Channeling Violence: The Economic Market for Violent Television Programming.

• Author: Cowen, Tyler
• Position: Review

By James T. Hamilton. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. Pp. xix, 390. $35.00.

The violence of modern television would surprise both defenders and critics of the Enlightenment. Adam Smith and Montesquieu proposed a "doux commerce" thesis, according to which the market would support cosmopolitanism, relax manners, and weaken the martial spirit of conquest. Critics of commercialization, such as Rousseau, objected to the "softness" and "effeminization" brought by market society. Yet in contemporary network television for children, each broadcast hour averages 22 simulated acts of violence. Clint Eastwood, Bruce Lee, and Arnold Schwarzenegger are among the most popular heroes for adults.

Modern market society does fulfill the Enlightenment promise of a relatively peaceful world. But modernization, while deglorifying actual martial deeds, ends up glorifying images of martial deeds. Much of contemporary culture represents the sublimation, transformation, and simulation of violent impulses. Modern commercial society cannot fulfill the Enlightenment promise of civilizing manners in all regards.

James T. Hamilton, in his first-rate Channeling Violence, argues that televised violence and its effects have become a problem, Unlike many critics of TV, he supports his claim with carefully reasoned economic analysis and high-quality empirical work. This book is an entire level better than the other contributions to the debate.

Hamilton offers systematic discussions of the major issues, such as why TV violence has become a public policy issue, who watches violent programming, the extent of violence and the trends, the incentives of advertisers, whether local news can be considered violent entertainment, and the available public policy responses. Each treatment is comprehensive and well done.

Hamilton argues in terms of the economist's framework of external costs and benefits. If TV violence causes crime (possible) and crime has external social costs (obvious), then there will be too much crime on television. We should then consider taxing or somehow restricting violent TV, at least from a utilitarian point of view. Hamilton maintains a properly value-neutral stance and should not be considered an enemy of free speech or a partisan advocate more generally. Nonetheless, there is no escaping the fact that his book strengthens the case for regulation.

I am not fully persuaded by the claim that violence on television is an example of market...