Letter: Video nasties: the case for protecting children, a false advertising analogy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I was dismayed to see repeated, yet again, the oft-quoted assertion that screen violence must affect the viewer because, if it did not, television advertising would not exist (Letters, 5 April and article by Raj Persaud, 3 April). This view ignores the fact that television advertising presents products many people consider desirable in an attractive manner to encourage purchase - very different from showing the ugliness of violence in a realistic manner.
Yours faithfully,
C. M. ROGERS
Edgware, Middlesex
5 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments