Industry demanded parental monitoring while blocking access to ratings information

Evidence

Viewed from a producer’s perspective, “Are kids from unstable environments triggered by television violence? They’re [ sic] not having parents is a more serious problem” (Baldwin & Lewis, 1972). Parental culpability is often linked with the familial antidote argument: By providing a warm, secure, and wholesome home environment, parents, it is claimed, can neutralize any potential negative impact of massive exposure to inhumane conduct. If they cannot create a counteracting environment they should control what their children watch on television. “Today’s mothers don’t acknowledge that kind of responsibility; instead, they expect television to be a babysitter for them” (Baldwin & Lewis, 1972). Parental monitoring requires advance information about the violence levels of given programs. Parents and child advocates lobbied for a violence-rating system. On the one hand, the television industry preaches to parents that they bear responsibility for what their children watch. On the other hand, as will be explained later, the industry adamantly opposes granting parents the information to do so. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 919 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The television industry holds parents responsible while withholding the information needed to act — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 919; Censorship avoidance can mask as parental responsibility while withholding essential information — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 919

Broader Connections

• The television industry holds parents responsible while withholding the information needed to act #corroborates (0.98) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 919