|
══════════════════【立報】═══════════════════ |
| 教 育 專 題 深 入 報 導《2005-04-22》 |
| 本期內容 | |
| ◎ 電視真人秀 情緒暴力觀眾最愛 | |
| ◎ 少年看媒體：穿愈少愈有賣點 | |
| ◎ 台灣立報徵文啟事 | |
| 電視真人秀 情緒暴力觀眾最愛 | |
|
TV Show Raises Grim Realities of E-motional Abuse 摘要 電視節目為了拉抬收視率，常常扮演對暴力推波助瀾的角色，而觀眾也常因缺乏媒體識讀能力，對暴力情節習而不察，甚至對於生活中的暴力採取漠然與縱容的態度。CBS的電視節目《The Amazing Race》（奪寶奇Show）中的一對夫妻檔參賽者貝克夫婦的表現，將隱藏在社會每個角落的情緒暴力問題浮上檯面。他倆在節目中的口角簡直可說是情緒暴力的極致。在第九集中，他倆遭到淘汰時，貝克先生因為火爆表現而聲名狼籍，他將淘汰原因歸咎為妻子的「蠢」、「沒用」和「愚笨」造成。 醫學專家將情緒暴力定義為，使用口語或非口語的方式象徵性地傷害他人，或是使用威嚇手段傷害他人。據了解，有1／3的美國婦女都曾因男人的羞辱、責備以及嘲笑受到「情緒上的折磨」，儘管這樣的傷害並沒有違法，然而專家卻說，許多婦女身受其害卻等閒視之。 貝克先生在電視上防衛自己，他也在自己的網站上澄清自己並沒有傷害妻子，他表示自己的行為是肉狀瘤病使用藥物後的壓力和耽溺行為所造成。貝克太太也試圖平息視聽者的焦慮，在自己的網站上寫道：「別擔心，我很好。」她提醒觀眾，這只是個電視節目，並非他們夫妻真實關係的反映，她說當時他們兩人都反應過度了。 然而，位在舊金山的家庭暴力防治基金會（Family Violence Prevention Fund）會長索勒卻批評CBS電視台對此不置一辭的處理態度。她說，從家庭暴力防治的觀點看這節目，電視台應當說明這只是個根據真實故事製作而成的社會寫實節目，或是至少也該提出反對或是預防性的聲明。 位在華盛頓的國家家暴聯盟公共政策主任吉米‧莫里斯則認為，該節目的製作人應負起責任。他說，透過放映這個節目，電視其實在告訴大眾用這樣的方式對待一個人是OK的，事實上，製作人有權利選擇不播這個片段，然而他們卻這麼做了。莫里斯說，這也就等同於寬恕了對婦女施暴的行為。 CBS的高層主管表示，他們也注意到貝克先生的行為有失妥當，他們也曾告訴貝克先生該溫和些，停止這樣的行為，這樣的行為不夠酷。 莫里斯也說，貝克表現出惡霸行為時，其他參賽者的袖手旁觀，也是一項警訊──顯示社會普遍對於情緒傷害的漠視。很多受虐婦女的表示，在他們受到情緒傷害時，往往沒有人挺身而出為她們說句話。 情緒傷害有時也會演變成身體上的傷害。然而相較起身體傷害，情緒傷害較難察覺和量化，特別是伴隨著身體傷害時，很容易被忽略；很少人會在言語上的羞辱正在進行時，就拿起電話報警。對暴力的縱容會讓情況更糟。很多家暴受害者說，雖然骨折和瘀青很快就好，但是情緒上的傷害即使在20年後也好不了。 當然，即使是最健康和心理平衡的夫妻也免不了會爭吵、或是對配偶說些情緒話的話，但是這些短暫的插曲和情緒虐待還是明顯不同的。 「如果對方出現持續、反覆的羞辱和辱罵行為，這就是個應該嚴肅對待的問題。」索勒表示：「在親密關係中的人一定都曾有說過後來讓自己後悔的話，但是情緒暴力與此不同，情緒暴力有其「針對」性，且會不斷出現。」 （資料來源：WOMENS ENEWS） （譯註：《The Amazing Race》是個冒險式的記錄片，挑選來自全美各地11對雙人拍檔，進行長達3萬5千英哩、橫越4大洲9大國的環遊世界比賽，爭奪一百萬美金。節目的11對參賽者都是凡人，並非職業演員。13集的冒險中，他們必須謹慎使用有限的預算，並遵守旅行當地的速限，且事先未被告知下站要到哪兒，還要面對許多不可預期的狀況和挑戰。不過這些都還是其次，特別令人看得津津有味的是：吵架！在節目中常常會有拍檔因為意見分歧而起爭執的場面，製作單位捉住觀眾喜歡偷窺、八卦的心態，讓觀眾看他們如何解決人際之間的問題，或是看他們繼續吵下去。） |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 少年看媒體：穿愈少愈有賣點 | |
|
'The less you wear, the more you sell' 摘要 兒童究竟對他們在大眾媒體上接收的訊息有何反應？新的研究指出，答案可能和大人所預期的相當不同。 從「闔家觀賞時段」出現的同性親吻鏡頭，到青少年雜誌上的約會撇步，媒體對年輕人的影響這一議題越來越受關注。 在英國，國會正在討論應不應該立法禁止業者針對5歲以下的兒童廣告有害健康的飲料和零食。 但是處在易受影響年紀的兒童本身究竟是怎麼想的呢？ 英國廣播標準委員會（The Broadcasting Standards Commission）和其他4個相關機構發表了一份相當引人深思的調查結果：「青少年、媒體和個人關係」（他們不敢直接用「性」這個字，但是這份研究主要就是在談這個問題），主要以和9到17歲的青少年的談話內容為根據，讓年輕人如何看待被歸類為「有害」媒體的討論更加豐富。 從某些方面來看，這份研究和同一機構之前發表的其他研究有所衝突。之前的研究訪問了一千名英國家長關於家人看電視習慣的問題，並且發現47％的受訪者擔心，因為電視節目激烈的收視率爭霸戰，他們的孩子在看連續劇時接觸越來越多露骨的性愛和暴力內容。 新的研究提出的結論卻發現，青少年擁有解讀媒體的能力，相當了解電視節目內容是製作過的產物，並非現實。他們也意識到，性只是用來推銷產品或吸引觀眾的手段。在看完布蘭妮的MTV（I'll Be a Slave for You, 她在裡頭充滿暗示的和一條蛇一起扭動身體）後，有些受訪的青少年表示：「穿的越少，你就賣得越好。」研究報告在結論指出：「他們有能力作出判斷……不是一張張可以任意讓訊息複印上去的白紙。」 該調查訪問了120位青少年和家長，另外回收了8百份問卷。最關鍵的發現是66％的受訪青少年都說，媒體和他們的母親一樣重要，是他們學習性、愛和人際知識最有用的來源；而學校和父親幾乎沒有任何影響。 調查特別關注這青少年如何解讀並回應主流電視上，節目和廣告中性愛和兩性關係的內容。 研究也發現了「恐同」的徵兆。看到Levi's牛仔褲的廣告上有一個半裸的男人，較小的男孩都把眼睛轉開，不希望別人認為他們對此感到興趣。一個12歲的男孩說：「我是男人，我可不是同志。」另一個比較有自信的男孩則說：「穿上Levi's，女孩們都會圍繞在你身邊。」 研究證實，青少年傾向從連續劇或青少年雜誌上學習性愛知識──這些媒體正是因為過於露骨的性愛內容而招致批評──因為他們可以在家裡，一個安全的環境裡學習，比較自在，不會感到尷尬。 和雜誌比較起來，電視節目的故事背景更可以刺激青少年對兩性議題思考、討論。 寫實的戲劇可以有教育的功能。調查寫道：「連續劇展現一個可信的故事，不用說教的方式，對青少年最為有效，可以讓他們自己做出判斷。」 它們對青少年的需求和關切比學校的生物課敏感得多。另一方面，學校的性教育課程被批評為「太愛說教」（比方說一再強調未採防護措施的性行為有懷孕的危險性）並且太著重在「技術層面」（怎麼戴上保險套）。 研究也發現，3分之2的青少年都曾看過他們覺得含有太多性愛內容的節目，而其中又有3分之2繼續觀看，並未轉開。無論如何，研究指出，比較小的孩子常常看不懂性愛的指涉或雙關語。比方說，他們就對布蘭妮和大蛇共舞隱含的性暗示毫無所感。 調查結果指出，全家一起坐下來看一齣連續劇可以引發討論某些議題的好機會。雖然受訪者中9成在自己的房間裡都有電視，但是還是有7成的人會和家人一起在客廳裡看電視。無庸置疑，媒體在型塑兒童的發展、認知和道德觀念上扮演很重要的角色。 同樣不可否認的，媒體擁有莫大的影響力，並且逐漸吸引住所有人的目光。正因為如此，才引起大眾不安，感覺有哪裡不太對勁，並引發了相關的政治討論。（資料來源：英國衛報） 原文 The subject of the power that the media exert over children is rising rapidly up the political agenda. Ranging from targeted adverts for sugary cereals on CITV to lin-gering lesbian kisses in family viewing time and dating tips in teenage magazines, the debate about the media's role is intensifying. Last week, Labour MP Debra Shipley's Children's Television (Advertising) bill - to ban the "ruthless and cynical" spread of unhealthy drink and food adverts aimed at the under-fives - attracted 100 backers and a second reading on November 25. Although her private member's bill has no chance of success, a key govern-ment adviser now says the scale of support has thrown the whole issue into a "state of flux". Speaking after the vote, Margaret Hodge, minister for children, said such advertising needed to be properly de-bated, but stressed that the issue of the media bombard-ment of children went far wider than the argument over food and obesity. It is a sign that both the Department of Health and the Department for Education are gearing up for action. Ominously for adland, which will debate food advertis-ing at an Advertising Association conference this week, Hodge observed that the defence for leaving things alone sounded very like the early stages of the tobacco debate, which led to the eventual outlawing of its advertising. Meanwhile, although the phrase media literacy hardly trips easily off tongue, boosting it is a statutory duty for the new communications regulator Ofcom, and a role which Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell sees as vital. It translates into ensuring that in a largely deregulated mul-timedia world - when adverts can pop up as text mes-sages - consumers know how to protect themselves and their families from harm, and use media wisely. But what do children of an impressionable age think? The Broadcasting Standards Commission, with four other bodies, today publishes a thought-provoking study - Young People, Media & Personal Relationships (they shied away from the word sex, but that's what it's largely about) - based on talking to children and teenagers, aged nine to 17. Although it does not tackle the issue of food advertising, or cover pre-schoolers and infant school children, it does enrich the debate about how children re-late to a range of supposedly harmful media. In some ways, the study also contradicts other research published last month by the very same body, which quizzed 1,000 parents about family viewing and found that 47% were worried their children were being exposed to increasingly explicit sex and violence by soaps - linked to the intense ratings war. The new survey concludes that children and teenagers are pretty savvy about content, and not just about how to work technology, access websites, or use the electronic programme guide. It found they have a very literate approach - they know that television production is a process and that they are not watching reality. They also recognised that sex is used to sell things and is a device to build up audiences. After watching a video of Britney Spears's I'll Be a Slave for You, in which she writhes suggestively with a snake, some commented that "the less you wear, the more you sell". As the report concludes: "They are able to make judgements... they are not blank sheets of paper on whom messages can be imprinted." In a spirit of helpfulness, one 10-year-old boy went to the Sun's website, downloaded pictures of Page 3 girls and pasted them into his response to illustrate to re-searchers what he was talking about. The survey interviewed 120 children and parents and drew on another 800 questionnaires. The key finding is that 66% of the children said the media were as impor-tant as their mothers in being the most useful sources for learning about sex, love and relationships. Schools and fathers made very little impact. The study focused on how this group, broken down in-to sub-groups by age, interprets and responds to sexual content and storylines about relationships on mainstream television, in pop videos and in adverts using sex, such as Sophie Dahl's Opium poster. This, in fact, threw up another finding: a divide be-tween boys and girls. The Opium ad made 10-year- old boys squirm: they did not think it was decent. Some of them said she should not do it, others that she was being exploited. One of the 10-year- old boys said of a sexy ad-vert: "I think I should know about it, but not yet, I'm too young." The survey also found signs of homosexual panic. When shown a Levi's twisted jeans advert featuring a half-naked man, younger boys averted their eyes - they didn't want to be thought overly interested. One 12-year-old said, "I'm a man, I'm not gay", although an-other more assured boy said, "Wear Levi's and girls come flocking". The survey mainly concentrated on programmes be-fore the 9pm watershed, and ranged between soaps, quizzes, sitcoms and chat shows. Specific editions of Tr-isha and So Graham Norton were shown to older teenagers. Nine- to 12-year-olds were shown the episode of Friends when Phoebe discovers her estranged husband was not, after all, gay, while 16- and 17-year-olds were shown an episode of So Graham Norton, with guests dis-cussing their most embarrassing sexual experience. Se-lected groups were also asked to comment on Cosmo Girl and Mizz's problem pages, the News of the World and The Sun. The survey confirms that children prefer to learn about sex through soap operas or teenage magazines - so often criticised for their explicitness - because they are a less embarrassing and even a cosy way of learning, at home, in a safe environment. By comparison, television and its approach creates a context that can lead to debate. In the survey, one re-spondent, a boy, praised a Hollyoaks storyline about a boy with a sexually transmitted disease. Dramatic realism can serve an educational purpose. The survey says: "Soap operas are most effective when they are not seen as preaching, but telling a credible sto-ryline which allows viewers to make their own judge-ments." They are more attuned to needs and concerns than bi-ology lessons. By contrast, sex education lessons in schools are criticised as too didactic (for example about the danger of getting pregnant through unprotected sex) and too narrowly focused on the mechanics (how to put on a condom). On the other hand, the survey found that two-thirds of the children had watched a programme they thought had too much sex, and of those, two-thirds stayed tuned to it. However, it found the younger children often do not un-derstand sexual references or double entendres. The sex-ual connotations of Britney and the snake, for example, went over their heads. The survey results suggest that sitting down as a fami-ly - provided you have one around at the time - to watch a soap can produce positive opportunities to discuss is-sues and, though nine in 10 of those surveyed said they had a television set in their room, seven out of 10 watched with everyone else in the main sitting room. Clearly, the media play an important role in shaping chil-dren's development, moral framework and understand-ing. The one indisputable fact is that the media have huge power and are fighting competitively for every eyeball around. Hence the political debate, and the uneasy sense that all is not well. It is also the last report of its kind o-verseen by the redundant content standards body, the BSC. How will Ofcom fill that gap? |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 台灣立報徵文啟事 | |
|
本報誠徵閱讀經驗分享，歡迎教師、家長及學生分享經驗，題材包括如何推動學生閱讀、啟發學生閱讀興趣、學生閱讀心得或小書評，文長500～1500字皆可，投至fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net，凡經採用，敬奉薄酬。 |
|
| （回目錄） | |
|
參觀立報： |
http://www.lihpao.com |
|
寫信給小編 e-mail： |
fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net |
|
立報地址： |
台北縣新店市復興路43號一樓 |