ABSTRACT
The application and implication of the revolution that meta-analysis has created continues to have an impact on the social sciences community. Meta-analysis continues to generate interest and implications for a variety of social and scientific issues (Allen, 1998; Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Fitzpatrick, 2002). Meta-analysis serves the role of summarizing existing data to provide sense of what is often a confusing set of empirical findings. The conclusions of any particular meta-analysis require replication and extension to achieve authoritative empirical and theoretical formulations. However, when a body of meta-analyses creates an interlocking web of conclusions, to not accept the scientific claims flies in the face of empirical reality. The impact of not accepting a huge body of scientific data is simply practicing a form of cognitive denial. At the current time, meta-analyses provide a consistent finding: Media content produces predictable and demonstrable effects on those consuming that material. Acceptance of that conclusion will probably prove difficult for a variety of reasons, and acceptance of this claim fails to warrant any particular policy action (the most probable is censorship). Despite the fears and warnings that are entailed by the findings, as Mr. Spock would say, "There are always alternatives." The questions facing the next generation of scholarly researchers require the consideration and evaluation of various
alternatives to simple censorship. In addition, the value or outcomes of censorship or any restriction need to be considered and addressed to determine whether even that alternative produces the kinds of outcomes sought by the advocates.
