Simply stating a short summary of limited data without context or comparison to other studies does not an accurate scientific book make. This author seems to think that throwing USA Today-style short pieces with color graphics on the page proves his conclusions. It doesn't. If anything, this "research" is incredibly narrow-minded, abridged, and way too focused on science fiction/fantasy films. There is almost nothing about TV in the book, and you'll have a hard time finding much of at all about reality. Thus, the author draws incorrect conclusions based on limited scope and little supporting data.
Fans of scifi and superhero movies may think it's great. There's a little something for animation lovers. He even spins a bit of information on minorities near the end. But overall this is a huge flop, a misdirection which does not contain proof of the misleading title.
I even question the writer's ignorant opinions that are tossed in. So much for his being a Pulitzer Prize winner, proof that any left-wing propagandist can get an award if his material draws woke conclusions.
He devotes only two pages to TV sitcoms, claiming, "Workplace comedies grew from a niche of the 1960s and 70s--with The Mary Tyler Moore Show leading the way." That will certainly surprise the creator of The Dick Van Dyke Show, which was the template for MTM, and of course all the other pre-1970 comedies that included a balance of private life and workplaces just as MTM did (That Girl, Andy Griffith Show, Gomer Pyle, I Dream of Jeannie, etc.).
In a tiny section on children's television he has the audacity to claim "actual scientific evidence that screen time has a big impact on the health and futures of kids is simply not there." That's a 100% lie, a falsehood that shows either the total ignorance of the author or the biased agenda of this publication. There are DECADES of studies, hundreds of them including some longitudinal, that prove the damage of screen time on children, especially the youngest. Isn't mentally ill society today proof enough of what chaos and warped mindsets are created by young people addicted to screens?
Doctors recommend zero screen time before age two and limiting to one hour of all media each day for schoolkids (pediatricians actually wanted to say zero media but knew parents wouldn't go for it.) Just go into the homes of any educated tech executives, where they ban electronics for their own kids because they know what it does to the brain.
Yet this goofball criticizes Daniel Tiger (one of the best educational shows in TV history and created in the Midwest) while spinning praise on Sesame Street (using New York City commercial gimmicks to manipulate material and propagandize children, which dozens of studies have concluded has caused as much harm as good). This writer's liberal approach to "science" is to focus on limited research that supports your preconceived conclusions while ignoring true science that includes conflicting data and common sense.
Hickey also tries to claim that media simply reflect culture when in truth movies and TV revolutionize society by putting forward characters and storylines that viewers copy. There is evidence that some people become what they watch when the presentation is of something different than what they're familiar with--those Jerry Springer episodes with threesomes, crossdressers, and animal lovers have resulted in people 20 years later boasting about public sexual acts and mental illness that used to be considered shameful.
He doesn't deal at all with the decades of research on the imitation and violence effects. Scripted movies and TV don't reflect life, but at least half of modern Americans seem to become what they see in the media and the streets are filled with criminal rebels that think they're dark superheroes.
The biggest flaw is that the book doesn't really deal with much reality--TV news, documentaries, reality shows, autobiographies, talk shows, and biopics are oddly missing--and entire categories of cause and effect media violence research are ignored. It's easier for Hickey to prove his false narrative by skipping the real world stuff altogether and just focusing on Spider-man, Star Wars, and Harry Potter.
It's simply another example of the misuse of the term "science" and how modernists don't look objectively at data. Like the recent revelation that those past studies claiming alcohol was good for you were inaccurate and proven false (concluding that for the healthiest lifestyle you should not have even one drink), the bottom line is that focusing on a few warped studies that try to say watching movies or TV won't have a significant effect are untrue.
Oh, he does draw simplistic conclusions that if you watch something scary it impacts your breathing. Or that movies impact the names people give their kids or the toys that are purchased. Wow, that's insightful, isn't it? Meanwhile nothing on screen profanity, gun violence, or verbal abuse having any copycat effect on society. And his "good vs. evil" discussion again focuses on...superheroes or pretend universes. Why is the real world not included?
The best thing for your mind is not to consume the fantasy/scifi/scripted crap at all. And in the end the best thing a reader can do is skip this horrible summary that misleads. You are what you write, Walt Hickey, and that makes you a bigoted mishandler of what's true, as well as a promoter of falsehoods.