V Chip No Victory for TV

Copyright Rabbi Eli Hecht
No part of this arcticle may be used or reproduced in any form without written permission from the copyright holder, except for brief quotations in reviews.

Recently the Clinton administration has announced they have achieved a milestone victory. Starting in 1997 new televisions will have a built-in computer chip. This  V-chip will provide parents and guardians of children with the means to program the television set from showing violent or sexual situations. The reason for this move is presumably to save the minds of our children and youth.

It has been reported that the networks will now begin a rating system. They will list which shows have smut, violence and bad language. This new rating will help the parent program the shows seen by children. A side benefit for those who need violence and smut will be that they will not have to scan the television anymore. They can just program smut and violence.

Why do we need these programs in the first place? Why are adults the ones to access to the violence and smut? Just because they are adults, they can watch, while little children may not.

Ask yourself these questions. Is smut bad or good? Is violence a healthy thing to watch? Is there such a thing as innocent voyeurism?

Why do we tell our children the shows are not appropriate while for us they are of personal preference. If smut and violence are bad for your health, then it should be eliminated for all ages.

I teach in a school where I have a special young teen group. These teens tell me about their dates, peer pressure and the need to be part of a group. They search and want honest leadership. They look to us, the educators, to provide them with it.

They ask that if something is wrong for one age, why it would be acceptable and presentable for another age? Here they are talking about the television shows and videos their parents watch. They claim it is a bit hypocritical.

I believe that what we see on television has been affecting our society in a larger percentage than we wish to admit. What we see and hear on television shows effects us in our decision making. Our family values are challenged by shows and videos. We must find a baseline of what is acceptable for the family, in particular, and for society in general. Can religion provide that baseline? I think yes.

Where is society heading? This month I read a report that Eli Lilly and Co., the pharmaceutical company, has grown in value due to the rise in sale of Prozac. This use of the popular antidepressant grew 24%. Worldwide sales of this drug were 2.07 billion dollars in 1995. More than 21 million people have been prescribed Prozac. Sales of other antidepressants, like Pfizer's Zoloft, jumped 45% to $1.04 billion. SmithKline Beecham PLCs Paxil were $700 million in 1995, up about 35% from 1994.

What do these figures mean to us? They tell us that we must change our lifestyle. Our emulation of television actors and heroes may be hurting us. Maybe religion can help stabilize our society and we wouldn't need so many antidepressants.

New evidence has pointed to the benefits of religion. Recently Dr. Dale A Matthews of Georgetown University has stated, "I believe that physicians can and should encourage patients' autonomous religious activities. Im not saying that physicians should supplant clergy or that prayer should supplant Prozac." It seems to be a contradiction. On one hand we need the medicine and on the other hand we speak of religion as a cure-all.

Dr. Matthews is saying that religion will definitely enhance the mental stability of our society. Recent studies show that when people pray or are prayed for, they do better. Instead of "taking two tablets and call me in the morning," we ought to take the G‑d's given tablets, the two tablets, containing the Ten Commandants and really benefit good health for life.

True, I don't have the answers but I know it could be a real victory for mankind if we could make a V-chip that went into the heads of those writing the television show and the movies.