I find that a lot of the studies are going to produce greater effects on children under the age of 10 because of the lack of reality sought by that individual. Meaning that a child under 10 has a lesser knowledge of what really is real. Most of the evidence in many of studies is very inadequate, but why do so many committees evaluate it? Freedman argues that children at the age of 5 understand what fiction is and what is not. He says children understand what the cartoon or hero is doing in not real and cannot be imitated. I agree with the statement but to a certain degree. I believe children understand Power Rangers are not real, but the karate moves the do on the show are easily imitated to certain degree of entertainment for a 7 year old kid. Especially if other siblings are present to be a victim or villain. Television is an easy explanation for violent behavior in young children and Freedman brings forth and interesting thought that if there were no television just like in mid evil times, for instance, children were making wooden swords and daggers to play their favorite games. This role play would go on for hundreds of years, not due to television but to the fact that boys are naturally aggressor sex. I believe that many of Freedmans arguments are clear and concise, providing appropriate facts, leading to the point. His statements and supporting details make my discussion in my decision on taking sides more difficult. However I still cannot subside to this way of thinking. I do believe like Freedman stated, the we need to focus more on the major cause of violence which involve poverty, racial conflict, drug abuse, and most importantly poor parenting. We should not make television an excuse or an easy target for reasoning violence in our society. .
On the other hand, to Rowell Huesmann and Jessica Moise violence in the media being a threat to our children is real issue.