In a recent study conducted by the Rand Corporation, a correlation was made between teen pregnancy and sexual content in popular TV shows. The study, released in a magazine called “Pediatrics”, involved 2,003 12 to 17-year-old girls and boys nationwide. The survey was first conducted in 2001 and then a follow-up survey was conducted a few years later. Among the girls surveyed, 58 had become pregnant during the time period between surveys, and 33 boys had claimed that they had gotten a girl pregnant (1). Teens were also asked how frequently they watched particular TV programs; 23 shows in particular were evaluated for their sexual content, including “Sex and the City”, “That ‘70’s Show”, and “Friends”. (2). “Shows that highlight only the positive aspects of sexual behavior without the risks can lead teens to have unprotected sex ‘before they're ready to make responsible and informed decisions,’ Anita Chandra, a Rand Corp. behavioral scientist said.” (1). Despite the survey’s results, I believe that TV shows including a considerable amount of sexual content, while a possible influence to sexually active behavior, are merely an example of free ideas and thus cannot be blamed for viewer conduct as a result.
However, according to another source, the same survey also yielded some results that teens who watch a large amount of television are less likely to become pregnant (3). Sources have predicted that this is possibly because teens who spend a lot of time in front of a TV spend less time socializing, thus, in a way “protecting” them from getting pregnant (3). Many have also argued that it may not be TV programming that influences sexual activity, but home life and demographics. According to a CNN report, Sandy Tomlinson of Glendale, Arizona, who had her son at age 15, said she doesn't think television affects teen pregnancy; rather, that teen pregnancy has to do with the way parents raise their children. (2). "I feel that if my parents would have been more involved in my life that I would have made different choices," said Tomlinson, "It gets old hearing all these studies that blame everything and everybody but the parents." (2).
I believe that although there may be specific results from the Rand survey that show a correlation among teen pregnancy and these TV shows, TV stations airing these shows as well as their creators do not have responsibility for what a viewer’s conduct is after watching. TV stations have no discretion over the thought process of each viewer, thus, cannot just not air a TV show because of how it might affect some of its viewers. According to the decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, TV and radio stations have a “safe-harbor” provision that allows indecent but not obscene shows between the hours of 10pm and 6am, when most children are not likely to be watching/listening (4). Although these TV programs are not broadcasted during the indecency period, I believe (having watched many of the shows in question myself) that these shows are vastly different than the shows broadcasted at this time of night. For example, “Sex talk with Sue Johanson” on the Oxygen channel, a show geared entirely towards sex and sex tips for women, is vastly different than the brief sexual content in “That ‘70’s Show”.
In the case Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association, and Illinois Retail Merchants Association v. Rod Blagojevich, Lisa Madigan, and Richard A. Devine, the court for the Northern District of Illinois discussed the constitutionality of two laws put into place to prevent the sale of videogames to minors; the Violent Video Games Law (VVGL) and the Sexual Explicit Video Games Law (SEVGL). The defendants claimed a correlation between anti-social/violent behavior in children and children who played violent and/or sexually explicit videogames. However, the court found that “…there is barely any evidence at all, let alone substantial evidence, showing that playing violent video games causes minors to ‘experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain which is responsible for controlling behavior’”. (5). The court also said that “Such a sweeping regulation on speech—even sexually explicit speech—is unconstitutional even if aimed at protecting minors” and “Because SEVGL—particularly its definition of ‘sexually explicit’—is vague and not narrowly tailored, the Court holds that its sale, rental, and check-out provisions are unconstitutional.” (5). Essentially, this was a case of correlation, not causation. Children displaying violent behavior may also like playing violent video games; but home life and demographics were not factored into this supposed “causation”. There is no proof that these video games directly caused this antisocial behavior. Similarly, I believe that while there may be a correlation between sexuality in TV shows and viewer pregnancy, I do not believe that this is causation. The Rand survey did not take into account the home life of each teen surveyed. Perhaps a teen’s parents never talked to him/her about sex; or, perhaps the teen was pressured to have sex by peers or by a boyfriend/girlfriend. TV networks cannot be held responsible for how viewers conduct themselves; TV is a transfer of ideas, thus placing a more strict regulation on this medium will only deprive viewers who want to watch these programs, who may have no intention whatsoever of being sexually active. While yes, I would agree that some content in TV shows today may not be suitable for all audiences, TV stations cannot be held responsible for the actions of adolescent teens from different backgrounds.
(1) “Research suggests link between sexy TV, teen pregnancies”, by The Associated Press, 11/03/08
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20834
(2) “Study links sexual content on TV to teen pregnancy”, by Elizabeth Landau, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/03/teen.pregnancy/index.html
(3) “Behind the Statistics on TV and Teen Pregnancy”, by Tara Parker-Pope, 11/3/08, 3:58pm
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/behind-the-statistics-on-tv-and-teen-pregnancy/
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
(5) No. 05 C 4265, “Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association, and Illinois Retail Merchants Association v. Rod Blagojevich, Lisa Madigan, and Richard A. Devine” (pages 149-158 in book).
5 comments:
I think this is a legitimate concern especially since our our media is bombarded with increasing sexual content, especially on reality shows today which depict real-life situations where people act and talk with much sexual references. Perhaps it is this type of entertainment that sells that accounts for its rise in popularity. The fact that sexuality is prevalent in the media today, is only one of the factors contributing to the increase in teen pregnancy- broken families, decline in contraceptive use,worsening economy, stress etc..
"Social change is unlikely to be driven by a single factor, and there may be complex interactions among several—even many—factors that are critical." (1) TV shows cannot be held accountable for this result. Moreover, it is not in the duty of TV companies to protect their viewers, since there are too many to keep track. Finally, ideas passed on to the public can lead to divergent responses. It is in the right of the TV company to protect its freedom to entertain and its right to commercial gain.
(1)http://www.planetwire.org/details/7844
I agree with your statement that despite the impact this may be having, these shows are still protected speech. If they don't want to portray possible negative consequences of sex, that's their prerogative as creators of TV. Their speech is protected.
Rather than trying to regulate this programming through legislation, concerned individuals should use their own right to speech to discourage parents from allowing their teens to watch programming, or to make them aware of what can happen.
Interesting tie-in to the video game case and correlation vs. causation.
I agree with your arguments on this issue, nice job Rosie!
I really indentified with your quote:
"TV is a transfer of ideas, thus placing a more strict regulation on this medium will only deprive viewers who want to watch these programs, who may have no intention whatsoever of being sexually active."
TV is a transfer of ideas not unlike the news or books. These shows are not personally advocating to the viewers, especially if they are younger, that they go out and have unsafe sex.
I also found it very interesting that 58 girls form the survey admitted to becoming pregnant and only 33 boys admitted to causing a girls to become pregnant. I know these numbers do not have to match up because parties outside the survey are involved, but it was still kind of interesting to me because the girls have a clear signal that they are pregnant, but with guys it can become fuzzy.
I agree with the argument that ultimately it is the way you were brought up that determines your actions more so than the media. I was allowed to watch whatever show I wanted to as a teen such as Sex and the City, Friends, and That 70's Show, but never did I once believe that my life should be determined by these fictional character's actions. Shows lke this are not real life and parents can help distinguish that line.
I agree with you here, in that there really is no causation between the TV shows and the teen pregnancy. Sure, there may be teens that watch shows with high amounts of sexual content, but there could be many other reasons behind the pregnancy, and it is unfair to cherry pick TV as the cause, and determine that it must be the only cause, without any real proof to back it up. The studies you mentioned left plenty to be desired, as they were largely conducted only to prove a point, and it seems like actual research wasn't really important to those conducting the studies. If they really had cared about the true cause behind the pregnancies, and not just about vilifying TV, then they would have done a much more thorough job, and examined many other aspects of the subjects, such as their home life, relationship situations, etc. I think, as you said, this is just a case of correlation, and no real causation can be proved.
Great Job Rosie! I really liked your blog, and I thought you did a really good job tying this study in with the video game cases and the correlation v. causation argument. I really think that the correlation v. causation argument is underused in many situations like this. I think that people are so much more ready to blame the media for bad things that happen, such as teen pregnancy or violent behavior, that they don't even consider the other things that could, and probably are, causing this behavior. It seems to be a natural instinct for people today not to want to accept blame, and to force this blame on anyone else they can. I feel like the media has become a scapegoat for these people, constantly being blamed for the pitfalls of modern life. The fact is that trying to force TV show or video game creators to limit what they produce because of its supposed effects on viewers is a violation of the First Amendment.
Post a Comment