Seems like we're in a bind, here, for two reasons.
First, if someone out there raises a question about the direction of society in a responsible, intelligent way, there is little media coverage, and no one listens. If someone like this Thompson comes along, he gets attention but any possible truth has been hidden under layers of self promotion, simplification, and inflammation.
This has seriously dented discussion of all topics because, whatever you might believe or hope to be true, the only visible opponents are obvious idiots. Whether liberal or conservative, I can sneer at the other side because all the air time goes to their most ridiculous spokesmen.
In the case of Thompson, I sure hope he is wrong, but if he is right, I sure won't know by listening to him.
Second, the issue itself feels like a lose-lose proposition. It is a given that human behavior results from both nature and nurture, and that nurture includes parents, peers, neighborhoods, and media experiences. And, if you give any thought to it at all, you know that these sources of nurture -- the total environment that a given child grows up -- are not distinct variables, but rather impact each other while impacting the child.
Our culture expects scientific studies based on data in order to believe that we know the truth about something, but that is an extremely unlikely scenerio given the variables here. Let's say that a study does show that kids who grow up spending a given amount of time experiencing a certain kind of media are often convicted of a certain amount of crime. Honestly, I do not believe the conclusions drawn because I do not believe that this comes anywere near proving that the media caused the behavior.
It could just as easily be true that a certain kid of parents (or neighborhood or peers) cause both crime and a liking for this kind of media. Scientific inquiry depends on at least some ability to separate out variables, and every time I look at this kind of science, I see nothing but mush.
Why do I then find this a lose-lose situation? Because, in the absense of real scientific studies, we get a lot of counterfeit (or, to be generous, extremely weak) scientific studies. These make the issue almost impossible to discuss, because every effort at conversation deteriorates into a hopeless pit of recriminations about sources -- and soon the best meaning people just don't even want to think about the issues anymore.
All of this applies to modern eduation issues, to media issues, and to all the other things that don't really lend themselves to "hard" scientific inquiry.
Which all leaves me looking at the many young people I know and trying to figure out, on an individual basis, does the media really seem to do Johnny any harm? But the world dismisses any such discussion as "merely anecdotal" -- which it certainly is.
).
