Censorship of violence in the media is another politicized issue used to conjure empathy “for the sake of the children.” By politicizing a seemingly “moral” issue, politicians manipulate the masses to attract more voters. The debate about censorship should continue forever because violence, or any other subject matter, like sexuality, can never be totally defined. However, censorship has already preceded the debate in our most “unbiased” informative source: the news.

The definition of violence inherently problematizes the government’s attempt to censor violence and establish morals. Defining violence is the fundamental problem with media censorship. Audience members watching a single program will have vastly different opinions of what constitutes violence. Different interpretations of violence inhibit an inclusive government censor. As time progresses, the line of unacceptable violence will continue to push closer to “non-violent” until the government totally controls the media. Censorship may begin with a gruesome murder. Then, violent physical action, like punching, will be prohibited. Finally, all violent words will be censored. However, what do these categories, murder, physical action, and words, include? If a victim’s pain is not shown, is the violence acceptable? Do you think sarcasm, which often criticizes the government or society, should be considered violent? Due to audiences differences in interpretation, the line between acceptable and unacceptable violence cannot and should not be drawn.

These differences in definitions allow violence to occur in some contexts and not in others. For example, some viewers would agree that violence in fantasies or cartoons is acceptable because they are unrealistic. Is violence acceptable if the “good guy” wins? Should programs show violence against Americans but not American violence against Iraqis? These opinion discrepancies of viewable violence allow the media to manipulate programming to produce a desired effect.

Violence in the media does have an effect on its viewers, but it is not the crusaders’ belief that the media produces violent children. Media violence produces a more subtle effect: emotion. Media analyst George Gerbner’s quantitative studies reveal the connection between media consumption and viewers’ perceptions. Gerbner concludes that violent media consumption produces a fearful society. He warns about the danger of knowledge derived from heavy media consumption. When our only knowledge derives from media stereotypes, we form an unrealistic view of the world, including our perception of the war in Iraq.

With the Iraq war, the government indirectly censors media violence by censoring information. The government does not reveal how many Iraqi civilians have been killed. This concealment of knowledge allows news programs and their audiences to forget the effects of our country’s violence. When the war began, news programs televised the bombings that lit up the sky, yet did not televise the human carnage resulting from those bombs. Have we seen the faces of Iraqi victims? No, but when it was our own people, news programs strived to evoke empathy.

During and after the immediate days of Sept. 11, the Twin Towers repeatedly tumbled on screen. With a provided melancholy soundtrack, victims were interviewed and pictures were shown. Last week, the city of New York released the Sept. 11 tapes. Although the public can only hear dispatchers’ voices, victims’ families were given the choice to hear their dying loved ones. Why were these tapes released nearly five years after the tragedy? I do believe that the government, whether local, state or federal, should not censor information. However, the delay in receiving this information is suspicious. Are these tapes meant to re-evoke patriotism and hatred of the enemy? When President Bush’s approval rating is at its lowest, we are being reminded of why we went to war in the first place – revenge for Sept. 11.

The fundamental problem with media is not what we consume, but how much we consume. A single viewing of a gruesome murder will still evoke empathy – the repeated viewing of that murder desensitizes the audience. Like all knowledge, media knowledge should be countered with solid information from books, magazines, newspapers, and the Internet. Media violence will not have a desensitizing, fearful effect or even a long term emotional effect – like politicians often argue – if it is challenged with factual information. Therefore, media violence should not be censored because it is one fragment used to build the total understanding of the world around us.

Renee Thessing is a junior in LAS. Her column appears on Mondays. She can be reaches at opinions@ dailyillini.com