Although research has continued over the past decade, the overall conclusions have changed little. While skeptics remain, most social scientists find the evidence from so many studies compelling. Taken together, the many different studies point to a statistically significant connection between watching violence on television and behaving aggressively. In 1992, the American Psychological Association issued a report entitled "Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in American Society." The report concluded that: "The accumulated research clearly demonstrates a correlation between viewing violence and aggressive behavior. Children and adults who watch a large number of aggressive programs also tend to hold attitudes and values that favor the use of violence."

Trekent O'Connell

One talks about 'meaningful' 'informative' TV programs - and never has the revelation that all that entertainment justification bullshit is merely a composite rationale to support his Media Addiction.

TV is the crack-cocaine of media addiction. Many people hunger so desperately for the cathode ray fix that they mainline it 365 nights a year. Like Roseanne Arnold's stupidity, they crave something they can understand. Media intoxicates some with the delusion that they thereby participate in the affairs of the world. Serious television watchers are consuming a light-wave drug that will eventually give them electronic cancer of the soul.

Who in a moment of energy and creative conception ever turns on a TV? You want to 'relax' then you say???
Doesn't MATTER what your Rationale is for using this electronic narcotic - you are addicted. And how often does the addict admit it or even See it?
So what's the real-deal here then? It's this: TV is a totally PASSIVE and tiredness-indulging activity.
The NET is NOT a passive activity. So am I saying that if we are going to have addiction, an Active addict is better? You bet. If you wish to do something - do it. If you wish relief and rest - then do sleep, do reading. .... but don't allow TV to be done to you.

TV is PASSIVE - and it requires you to be Passive. It's entertainment fare is addiction-entertaiment at the Lowest common denominator; it is Chock full of the Psychological Submission attitudes and subliminals that the present controllers of this American-society-cult want you to be under the compulsion of. And WHEN you turn it on - it is inevitably at the time that you are your most hypnotically subjective, your most psychologically vulnerable. There is some fool in all of us. The more TV you watch the more fool is in you. TV makes you a fool who can only see yourself as smart, cosmopolitan and au currant - in other words: an utter fool.

Many things are stealing your life: TV is one of them.

Laura Bush:

"Children cannot learn to read by watching television. Television is just background noise and a distraction."
-- First Lady Laura Bush during the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, July, 2000

"...scientists who study brain-wave activity found that the longer one watches television, the more likely the brain will slip into 'alpha' level: a slow, steady brain-wave pattern in which the mind is in its most receptive mode. It is a non-cognitive mode; i.e., information can be place into the mind *directly*, without viewer participation. . . . Australian University researchers call this a kind of 'sleep-teaching'. . . .

There are many reasons why the brain slips into this passive- receptive alpha condition. One reason is the lack of eye movement when watching TV, because of the small size of the screen. Sitting at a normal distance, the eye can gather most of the image without scanning the screen for it. The image comes in whole. This lack of *seeking* images disrupts the normal association between eye movement and thought simulation, which is a genetically provided safety valve for human beings. . . .

A second factor causing the brain to slip into alpha-wave activity is that, with the eyes not moving and the screen flickering on and off sixty times per second, an effective hypnosis is induced, . . .

I think the third factor is the most important. The information on the TV screen - the images - come at their own speed, outside of the viewer's control; an image *stream*. One doesn't 'pull out' and contemplate TV images, as if they were still photographs or images described in a written passage. If you attempted to do that you would fall behind the image stream. So there are two choices: surrender to the images, or withdraw from the experience. But if you are going to watch television (or film) at all, you *must* allow the images to enter you at their own speed. So the nature of the experience makes you passive to its process, in body and mind. . . . "

From "In the Absence of the Sacred," by Jerry Mander

Author: Carla Kalin
Master of Science, Synthesis Paper, June, 1997
Dept. Educational Leadership, Technology, and Administration
College of Education, University of Oregon

"The setting for my first four years of teaching was a school of 1,400 students in the inner city of Oakland, California. One of the many challenges I faced as one of the eight kindergarten teachers on staff was attempting to curb the violent and aggressive behavior of my students.

I determined that television programs served as a springboard for violent and aggressive recess behavior.

Although the students' social skills did improve, I did not win my battle against the Power Rangers. It was a constant struggle and one which, looking back, I believe confused my students. What was so wrong with doing what they saw on TV?

I took a two-year hiatus from teaching to pursue a masters degree.

I framed some key questions upon which to focus my research:
How much television do children watch? How much televised violence do children watch? Is there research evidence of a link between TV violence and aggressive behavior in children? If so, what can parents and educators do? The following are the results of my investigation, which took the form of library research and interviews with six elementary school teachers.

The amount of time that American children spend watching TV is astounding: an average of four hours a day, 28 hours a week, 2,400 hours a year, nearly 18,000 hours by the time they graduate from high school (Chen, 1994, p.23)

American children spend more time watching TV than any other activity, besides sleeping (Chen, 1994). By the time the average American child is six, she will spend more time watching TV than talking to her father in her lifetime (Devore, 1994, p.16).

By the time a poor child graduates from high school, he or she may have watched as many as 22,000 hours of TV (Sweet & Singh, 1994).

Does TV teach? Those who spend billions of dollars on television advertising seem to believe television has an impact. If commercials teach, is there any reason to believe that television programs do not?

A child spending Saturday morning in front of the television will most likely be learning about violence, consumerism, and stereotypes. To borrow a phrase from the video documentary TV,Violence and Youth, "Violence is a major course in TV's curriculum."

The level of violence in prime time television is about 5 violent acts per hour, whereas the level of violence in children's Saturday morning programming is about 20 to 25 violent acts per hour (Sweet & Singh, p.2).

American television is the most violent in the world (Chen, p.47). The word "action" is practically synonymous with violence on TV. The typical American child witnesses 12,000 violent acts on television per year. "In 1986, there were 43 hours of war cartoons weekly. In war cartoons there are about 48 violent acts per hour, with murder or attempted murder occurring almost once every minute" (Devore, p.18). The average American child will see 8,000 simulated murders before s/he finishes elementary school (Walsh, p.1).

The Center for Media and Public Affairs recently surveyed a day's TV programming in Washington D.C. They identified 1,846 violent scenes. The most violent periods were between 6 to 9 a.m. with 497 violent scenes and between 2 to 5 p.m. with 609 violent scenes. These are the times of highest TV viewing by children. (Murray, p.2). "Children are considered more vulnerable to these violent portrayals because they are in the early stages of developing behavior patterns, attitudes and values about social interaction" (Berry & Asamen, 1993, p. 13).

Given the heavy diet of TV violence, is there a relationship between TV viewing and the rising crime rate? One million people die annually in the U.S. as the result of homicide or suicide. The leading cause of death (1992) for teen-age boys, black and white, is homicide, specifically gunshot wounds.

The arrest rates for boys ages 14 to 17 steadily increased from a level of 0.4 percent in 1950 to a level of 13.2 percent in 1990. Homicides for white males ages 15 to 24 in 1960 were reported at the rate of 5.9 per 100,000, and steadily increased to 19.9 per 100,000. (Copyrighted 1997 by Carla Kalin) Non-white males in this age group are notably at risk. In 1960 there were 43.7 homicide victims per 100,000 non-white males; by 1990 the rate was to 109.1 per 100,000 (Shannon, p.3).

thousands of studies have pointed to a causal relationship between TV violence and real life crime. In the mid 1980's, FBI reports showed that crimes committed by children, the poor, and women had increased by over 300 percent since 1950. Although crime has multiple causes, researchers have found that people in these groups tend to watch more TV than other people do. Dr. Leonard Eron of the University of Illinois studied 400 viewers for 22 years. His research found that people who had watched the most violent TV between birth and age 8 had committed the most serious crimes by age 30 (Megee, 1984). The U.S. Surgeon General initiated an investigation of TV violence in 1972. The investigators concluded that "the causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action" (Megee, 1984). A second investigation was conducted by the National Institute for Mental Health in 1982. The survey repeated and amplified the conclusion reached 10 years earlier, that there is a causal connection between televised violence and true life aggression (Megee, 1984).

Three primary types of harmful effects associated with viewing violence appeared repeatedly in the course of my review of the research literature. These are the same three effects identified by the Mediascope National Television Violence Study:

Learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors.
Becoming desensitized to real world violence.
Developing a fear of being victimized by violence (also known as the "Mean World Syndrome).

A few researchers and theorists have claimed that televised violence does not have negative effects. Seymour Feshbach in the early 1970's, proposed that viewing violence on TV provides an opportunity for the discharge, or catharsis.

These conclusions, however, differ from the bulk of the research findings. The accumulated experimental findings on the effects of TV violence do not support the catharsis theory and conclusions (Report to the Surgeon General, p.107, Fowles, p. 124).

"Parents have to realize that there is a stranger in your house. If you came home and you found a strange man...teaching your kids to punch each other, or trying to sell them all kinds of products, you'd kick him right out of the house. But here you are; you come in and the TV is on; and you don't think twice about it. -Dr. Jerom Singer, Yale University." (Chen, p.29)

In his book Taming the Wild Tube, Robert L. Schrag declares that:

"Free access to television programs is not a feature of the Bill of Rights. Children do not have a inalienable right to watch sleazy TV...There are a lot of programs out there, sleazy and otherwise, that are just not suitable for children. You would not hesitate to control your children's access to substances that might harm them: drugs, alcohol, tobacco, twinkies, etc. You need not hesitate to control their exposure to television programs you deem objectionable either." (Schrag, 1990 p.42)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berry, G. L. & Asamen, J. K. (1993). Children and Television; Images in a Changing Sociocultural World. London: Sage Publications.

Boyatizis, C. J. (1995). "Effects of the `The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers' on Children's Aggression with Peers." Child Study Journal v25 n1 p45-55.

Buena Vista Pictures distribution Inc. (1977). Cinderella. (sound recording).

Carlsson-Paige, N. & Levin, D.E. (1987). The War Play Dilemma; Balancing Needs and Values in the Early Childhood Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Carlsson-Paige, N. & Levin, D.E. (1990). Who's Calling The Shots? Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Carlsson-Paige, N. & Levin, D.E. (1992). "When Push Comes to Shove--Reconsidering Children's Conflicts." Child Care Information Exchange n84 p34-37.

Chandler, D. Children's Understanding of What is "Real" on Television. A Review of the Literature. [Online]. Available: http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/realrev.html [1997, March 18].

Chen, M. (1994). The Smart Parent's Guide to Kids' TV. San Francisco: KQED Books.

Cole, B. (1988). Prince Cinders. New York: Putnam.

Cumberbatch, G. & Howitt, D. (1989). A Measure of Uncertainty; The Effects of the Mass Media. London: John Libbey. Davenport, T. (1989). Ashpet.(video recording). Delaplane: Film Ideas.

Davies, J. (1994). "Growing Up on Media." Connect n7 p8-12.

Davis, J. F. (1991). "Five Important Ideas To Teach Your Kids About TV." Media & Values n52-53 p16-19.<,p> DeGaetano, G. & Bander, K. (1996). Screen Smarts; A Family Guide to Media Literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Devore, C. D. (1994). Kids & Media Influence. Edina: Abdo and Daughters.

Disney, W. Cinderella. (video recording). Burbank: Walt Disney Video.

Dunn, J. L. (1994). "Teaching Television Watchers." Instructor v103 n8 p50-54.

Frontline, Continuing the Discussion; Does TV Kill? [Online]. Available:http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/fltvkillguide.html [1997, April 2].

Frontline, Examines Impact of Television on Society in "Does TV Kill?." [Online].Available:http://interact.uoregon. edu/MediaLit/FA/ MLArticleFolder/front.html [1997, April 2].

Featherstone, H. (1985). "What Children Learn from Television." The Harvard Education Letter v1 n2 p1-6. Fowles, J. (1982). Television Viewers VS. Media Snobs; What TV Does for People. New York: Stein and Day.

Full of Sound and Fury; Is Violence on TV Inflaming our Children? (1994). [Online]. Available: http://loki.ur.utk.edu/alumnus/spring94/violence.html [1997, March 28].

Gerbner, G. (1995). Selling all the Stories - The Culture of Violence and What you Can Do About It [Online]. Available:
http://www.web.apc.org/~pgs/pages/gerb714.html [1997, March 10].

Goodwyn, A. & Whannel, G. (1990). Understanding Television. London: Routledge.

Greenburg, J. (1995). "Making Friends with the Power Rangers." Young Children v5 n1 p60-61.

Gronlund, G. (1992). " Coping With Ninja Turtle Play in My Kindergarten Classroom." Young Children v48 n1 p21-25.

Kinder, M. (1991). Playing With Power in Movies, Television and Video Games. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kimball, M. M. & Joy, L. A. (1987). "Television Violence: Does it Promote Aggressive Behavior?" Children and Television;A Challenge for Education, Edited by Manley - Casimir, M. E.& Luke, C. New York: Praeger.

Louie, A. (1982). Yeh-Shen--A Cinderella Story From China. New York: Philomel Books.

Megee, M. (1984). On Television: The Violence Factor (video recording).San Francisco: California Newsreel. Mediascope National Television Violence Study, (1996). [Online]. Available:http://cii2.cochran.com/mnet/eng/med/home/ resource/ntvs.htm [1997, March 26].

Melville-Thomas, G. (1985). "Television Violence and Children." Video Violence and Children, Edited by Barlow, G. & Hill, A. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Murray, J. P. (1997). Impact of Televised Violence [Online]. Available:http://www.ksu.edu/humec/impact.htm [1997, March 7].

National Public Radio (1981). TV and Kids. (sound recording). Washington D.C.: National Public Radio.

National Forum on Television Literacy, hosted by Stan Woodward,(series of five videorecordings).

Piaget, J. (1951). Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: W.W. Norton.

PBS Video, (1995). Does TV Kill? (video recording). Alexandria: PBS.

Platypus Production (1985). Cinderella. (video recording). Farmington Hills: CBS/FOX Video.

Public Television Outreach Alliance, (1997) Critical Television Viewing Skills.

Pungente, J. J. (No date). Information Packet: Violence and the Media [Online]. Available: http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/FA/MLJCPViolence #Violence [1997, March 10].

Rich, F. (1996, February 10).The Idiot Chip New York Times. sec1 p.23 col6.

Schrag, R. L. (1990). Taming the Wild Tube; A Family's Guide to Television and Video. Chapel Hill: The University of Carolina Press.

Sadkowski, C. (1995). The V-Chip: Is it Safety of Censorship? [Online]. Available: http://www.uiowa.edu/~iowajour/95-fall/articles/violence/v- chip.html [1997, March 27].

Shannon, G. (No date). Violence as a Public Health Problem and a Proposed Public Health Response. [Online]. Available:
http://www.hula.net/~hulaboy/s-tv1h.htm? [1997, March 27].

Sierra, J. (1992). Cinderella. Phoenix: Oryz Press. Steptoe, J. (1987). Mufaro's Beautiful Daughters. New York: Lothrop, Lee and Shepard Books.

Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, (1972). Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sweet, D. & Singh, R. (1994). "TV Viewing and Parental Guidance." Education Consumer Guide. [Online]. Available: http://inet.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ Consumer/tv.html [1997, April 2].

Thoman, E. (1995). "Media Violence: The Search for Solutions." Momentum v26 n1 p47-49.

Thoman, E. (1996). Wrap Up Report; Center for Media Literacy. [Online]. Available: http://www.earthlink.net/~cml [1997, April 4].

Thoman, E. (1996). Center for Media Literacy. [Online]. Available: http://www.medialit.org/ [1997, April 4].

UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Project (1997). [Online]. Available:http://cii2.cochran.com/mnet/eng/med/ home/resource/ucla.htm [1997, April 4].

Violence on Television: What do Children Learn? What Can Parents Do? (No date). [Online]. Available: http://www.sofcom.com.au/TV/violence.html [1997, March, 18].

Walsh, B. (No date). Our Problem is Defining Violence: The statistics are frightening. [Online]. Available: http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/FA/MLArticleFolder/defining.html [1997, April 4].

Kill Your Television

The Impact of Television

Commercial Alert