Over the last 50 years, the television has gradually worked its way into the fabric of American life. It entertains, informs, pleases and disgusts us. Few people are without a single TV in their home, and millions have more than one.

Many politicians and public figures are fed up with what is on those TVs now. They think the seedy situations portrayed both on factual and fictitious shows are harming people’s minds, especially children. They claim that TV has caused the moral degradation of society and can be blamed for various social problems. Some even go so far as to accuse TV of causing many recent tragedies, including last month’s mass shooting at a Jonesboro, Ark., middle school.

The content in many of today’s most popular shows gives ammunition to these critics. They cite many examples of the immoral subject matter of television shows today, and one of their biggest examples is “The Jerry Springer Show.”

“The Jerry Springer Show” is about 7 years old, but is just now becoming very popular and enjoys an almost cult-like following. That popularity is evidenced by recent Nielson ratings, which list it as the country’s most popular syndicated show. It also beat out Oprah Winfrey’s touchy-feely show, long the nation’s number one syndicated program.

What is the critics’ problem with Springer’s show? There’s really no problem if you like watching studio-clearing brawls, complete with bloody noses and broken chairs; strippers offering their wares on camera (with the appropriate parts blurred out); or hair-pulling, scratching, biting cat-fights.

The hijinks don’t end there, though. There are times when a viewer can’t understand what is going on, since every other word that comes out of a guest’s mouth is an expletive that has to be bleeped out. Also, many of the guests Jerry has on the show are not exactly the cream of society’s crop. These guests include pimps, prostitutes, strippers, porn stars, wife beaters, gang members, punk teenagers, etc.

As you can see, it’s not exactly a show you’d want your 8-year-old to watch. Don’t get me wrong; I like the show in a somewhat sick, twisted way. I do feel better after watching it, because I know there are a lot of people out there who make my problems look simple.

Springer isn’t the only culprit in this alleged attack on the moral basis of America. Politicians, clergy and commentators have charged shows like “NYPD Blue,” “South Park,” “Beavis and Butthead,” “Married … With Children” and “The Simpsons” with destroying the minds of America’s youth.

These are all interesting arguments, and I would guess that those associated with making these shows might enjoy such criticism for being too risqu‚. After all, in the television business, controversy means ratings.

The critics won a partial victory when networks “voluntarily” began rating programs for content two years ago. About a year ago, critics clamored for still more specific ratings, saying the system that existed was not understandable. The networks responded by listing whether sex or violence was displayed by a particular show.

Will that be enough for these moral champions? Probably not. Who knows, you might see even more specific ratings like, “Warning — this show contains pictures of Dennis Franz’s bare ass.”

Who is responsible for the custody of children’s minds? Parents, obviously. They have the task of ensuring not only the physical safety of children, but also their mental and emotional growth as well. This is their most important job, and it applies just as much in deciding what will be on the TV as deciding what they eat.

Problems arise when children arrive home from school to find the house empty with no supervision at all. Yes, it’s true that many parents can’t help the situation they’re in and have to work, but that doesn’t mean the government should edit the content of television programs to do the job of parenting. People don’t give up their jobs as parents when they go to work.

Something that a child sees on TV shouldn’t have an impact on what kind of a person he or she turns out to be — that is, if parents do their jobs. First of all, children shouldn’t be watching those kind of programs in the first place if parents don’t want them to. If a child happens to see something objectionable, parents should have the sense to tell him or her what the line between fiction and reality is.

I would argue that watching the news might be more harmful than watching Bart Simpson say “Bite me.” How can a youngster possibly comprehend the intricacies of oral sex described in the Monica Lewinski scandal, or the stark brutality of children killing children in Arkansas? Does this mean we should start rating news shows also?

It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate or require networks to regulate the content of television shows. The First Amendment applies just as much to TV as it does to other forms of expression. The price we pay for having such liberal freedoms comes in the form of programs we find offending or objectionable.

The decision on how a child watches TV is a personal one. It is the parent’s duty to decide what is and isn’t acceptable for his/her child to watch. It’s interesting that many government officials want to be involved in those private decisions, yet are upset when someone delves into their personal choices.

Does this mean that everything should be allowed on television? Of course not. But let’s allow the networks to make those distinctions, and leave the government, moral theologians and fundamentalists to tell us the sky is falling somewhere else.

---

Robert Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.