I DIDN'T DO IT; OR, IF I DID, IT WASN'T MY FAULT
< back

"I didn't do it!" said the child caught with their hand in the cookie jar. "It wasn't me!" exclaimed the child caught climbing down from a tower of phonebooks—floor littered with broken porcelain and cookies...

From an early age we learn that doing something that causes harm or something that is against the rules is to be avoided. And soon after, we also learn to provide exclamations and/or excuses to avoid being punished. Subsequently, we learn to avoid responsibility and/or pass responsibility to others when we are caught doing something that is inappropriate.

Interestingly, we never seem to outgrow this learned method of avoiding responsibility. As a result, it’s often the case that people are quick in passing the burden of responsibility to someone else, in order to avoid the obligation to right the wrong, or to fix something that has been damaged.

Although the adult version of such exclamations may be worded in a slightly different way and qualified with an excuse, it’s not difficult to see that a person making such exclamations is really trying to evade responsibility, and shift the burden of responsibility to someone or something else. In short, adults often react the same way children do when they are caught with their hand in a metaphorical cookie jar.

The irony of adults attempting to evade and shift responsibility like children who are caught doing something wrong, is portrayed in the lyrics of “Cookie Jar”. As illustrated by the characters in Johnson’s song, this style of evading and shifting is shown when each character is not willing to take responsibility for their actions—specifically for acts of violence and acts of perpetuating violence in society. Although there are certain acts that people are truly not responsible for—and can honestly and ethically exclaim “you can’t blame me”—Johnson rightfully points out that everybody should accept responsibility for the high level of violence that we currently experience in our society.

To better understand why the exclamation “you can’t blame me” is not an acceptable way to confront violence in society, and why we all should take responsibility for violence, let’s take a brief look at Brandon S. Centerwall’s article “Television and Violent Crime”. This article is helpful to look at because it encourages us to think about how our actions stimulate and perpetuate violence. In addition, this article illustrates how television programming is related to violence in our society, and can help us reflect on how people fail to recognize and respond to violence that stems from television programming.

Centerwall begins his article by suggesting that infants and young children are innately inclined to imitate adult behavior. But, Centerwall notes, “while children have an instinctive desire to imitate, they do not posses an instinct for determining whether a behavior ought to be imitated”. As a result, children who have not come to know the difference between reality and what they watch on television, mistake all the images on television as a factual account of how the world works. It doesn’t matter if it’s a purple dinosaur, or a violent fight seen, because “children up through ages three and four are unable to distinguish fact from fantasy on TV, and remain unable to do so despite adult coaching”. Thus, children exposed to violent TV programming develop a grater inclination to act violently, because they are inclined to imitate the violent behavior they watch on TV.

To provide support for his claim, Centerwall summarizes several different studies that examined the relationship between violence and television. For instance, Centerwall cites the Impact of Television (1986) study, where forty-five children were observed before TV was introduced to their community, and then two years after. Shockingly, the rate of aggression among these children increased 160 percent, after two years. This raise was a general increase in acts of aggression among boys and girls; the increase was not merely limited to a few “bad apples”.

This study, along with the others, shows that television increased acts of physical aggression among preadolescent children, and that these increased aggressive dispositions stay with the children through adolescence and adulthood. Interestingly, exposure to older groups did not appear to increase their acts of violence. Thus, the preadolescent period of children’s lives appear to be the most crucial period for creating a disposition of aggressiveness.

After reviewing the effects of TV on preadolescent children, Centerwall then summarized the television industry’s response to the claim that programming caused a general increase in the level of violence in society. In the beginning, major networks funded studies on childhood aggression and exposure to television, and claimed that the average increase was so minor that TV could not account for the major increase in violence that has occurred in societies where TV was available and regularly accessed. But, Centerwall points out, the level of aggression in society is distributed in a range from virtually no aggression to high aggression, with most members of society falling between these two extremes—this is commonly described as a “bell curve” distribution. This is a crucial point to notice, because the studies showed a general increase in aggression for all children exposed to TV, which means that the overall distribution of aggression is shifted to a greater degree of aggressiveness.

Although the greater population—in the middle of the bell curve—only experiences a minor increase in aggressiveness, the extremes are greatly affected by an overall shift in the distribution. For example, Centerwall points out that a mere 8 percent increase in the overall aggressiveness of society will result in a doubling of acts of aggression—like homicide—at the extreme of the distribution. In short, Centerwall’s analysis shows that a general increase in the aggressiveness of a population causes a great increase in acts of extreme aggression.

After the television industry realized the consequences of shifting the overall aggressiveness, they stopped funding studies and started allocating a great deal of resources to the political management of the issue. But, it’s important to ask: “Why would they do this; couldn’t the networks just change the level of aggressiveness in their programming, and directly confront the increased rate of violence in society?”

Of course they could confront the problem, but they never would. The industry has its hands in a cookie jar full of money—millions/billions of dollars—and they don’t want to take their greedy hands out. So, instead of taking responsibility for their programming and it effects, they have decided to say “It’s not our fault” and “you can’t blame me”.

At the end of the day, the television industry does not care about the content of their program. Rather, they care about the quantity of viewers, and their ability to continually increase revenues from commercial advertisements—and it’s not a secret that violence helps to attract and sustain a large and profitable audience. Although the television industry is responsible for what it produces, it’s highly unlikely that it would take a hit in profits for the sake of social conscious.

Like any business, the television industry wants to make money and will go to great lengths—and spend tons of their own money—to insure that the scientific findings will not hinder their profit. We can expect the television industry to check its negative effects on society, just as much as we can expect the cigarette industry to help in the ‘war against tobacco’. But, just because the television industry is the source of violent and aggressive media, it does not mean that the rest of society can sit back, and passively declare, “It’s not our fault, and you can’t blame me”.

Everyone is obligated to take responsibility for the aggression and the subsequent violence in our society. We should aim to not be like the characters in the lyrics of “Cookie Jar” because they are not willing to take responsibility. Hiding behind exclamations like “you can’t blame me” will never lead to a solution—especially to the problem of violence in our society.

To confront the issues of violence in our society that stem from, and are fueled by, violent television programming, we should consider several factors. First, we should recognize that every action affects the rest of society—including the action of not doing anything. Johnson correctly identifies this communal responsibility, and rightly points out that “we receive what we demand” and that we are responsible for the “hell” (i.e. the violence) in our communities.

Second, we should address the issue of individual responsibility when confronting the issue of violence. On one hand, individual responsibility is important to consider because it’s easy to neglect our ability and our responsibility to confront violence in our society. For example, we can decrease the amount of violence in our society by not teaching and showing children how to be violent. And this could be accomplished—according to Centerwall’s article—by choosing not to subject preadolescent children to violent television programming.

In addition, if you don’t like the effects of violent television programming, you can take action by choosing not to consume it. If violence stops selling, then violent programming will be replaced by something else that will bring the viewers and advertising revenue back to the television.

Furthermore, individual responsibility is important to address because people often have a convoluted view of themselves when it comes to comprehending their decision-making processes. Particularly, comprehending how their decision-making processes are affected by the experiences and things they are subjected to. As a result, people often do not comprehend how they are influenced by the things they are subjected to, and the effects of their actions have on others.

An example of a convoluted view of one’s self is thinking that we are individuals that are impermeable to the things that are around us and the things we watch on television. Such a convoluted view is portrayed in the lyrics of Cookie Jar when one character exclaims “it’s smoke machines and makeup man, you can’t fool me” when refuting the claim that television programming contributes to violence. Although the majority of television violence is created in a studio and is blatantly fictitious, this does not mean that people who watch this factious violence are not persuaded or inadvertently influenced by the things they see.

The character’s attempt to evade responsibility by appealing to the fictitious nature of violence on the television is unfounded. It’s not a matter of being fooled; it’s a matter of people being influenced by what they watch. As long as people are influenced by television programming, the creators of the programming are responsible for what they produce. While, at the same time, those who choose to watch the programming are equally responsible for the dispositions that they acquire through their consumption of such media. In short, the producers are responsible because they chose to produce it, and the viewers are responsible because they choose to view it.

We are heavily influenced by the things we do and the things we are subjected to, and we are responsible for the person that we become after choosing to subject ourselves to different things and experiences. Accordingly, the exclamation “you can’t blame me” that comes from the producers of violent television programming who are attempting to evade responsible for the things they produce, is ethically flawed. And, the exclamation “you can’t blame me” that comes from those who are attempting to evade responsibility for acting violently, is also ethically flawed. In addition, the exclamation “you can’t fool me” is also ethically flawed when it is employed by those attempting to defend the status quo of television programming by arguing that people are not affected by fictitious violence.

In closing, it’s helpful to contemplate the lyrics of “Cookie Jar” in conjunction with Centerwall’s article, because it remind us that we are responsible for what we do and what we subject ourselves to. In addition, Johnson and Centerwall correctly point out that failing to take responsibility for violence in our society will do nothing but perpetuate the problem.

The current level of violence in our society is something that has been created by past actions, and sustained and perpetuated by our current choices and actions. Thus, we should take responsibility and take action against violence in our society, because violence is a human convention. In sum, we should take action to stop violence, because violence is not going to stop itself.