I survived a diet of violence

AMONG recent hand-wringing issues, some considerable time and column inches were devoted to the dangers of children being exposed to violence on the internet and how to control it. I don’t think any of the reporting elevated the issue to a crisis but one could sense that there was an “emergency” bubbling away which could easily evolve into an existential crisis if new restrictions were not introduced.

I would encourage those involved in the debate to consider the circumstances and viewing habits of my own childhood. My sister and I were allowed, and even encouraged, to consume a diet of cartoons like Tom and Jerry despite the violence it portrayed as Tom tried to do away with Jerry. Similarly, the road runner continued to evade the coyote despite the latter’s deployment of all kinds of weaponry, including what would today be called improvised explosive devices.

Dastardly and Muttley, in a spin-off from Wacky Races, devoted their energy to to “stopping the pigeon”. The Tasmanian Devil obviously had serious anger management issues and Popeye showed the power of performanceenhancing substances (in his case spinach). The redoubtable Elmer Fudd stalked Bugs Bunny with a double-barrelled shotgun and murderous intent.

Fifty years later, although it may be for others to judge, I don’t think it turned us into homicidal psychopaths (though my sister can get a bit snippy at times). There is clearly merit in supervising children’s viewing habits but perhaps we need to dial down the hysteria and ask a simple question: What’s up, Doc?

Keith Swinley, Ayr.