Category: Media Violence

Violence has existed in the world just as long as humans have. It is not a new concept to anybody and people should not be shocked when it occurs. It is in our nature for some odd reason. Following numerous mass shootings such as Columbine, Sandy Hook and the Batman Theatre, society’s attention has been focused on whether or not media violence plays a major role when such horrific tragedies occur. Most people describe media violence as a visual portrayal or act of physical aggression by one human or human like character against another. It is said to cause amplified physical aggression to people, particularly our youth. It has the ability to create thoughts that make people believe that aggressive behavior may be the right way to go about things in certain situations. While there are many that believe that research has linked media violence with aggressive behavior, there are others that claim that there is not enough conclusive evidence to link the two directly. The media has gotten to the point where they sensationalize violence in order to draw interest from people. Their only goal is to get consumers to buy their product. While consumers continue to purchase and idolize these items, the more successful they will become and the more talked about media violence will become. In this essay, I will specifically detail how violent movies, video games and music have little harm on our society today.

It is no secret that violent movies get your blood pumping, however, the theory that they make people want to harm others is not entirely correct. It may very well cause some to be more aggressive but only those who have had psychological problems to begin with. Studies done by Dr. Nelly Alia-Klein from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York can prove this in ways. In this study, two entirely different groups of people were taken and shown violent videos and images in order to see how their brain responded. The first group was filled with more aggressive humans while the other contained the least aggressive. As the first study concluded, it was discovered that each person’s reaction was dependent on their original aggression level. Three days was all it took to complete this study. On day one, their brains were monitored as they were told to watch violent scenes, emotional scenes on day 2 and nothing at all on day 3. According to Alia-Klein, on day one while viewing violent scenes, the more aggressive group had more activity in the orbital-frontal cortex, which controls emotion related decision making and self-control. These aggressive subjects claimed to have felt more inspired, driven, and less upset than the group containing the less aggressive subjects while watching violent instead of only emotional scenes. This seems to hold up to be true as blood pressure decreased at an efficient level while blood pressure rose for the less aggressive. As day 3 approached and the subjects were shown nothing at all, aggressive subjects had abnormally high brain activity in a part of the brain that is known to be active when nothing is being done. This may suggest that different people have different brains and they are affected in different ways. Everybody is unique in some sort of way and that goes for the same with brains. People function and think in different ways. It is what makes our world so unique. Movies may very well impact some people in a horrible way but that does not go for every single person. Dr. Alia-Klein came to a conclusion that “if people have aggressive traits to begin with, they will process violent media in a different way as compared to non-aggressive people. Hopefully people can take this study into consideration and implement it into their education of the youth.

From Columbine’s Dylan Klebold, to Sandy Hook’s Adam Lanza to a few others, they all shared violent video games in common. Without any credible statistics or facts, many link the fact that the exposure to the violence in the video games they played led to the idea that this causes them to be mass murderers. Like I said, this is the conclusion that many come to when no facts or studies are provided. Studies by Michael R. Ward, economist at the University of Texas, Arlington, states that the youth who play violent games do become slightly more aggressive amongst their peers, however, it is not conclusive that it will cause a violent crime. In fact, he says that he doesn’t even know if there is a perfect study that could connect or disconnect the two. Ward, just like anyone who plays violent video games such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto know that you gain a bit of aggression from the game but not enough where you can blame mass murders on it. In a study done by Iowa State psychologist Christopher Bartlett, 47 subjects played Mortal Combat for 15 minute intervals. Following the session, the subjects were tested to see if they were either physically or psychologically aroused. Bartlett came to the conclusion that the subjects who played the game were more aggressive than they were to begin. However, this does not mean that they are permanently more aggressive but only for a short period of time after they are finished. It is virtually impossible to say right now that a person playing a violent video game directly correlates to him/her committing a violent crime. People need to understand that there are many more factors that contribute to someone committing a violent crime other than playing a violent video game. Mental Health, isolation, and even bullying need to be considered far before video games are. The fact that it is being researched shows that it may be a problem, but at this point in time, it is a much smaller problem than many other problems that we have involving this. In another study my Michael R. Ward, he examined violent video game sales for the month and watch if the crime rates increased at all. It turned out that at the conclusion of this study, it was found that as violent video game sales increased, crime rates decreased. Now it is hard to look too hard into that study because it doesn’t tell the whole story but it does give statistical evidence. At the end of the day, if parents do their job, they should be able to monitor whether or not their child is acting differently or picking up any bad traits due to the violent media they may consume.

The final area where people like to pick from is the music industry. There are a lot of believers that think that violent lyrics/music leads to violent crime. Since Rap music really came to fruition, many people claimed it to be a terrible influence and harmful to listeners. Dylan Klebold, whom I mentioned earlier was not only accused of committing this crime based on playing violent video games but also because he listened to Marilyn Manson Music which tended to be pretty heavy and dark. It seems that the media never tells the full story as Klebold had serious psychological problems throughout his entire life. Music can be so influential and is a great outlet for people to release their feelings. For people to attempt to trash it is sad to see. People need to take a step back, evaluate this whole situation, and stop taking the easy way out by putting the blame on media. Music has been around longer than many people know and I can tell you that it has not been killing people. Criminal history, family life, and mental health need to be the topics we address first when speaking on this. These have some actual reason to them. I have listened to “violent” music before and often listen to “street” music and the idea never comes across my brain that I want to hurt people. People who have this problem are already dealing with some sort of mental illness. What about book? Books have been around forever and nobody has ever said that suspense/thriller novel will make someone go hurt somebody. It is always put on the media because it is relatively new to society and it is the easiest to blame.

All in all, people in today’s world need to realize that it is not the media that causes violence in today’s society. It goes much deeper than that. Assumptions are continually made and based on what a person may like to do, whether it be listening to heavy music or playing Call of Duty or watching Kill Bill. The judgement needs to stop. Media is a great way for people nowadays to express how they feel or to cope with their feelings and it seems that it is continually depicted in a dark way. Media does not have a direct link with violence in the real world and people need to stop painting the picture like it is.

Since the beginning of television, research has been accumulating on its relationship to violence intake and tolerance. In an environment full of violence, it is beyond question that it impacts our behaviors. Living in the digital age has its perks, of course, but those hardly make a dent in the minds of our society. Media violence has been known to have long and short term effects on the youth of America as well as adults. It is a necessary precaution for a society to be aware of these instances as well as ways to prevent or limit our intake. Though not always manageable to limit or prevent, the ability that Americans have to educate themselves is one of the best ways to notice and observe violence. The amount of tolerance for violence and gore has increased to unnecessary levels. This cultural crusade fed the negative implications of the world. Cell phones, social media, video games, television, and movies all undoubtedly increase one’s tolerance to violence and saturates our youth in the idea that it is normal in society.

The rather recent introduction of cell phones in America has increased exposure to violence. Cell phones have adopted new technologies like text messages, email, and social media applications. These technological advancements strip children of their innocence by giving such easy access to it. The use of cell phones also opens up a new type of bullying called cyberbullying. This piece of technology has made it easy for predators to target others and gives them a new front, social media. Social media emerged in the 1960s and into the 1970s.

It is argued that this was the beginning of social media because of the various organizations attempting to “find ways to get computers to communicate with one another” (Terrell). This ability had its perks but it also opened up the ability to see the violence of other nations without any interference of the governments. This allowed for raw, genuine footage, photos, etc to emerge into society. With the United States being an MEDC (more economically developed country) many Americans could afford the technology needed to view this. From there, Americans wanted to see what their government would not show them. New social media sites emerged after this in the 2000s such as Friendster, Linkedin, MySpace, and more recent applications like Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, Facebook, and Tik Tok allowed for even faster sharing. These apps also publicize ideas of violence and gore. For those who do not play video games, this is another way to receive this. Apps like this also contain memes, videos or various sharable items that make fun of the violence of modern times and numb the mind.

A recent example is the World War III scare. Teens ranging from 15-24 made fun of this event by joking about the draft, the war itself, politics, etc. This demonstrates how our exposure to violence had altered our viewpoints. Neighborhoods, communities, families, and friends have tried to protect our youth from global communication of negative implications.They have become victims of something they have always been exposed to by their parents and generations before them. The growing fear of violence in our own communities has made adults conscious and has limited kid’s involvement in society. “Our response should not be to panic and keep our children ‘indoors’ because the ‘streets’ out there are dangerous” (Huesmann). Rather our response should be allowing our youth to experience the world in our communities. This allows for some exposure to the real world but does not necessarily give them full on violent exposure that is seen from social media and technology.

There are mixed emotions about violent video games. Games like the Call of Duty series gives gamers the ability to play through violence experiences and exposes them to real-life encounters which demands complete control of their emotions during and after participation. “Playing violent video games leads to more aggressive moods and behaviors and detracts from the players’ feelings of empathy and sensitivity to aggression” (The Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research). Most video games nowadays contain violence on an increasing scale. Because of cell phones, virtually everyone has access to violent games. It opens up more possibilities for those who do not like hardcore gaming by “reaching a more casual gaming audience” (history.com editors) through cell phones. Though there are ratings, few people actually care about them, “and most of these games are violent; 94% of games rated (by the video game industry) as appropriate for teens are described as containing violence, and ratings by independent researchers suggest that the real percentage may be even higher” (Huesmann). There were attempts by senators to pass bills that limit video games in certain aspects regarding ratings, which were technically voluntary. A bill was discussed, but dismissed, that would charge any retailer that sold an M rated (similar to a rated R film) game to a minor would face fines and community service (Markey, Ferguson). Because most games are completed in an hourly form, people expose themselves to this behavior for hours on end playing games. It also makes players active in committing violent acts in these games. This act desensitizes the player and becomes immune to real-life violence. On occasion, players play together. This leads to the mass social conditioning of one common theme. As of 2009, over 83% of homes have at least one video game unit (Huemann). “Video games use peaks during middle childhood with an average of 65 minutes per day for 8–10 year-olds, and declines to 33 minutes per day for 15–18 year-olds” (Huesmann).

At the beginning of television, few households had a television so people would join together outside store windows to watch. Even with its harsh start in society during the 20s and 30s, the idea grew in favor and by 1948 America entered the ‘Golden Age’ of television (Allen, Thompson). Though the radio was still preferred for its profits, audience size, and respectability, the television industry boomed. Four main networks emerged as the leaders of news and entertainment; ABC, CBS, NBC, and DuMont Television Network. There was little to no violence on these stations with exceptions of political news. The television was intended for entertainment and informational purposes as it was too taboo for stations to have violence. There was, however, a questionnaire titled Movies and Conduct, that explained the likelihood of negative influences being efficacious and real.

Television was the top way that Americans receive news and media. 12 years after the Vietnam war began, the government introduced the war in a shocking reality. They brought it home and shared it through television in people’s living rooms. The government sent men to broadcast and film this war and use the footage as propaganda to convince men to join the war efforts. The Vietnam war became even more hated due to this exposure and it adopted the name, ‘The Living Room War’. This increase in crime is potentially due to the ability to see the violence of the war in the comfort of our own living rooms. “Civil tensions exploded amidst antiwar and civil rights movements, and the incidence of violent crime (defined as murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravate assault) doubled over the decade” (Perry). The exposure to the ‘real world’ issues that are happening across the ocean frightened many Americans and they began to retaliate with protests against the government. Never before has a civilian seen the horrors of war in America. Violence of previous conflicts like World War I and World War II were acknowledged, but not in the ways that this war was seen. Photographs and articles of these wars were published, but they were altered to show things less intensely. The television footage shows the raw footage with few alterations.

By the end of the 60s, Americans believed they were now living in the ‘age of violence’. They had been overly exposed to real violence and gore. Many Americans believed this because the television corrupted their children and plagued their homes. Because of this backlash on the television and its counterparts, Motion Pictures Association created a rating system that was put in place to allow parents and children to know if a certain film was appropriate for a specific age group. The rating system did not stop violence in films and television shows, but “in 1972, the United States Surgeon General has deemed television violence as a public health problem” (Perry). Contemporaneously, television shows have no real rating to protect certain age groups from their content. “Violent acts were classified in terms of their historical setting, environmental setting, geographical location, form of behavior, type of weapons used, motivational contect, injury consequences for victims, aggressor and victim demography (gender, age, ethnic origin), and character role type” (Gunter 686). These factors play a large role in how people view this violence. If a young male sees an adult male shoot another male, they will begin to believe that this is tolerated behavior. It is hard for people to limit their view on violence since over 60% of television shows contain some form of violence. Television shows act as propaganda for this disturbance by constantly pushing the limit of gore and violence.

Hollywood has always been more popular than television. But unlike their counterparts on television, Hollywood films have always had some form of violence. A report from the American Academy of Pediatrics discovered that the amount of violence in movies had doubled since the 50s (Bushman et al.). Violence is in fact, the very basis of films. The plot almost always demands some kind of violence ranging from a fistfight to an explosive mass killing of innocent people. “It is apparent that they, like television, are also frequently violent; violent films have attracted large audiences; violence has characterized many popular film stars (i.e. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery, etc). Yet, the violence as depicted in many current films differs substantially from television violence” (Meyer 112). In movies, violent death is always followed by the character disappearing. It never truly shows the consequences of that death other than what the plot demands. Screenwriters are also forced to create ‘bad guys’ with little information known about them because the violent actions against them always seem justified in the eyes of viewers (Osborn). People can rate movies with the ‘violence formula’ which entails a series of questions that determine the level of violence. Questions include the following: “What role does violence play in the film? Was this story developed because it is violent, or is it a valuable story of human relationships in which violence is a necessary and integral part? Are the consequences of the violence shown? If so, what purpose does it serve the plot? How does it develop a character? What kinds of violence do the ‘good guys’ use? How do their acts of violence differ from those used by the ‘bad guys’?” (Osborn). The considered impact of these questions allows viewers to understand the impact ‘fake violence’ has on society. These are not limited to the specified: people model the behaviors depicted, teachings that violence has no real repercussions is noticed and the hero’s use of violence demonstrates that it is tolerated as a response to another act of violence, and finally, shows that there is possibly more violence in the world than originally perceived.

Exposure to violence has it’s long and short term effects. Short term exposure is mainly due to “priming processes, arousal processes, and the immediate mimicking of specific behaviors” (Huesmann). The priming process puts visions of aggression in the minds of people. This action penetrates their judgement and makes acts of aggression more likely. Arousal processes are based off of transfers of emotion to someone. The emotion of aggression is displayed in everyday life in the more inappropriate situations. Mimicking specific behaviors can become long term as time progresses. Initially, it is a direct response of toleration to the violence observed. These effects can lead to more long term effects like observational learning, desentization, and enactive learning. Observational learning is how most people learn. It is based off of emotions of a person in a situation. This is especially dangerous in younger children because seeing violent acts shows them that it is tolerated and accepted. During one’s youth, their ideas of the world, religion, family, friends, etc are developed. If there is an introduction and continuation of violence, they will develop more extreme feelings and actions towards those things. Similarly, desentization plays off of emotion too. The more we see something, the less it seems to bother us. If a person commits a violent act, they will not think about the negative elements of the situation. Finally, the idea of enactive learning acts as a conditioner to the previous two long term effects. In video games primarily, the player is directly committing these acts through the game. People learn by physically doing the activity and this is no different. All these effects can change a person. Our tolerance to violence was its very foundation within these effects and elements.

The vast accumulation of research linking violence to technology is undeniable. It is beyond question that it affects our behaviors and responses. Living in the digital age has positive undertones, but those hardly make a dent in society compared to the negative implications. Media violence has long and short term effects on the youth of America and adults as well. Our exposure to technological advances opens up our minds to violence and we are forced to accept it as the general norm. Our youth has been saturated in violence which increases our tolerance and they are taught that violent acts are permitted in society due to the advancements of technology.

Existence, when children would spend their whole spare time with their friends in the streets have, generally gone. Present-day youngsters choose another way of fun, such as watching Tv or playing a video game. Television these days contains rough, sexual and other topics which will not be suitable for children. It maintains their dreams of an idealized world or leads a few of them to concern for not having the comfort appeared on TV. Although two kinds of entertainment can contribute to an improvement to a child, many of them are very violent. Due to that reason, violence in media and video games should be banned to block an objective point of view and reduce aggressiveness behavior.

Moreover, not all the programs with obvious content are educational. The media that would be generally stimulated by such a prohibition exists completely for entertainment’s purpose and the benefit that can be made by its marketing. There are still many parts of non-violent ways to cheer children. The issue with harsh information being seen by children is not that they automatically lead to an objective view, but they are having a hit on society as a unity. Youngsters are seeing some improper subject and coming out on the other side perfectly numb to human feelings. As a society, we may not have such an issue with someone in our neighborhood, but imagine when a bunch of people walk past an abuse victim without giving any help? Violence is pushed on us to define the behavior and make us to not think seriously about an incident. Children do not have the mental resources to create some sorts of choices when they watch or see something. Eventually in the fact that the initiative to adjust any of this should come from the user because we live in a consumerist society. This is likely when parenting secure and keep on eyes about what their children want to watch.

Furthermore, a video games that contains violence rise children’s aggression level. It happens when children have anxiety and turn to an improper way to express it. Rather than calming themselves, communicating it to someone, or emotionally expressing it by crying. They can make some abusive actions, such as kick a wall or hurt their pet or beloved person. Sadly, several modern games contain violence. Youngsters have more creative imagination than adults and it even more strong than we can imagine. Having children play these video games is risky. The Virtual world in their mind may feel like daily life because of the graphic that looks like the same in reality especially when they use VR tools. As they usually take the first place in killing other player characters and get a bonus like diamond or virtual money in-game and sometimes unlock new ability in killing with a new way or new weapon. This can lead to gain aggressive movement in them. This condition is negative, as a child’s brain records a new connection every day. They learn and memorize some activities in their favorite game. It is often worse than watching TV, as the programs do not give a specific achievement.

In conclusion, in the present day it such a rare point to see children play outside with their friends. They choose to meet and play in the video game or just watching tv all day long. The bad part is the content that includes both video games and television. It can lead to their visual about the reality that visualizes it. That two kinds of entertainment can give improvement to a child. The information with violent material being seen by children can lead to objectiveness and aggressive behavior. Youngsters cannot to make choices when they see or observe that kind of information. The parental role is very needed in filtering any content that would be seen by his children to prevent such a bad accident to happen in the future.

“Around 44 percent of U.S. consumers cited some sort of online publication as their main source of news in 2017, and although digital newspapers and websites have experienced growing popularity in recent years, perhaps the most widespread source of online news is social media platforms,” says Watson, evaluating on statistics in the news industry. “Today around seven-in-ten Americans use social media to connect with one another, engage with news content, share information and entertain themselves” states Pews Research Center on the demographics of social media in the United States. Speaking of such wide availability individuals has online, this gives the media the advantage of presenting information to them in many different formats.

Imagine one day you’re going through your Instagram feed and you find a video post describing police who’ve shot and killed an unarmed black man; clicking on the post and exploring more, you find the user who’ve posted the content voicing out the wrongness of every aspect of the incident and the police’s actions thoroughly. In less than a month, you find another posted video related to the one you’ve seen last week, only this time, it’s on Facebook, with several other related reposts and shares. Not even a week from then, you get a notification from your news app revealing the released tape from a serious still being held at the time (Robinson 2019). As an individual, think of viewing this pattern over a one year span. How would you react to seeing these different medias presenting such a new thing? How would people in a country; the United States, for example, would react? Given today’s media presentation of examples of racial violence, one might believe this is a new trend.

In one way or another, the media influences a major part of the population in the US. With technology advancing, the impacts of the wide media are profound. Most people utilize some form of media in their everyday lives. Media impacts our beliefs, assumptions, public ideology, as well as our experiences (Kulaszewicz 4). The increase of available videos and photos of racial violence distorts the current understandings of the history of racial violence in America. Racism has long existed in America as far as the period of slavery dated back to 1619, where these brutal forms of racial violence were almost seen as a norm (National Geographic Society). These racial violence presentations to society, which are the audience; some individuals might think that this is a new trend, when in fact, racial violence has still been existing before the media came to be. In the age of rapidly advancing technology, we are now having more visual evidence in these issues.

Believe it or not, the increased access to technology has influenced the way we consume information about racial violence. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this. The advantage is the fact that there’s visual evidence that everyone can see; the images, the videos, and the dialogues are presented to us which makes the presentation clear to us of what is happening. Another advantage is the ability of an individual to spread the news in various ways through the web for others to view and react. On the disadvantage side

The connection media display on racial violence relies on the characteristics of the message given and the audience that receives it, whether it’s positive or negative. The increased availability of coverage of racial violence influences the modern social construction of race. For example – the revealing of a video showing police using more force in arresting an African American male than a caucasian male. The racial crime portrayed on the media is significantly between an African American man and police is more violent, harsh, and hostile. The viewers that internalize these images and/or videos and dialogues develop a ‘prejudice world view’ or a scary image of what reality really is. This view is characterized by mainly and perceptions of higher levels of threat from a police authority to an African American male in society. The image of black men as brutes in society has a long legacy that begins with the social construction of race and brings us to the current period of mass incarceration. Black men are nearly six times as likely to be incarcerated as white men, and federal courts imposed prison sentences on black men that were 19% longer than those imposed on similarly situated white men between 2011 and 2016 (‘Who’s in Prison in America?”). This disproportionate and unequal number indicates the skewed representation of Black men in U.S. prisons.

Access to the media is widespread and bearly escapable. For this reason, these news most certainly has a significant impact on people’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. The media is continuing to contribute to those attributes such as racial violence. A beneficial attribute to this is that individuals and organizations are working to promote racial, cultural and ethnic awareness and social justice in practice. Awareness is also about knowing where bias comes from as well as promoting change when needed. The media has a very large social impact. Promoting change and understanding of what needs to be addressed or changed is the key to fostering social change and promoting equality.

Police brutality has been a major social issue in the United States, and the media has been a significant driver to exposing or attempting to curb the vice. Journalists have been at the forefront of exposing societal violence, especially against minority groups. Over the years, African Americans have complained of discrimination and harassment, which has spanned centuries. As a result, the history of slavery complicates any case of brutality against people of color. The death of George Floyd virally caught journalist attention never experienced before. The media coverage of the end of George Floyd exposed the prevalence of police brutality against a colored population that led to nationwide protests.

The death of Floyd shocked the world because the police killed him. The victim was a 46-year-old African American man who passed on while being forcefully arrested for allegedly using a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Officer Derek Chauvin placed his knee on his neck for close to ten minutes, hindering his breathing leading to his death. The medical examiner report said the victim’s heart ceased functioning because of neck constriction (Watson et al., 2020). The incident was an explicit use of excessive force on a subdued suspect. The media covered this story widely and played the video, caught by bystanders and surveillance cameras, to the public.

Over two million media outlets worldwide, such as journals, news stations, radio stations, and podcasts, covered Floyd’s killing. The news spread over the world, soliciting anger, sorrow, and pain. Protests surged all over the country due to the emotional, cognitive, physiological, and attitudinal effects of the graphical images portrayed in the media (Emmerich, 2020). The video from Floyd’s forceful arrest broadened American’s view of police brutality and racism. The event forced the conversation of historical racial injustices against the African American community in America. The protests escalated, and the population formed movements to show support to Floyd’s family and the people of color.

The public’s solidarity with Floyd’s family and the consequent conversations revealed to the oblivious population the high number of police brutality cases against the colored community. Floyd was not the first African American to be murdered by police under unclear circumstances. In 2019, at least 1127 people died in police officers’ hands (Fagan & Campbell, 2020). Protests across the country escalated to movements such as the ‘Black Lives Matter,’ which condemned such acts. People of different races, occupations, and sexual orientations volunteered to protest in a surprising but effective way (McCoy, 2020). Though lawful, the peaceful protests escalated to boisterous demonstrations. The protests and movements were not only in the United States but in other countries as well. Most local administrations began rethinking the role of the police and the interaction they have with the citizens.

Floyd’s death did influence not only the American people but also the world on police’s ability to harm. The victim’s death got international media attention and solicited emotions. Many nations view America as the beacon of democracy and freedom. The news of the killing went against the county’s famous phrase, “The Land of The Free and The Brave.” The media depicted the nation as an oppressor of the minority years after declaring zero tolerance for racism (Dyer, 2020). Rallies and protests united against bigotry became rampant in the US due to how the media handled the incident. Consequently, several state administrations acknowledged the weakness and initiated policy reforms. The death of Floyd started a conversation of change that would make the country better.

Other nations were also afflicted by segregation against minority groups and desired for adjustment. In Australia, the protests were against the mistreatment of the indigenous people by the police. In France, activists invited a call for justice for young 24-year-old Adama Traore, a black man who died in police custody in 2016. In the United Kingdom, people gathered in front of the United States embassy, taking a knee with a fist in the air chanting, “Color is not a crime.” In Berlin, Germany, citizens held a silent night vigil for Floyd in Alexanderplatz Square (Dyer, 2020). The movements and protests around the world led to the realization that bigotry is an international vice affecting many societies.

The world should limit the cases of segregation based on the color of the skin and culture. Technology and information sharing is an effective way of exposing societal inequalities. The process of gathering, processing, storing, and sharing information should be made public and efficient. Advancements such as police body cams videos should be accessible to the public to deter unprofessionalism in the police force. Innovations such as social media have had their disadvantages, but in this case, it helped in exposing a dangerous trend in America. Some organizations reacted to the situation by developing websites to report or share police brutality incidents (Ray, 2020). Modern advancements have led to the fast sharing of information but more needs to be done to continue exposing the vice.

Media Violence has played an essential role in exposing police brutality in the case of George Floyd. The video sparked an extreme reaction against the police force. Airing the content gave a voice to the rest of the world to stop the brutality. Although critics have mentioned the harm of media violence on the consumers, Floyd’s case provoked change to the disciplined forces. The incident forced a difficult conversation of equal treatment for all despite culture or race.

References

Emmerich, L. (2020). The Media and “Riot Frames”: Shaping the 2020 Protest Narrative. Carnegie council, 2-5. Web.

Fagan, J., & Campbell, A. D. (2020). Race and reasonableness in police killings. BUL Rev., 100, 951. Web.

Leroy-Dyer, S. (2020). Across the world: Black lives matter. Advocate: Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union, 27(2), 10. Web.

McCoy, H. (2020). Black lives matter, and yes, you are racist: the parallelism of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.Child and adolescent social work journal, 37(5), 463-475. Web.

Ray, R. (2020). Setting the record straight on the Movement for Black Lives. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(8), 1393-1401. Web.

Watson, M. F., Turner, W. L., & Hines, P. M. (2020). Black Lives Matter: We are in the Same Storm but we are not in the Same Boat.Family process, 59(4), 1362-1373. Web.

The debate on whether exposure to media violence plays a role in influencing aggressive or violent behavior is a critical one. There are those who argue that exposure to media violence encourages violent behavior while others oppose the notion.

Those who support the idea like Nancy Signorielli argue that exposure to media violence prompts people to have a notion that the world is a violent place. This desensitizes them so that they begin adapting unacceptable behavioral traits.

Facts

The pro side of the argument clearly brings out the fact that media violence has a long time effect on the people especially the children. They are desensitized and tend to become aggressive or fearful.

The argument against the connection has however been clearly brought out the fact that media violence has significantly increased in the resent past yet cases of real-life violence have significantly reduced.

Opinions

The argument for the existence of a connection between the two proposes that people exposed to media violence are more likely develop aggressive behavior than those who are not. It is stated that the media does not clearly bring out the fact that crime is bad and people in the long run tend to ape aggressive behavior from the same.

Those arguing against it on the other hand insist that studies show no connection between the two. They are of the opinion that exposure of media violence to the children at an early age has no effect whatsoever to the change of the children’s behavior to that associated with violence.

It is argued that the violence in the media is purely entertainment and that there is no message intended to convince the viewers that violence is good.

Jonathan Freedman’s Argument

Those who are against the notion like, Jonathan Freedman, argue that scientific evidence shows no connection between media violence and the actual aggressive behavior in people. They argue that the violence in the media just causes arousal and existent among the people but not necessarily aggressive behavior.

According to this argument, there has been a significant increase in media violence in the resent past yet the real cases of violence have significantly reduced (Potter, 2003).

Nancy Signoriell’s argument

According to Signoriell’s argument, children who are exposed to violence at an early age tend to develop antisocial behavioral traits that are associated with violence later in life. Some of them indulge in fights, abuse of their spouses as well as other criminal activities.

It is believed that most of the violence shown in the media does not clearly bring out the fact that crime never pays. In some cases, those who indulge in criminal activities go unpunished and children get the wrong signal that indulging in crime is not immoral and hence tend to adopt criminal behavior.

Pro-side of the Argument

The argument is based on several studies and statistical data which have proved that children exposed to media violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior than those who are not. Several experiments have been carried out to the same effect.

Studies have proved that the children exposed to pro-social media messages are likely to develop positive behavior traits while those exposed to media violence tend to copy the same. Exposure to media violence increases the rates of gender stereotyping especially among the children.

People tend to use the media while confirming their attitudes as well as beliefs for instance while approving violence. Some of these arguments are however biased in a way given that some of the studies have been done in highly repressed societies like South Africa during the colonial era (Freedman, 2002).

The other weakness of this argument is that violent or aggressive behavior among people could be due to the fact that people come from families that witness frequent incidences of violence.

The media might in such cases not be the cause of aggressive behavior in such people. There have also been an increase in the media violence in the resent past yet the cases of real violence in society have significantly reduced instead of increasing. This shows weakness in the argument.

Con-side of the Argument

Going by the con side of the issue, desensitization has its own positive side. It has for instance been found out that children with problems of fear are likely to be less fearful after being exposed to desensitizing films or media programs, particularly those that are horrifying. It is therefore a remedy to those children with social problems.

The weakness of the con side is that exposing people to media violence desensitizes them and they in the long run tend to approve of such violence and show less concern or pity for the victims of the violence.

The violence and scary images are likely to instill fear in the children who watch such programs either on the short or long-term basis. Some of them might even have nightmares in which they might scream while sleeping. People exposed to more of the violent media tend to believe that the world is a scary place and they become cautious of many people or things.

They tend to believe that they are out to protect themselves. Studies carried out have proved that people exposed to media violence are more likely develop aggressive behavior than those who are not. This evidence shows weakness on this side of the argument (Phillip, 1979).

Author Credibility

The arguments are credible given that the authors have cited the appropriate sources and studies that support their arguments. Those who argue that there exists no connection between media violence and aggression have for instance based their arguments on other scholars who have written concerning the same issue like Fowles : (Fowles 1999).

Some of the studies quoted include that done by Ronald Milavsky with others which was a longitudinal study that was carried out in three years from 1970 t0 1973. These are accompanied by statistical evidences and figures.

In this case for instance, a study was carried out on 2400 school children at the elementary level while 800 teenagers were sampled in the study. The argument for the existence of the connection between the two has also been based on other scholarly material like; (Singer 1988) as well as (Potter 2003). The two arguments are both coupled with evidence from other sources.

Personal Opinion

The author who holds a substantive argument is the one who argues that media violence affects people’s behavior driving them towards aggressive or violent behavior. This is because the argument is couple with enough evidence to justify the same.

Television for instance tends to shape people’s opinions as well as perceptions towards life issues. When it is stuffed with violence and crime people tend to appreciate the fact that crime and violence are not bad, given that some of the offenders go without being punished. People therefore tend to adopt violent and aggressive behavior as a result.

The description, analysis as well as evaluation of the argument has been done in a comprehensive and clear way coupled with evidences derived from different studies or sources. It has been clearly brought out that exposure to violent programs to children as well as adults tends to drive them towards behaving aggressively as compared to those who are not exposed to them (Signorielli, 2002).

Contemporary Research

Contemporary research supports the side which argues that a connection exists between aggressive behavior and exposure to violent media programs.

Different studies have been carried out to the same effect and they have proved that children who are exposed to violent media at an early age tend to have their future lives characterized by acts of violence like spouse abuse as well as fighting.

Studies have also been carried out whereby children have been separated into two groups; one group is exposed to violent media and the other not.

The evidence revealed that those children that were exposed to violent media exhibited change in their behavior as well as speech as they tended to be more aggressive than their counterparts who were not exposed to the same.

It has also been proved that those who are exposed to violent media programs tended to be desensitized in the sense that they tended to sympathize less with the victims of violence as compared to those who were not exposed to the same.

Reference List

Fowles, J. (1999). Teaching the Post modern. The Enigma, 50-60.

Freedman, J. (2002). Media Vilence and its Effects on Aggression: Assessing The Scientific Evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Phillip, D. (1979). Suicide, the motovehicle facilities and the mass media: Evidence towards a theory of suggestion. American Journal of Sociology , 560-568.

Potter, J. (2003). The eleven myths of media violence. Califonia: Sage Publications.

Signorielli, N. (2002). Violence in the Media. A Reference Handbook , 25-268.

Singer, R. (1988). Strategies and metastrategies in learning and performing self-paced athletic skills . The Sports Psychologist, 49-68.

All over the world, violence became prevalent, and the rates of its occurrence seem to grow daily. Suicides and homicides became two of the major death causes among American teenagers. It is a rather strange tendency, but nowadays more and more people are dying from shooting and violence. Even the total number of patients with pneumonia, cancer, and AIDS combined cannot surpass the number of murders that occur annually. If we divide the overall number of deaths by 365 days, we will see that almost 90 people die daily from suicides and homicides (Karatzogianni 16). Additionally, the number of violent deaths is twice as big as the number of unintentional and other deaths combined. Regardless of the variety of factors that may be perceived as the premises of violent behavior and adverse outcomes, the existing evidence claims that the problem of increasing violence rates is inextricably linked to the exposure of violence in different sources. Mass media is one of those sources, and this connection should be carefully approached and meticulously researched.

There are numerous media sources that are available to adolescents and grown-ups all around the world. The studies show that a regular American adolescent spends almost eight hours daily being exposed to video games, music, television, the Internet, and other possible sources of entertainment media. On a bigger scale, interaction with different media sources is considered to be the most prevalent daily activity among adolescents. Sleep is the only activity that surpasses it. Further research in the area presented evidence concerning the fact that an average contemporary teenager will spend almost ten years watching television by the time they will be in their seventies (Rifon et al. 102). The exposure to different types of media may occur through radios, computers, portable information sources, and video game consoles. Regardless, television is still the most preferred method of media consumption among American children. On the one hand, it is safe to say that every other year the number of adolescents that watch television tends to zero. On the other hand, the time spent on the Internet and the time of use of mobile devices are growing unconditionally. Even taking all of this into consideration, there is little evidence concerning the influence of mass media on human behavior.

The idea of the connection between the real-life aggressive behaviors and violence promoted by mass media first appeared in the middle of the last century. The phenomenon of this relationship is being studied up to this day. There are numerous reports available (general statements, mental health evaluations, and healthcare conferences) that confirm the existence of the relationship between real-life violence and the exposure of the public to it (Arif 42). Not so long ago, even FBI supported this claim and named media violence one of the critical risk factors. Later, media violence was found to be a significant indicator of adverse outcomes even among grown-ups (previously this phenomenon was viewed as an issue which impacts children and adolescents only). One of the most shocking pieces of evidence was provided by the Federal Communications Commission. This unit emphasized the presence of a so-called violent programming initiative that is intended to increase the occurrence of aggressive behaviors among those who watch television daily (Arif 69). In order to reach this verdict, a team of trained professionals reviewed more than 2000 of bibliographic entries including the articles which explicitly exposed the negative influence of media violence on the television viewers. The most prevalent outcomes included bullying, spoiled sleeping pattern, causeless depression, and a variety of manifestations of aggressive behavior.

I believe that the future of this issue is rather foggy. Media sources that currently rule the “online world” are rather unlikely to abandon their current tactics and policies regarding the display of violence. The key reason for this is the rating of the telecasts, bloggers, and media companies that dwell on ubiquitous violence and make it seem a rather common routine. Apparently, these days, the younger population is exposed to a huge array of information which does not bear any informative value. Moreover, there is a problem of easy access to the prohibited and relatively unacceptable content. It becomes popular among younger populations, and mass media providers do not seem to care much while they are trying to accomplish public coverage of the events that will raise authors to the top of the ratings. Violence is viral, and I think that we should pay more attention to what goes on around us and bring back humanity.

The duality of the issue of violence in the media should be perceived as one of the most serious problems of the modern world. Often, it is the media that dictates fashion and shares with people the information they want, not have, to see. Overall, this may lead to dreadful consequences because, in the pursuit of popularity and rating, information moguls can forget about the large-scale impact on the population both inside and outside the given country.

Works Cited

Arif, Amna. Influence of Electronic Media in Escalating Aggressive Behaviour in Children. Anchor Academic Publishing, 2013.

Karatzogianni, Athina. Violence and War in Culture and the Media: Five Disciplinary Lenses. Routledge, 2012.

Rifon, Nora, et al. Advertising and Violence Concepts and Perspectives. Routledge, 2015.

Thesis statement: With the increasing levels of criminally assaulting behavior in the USA and other countries caused by media violence, it is assumed that the relevant laws have a significant potential for reducing the scale of violent conduct among minors and adults

Introduction

What is media violence and why is it a critical issue?

For the last decades, the problem of media violence has become one of the most urgent ones since movies, computer games, the Internet, and other sources have brought virtual harassment to the next level. That is to say, violent entertainment is becoming more realistic.

The technological advancement has led to the fact that interactive violence can be faced almost every time a person turns to any modern electronic device.

According to Stanhope and Lancaster (2014), parents, teachers, and psychologists are concerned that violence is not only widely displayed by media but also becomes accepted as normal since it is so frequently met and realistic (computer games are particularly addictive, which implies that observing negative or abusive content gradually becomes a part of daily routine).

The reaction of the government to the increasing levels of violence caused by media

To gain control of the negative tendency and influence the situation, the government has initiated Media Violence laws (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014).

Despite the existing practices, which proved to be ineffective, the state has attempted to promote such initiatives that would be more rigid.

History of media violence legislation and current practices

Motion Picture Production Code (Hays Code) of 1934

The Code covered the limitations and restrictions in terms of violent scenes and manslaughter. It was abolished in 1968.

The Computer Decency Act and Telecommunications Act of 1996

Telecommunications Act was enacted to regulate the flow of materials transmitted by TV and the Internet.

Communications Decency Act was aimed at controlling the materials that could potentially transmit indecent content; however, it was abolished due to a number of challenges faced (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014).

Successful censorship in other countries

The experience of China.

The experience of European countries.

The controversy and challenges raised by opposing parties

Adults, psychologists, and concerned people stress the negative consequences of media violence on the psyche of underage children and emphasize the increase in offense levels caused by the wide coverage of various violent acts by the media (Gentile, 2014).

Some researchers claim that violence displayed by video games and TV has no or minimal detrimental effect on an individual’s psychological status (Ferguson, 2015).

Journalists and investigators connect school shootings with the influence of media violence since many perpetrators involved in violent acts against schoolchildren were addicted to video games that were rich in crime and abuse scenes (Gentile, 2014).

Effectiveness of media violence laws

Evidence on the revised Code on violence in broadcasting (Canada).

Evidence on the British Board of Film Classification’s (BBFC) film rating system under the Video Recordings Act of 1984 (the UK).

Evidence on the Pan European Game Information System (PEGI) (Europe).

Analysis of the evidence.

Conclusion

Media violence does increase the levels of aggression in underage children, which might lead to committing violence against their peers (Ferguson, 2015).

As stated by Ferguson (2015) media violence does not have a significant influence on people older than 18; however, it can affect their general well-being and psychological status.

Current legislation in the USA in terms of media violence is not effective enough to reduce potential harassment.

The experience of other countries is important within the context of media violence and can be used to initiate projects or initiatives in America.

Note:

I need to find more evidence from the sources on the effectiveness of legislation in different countries.

References

Ferguson, C. (2015). Does media violence predict societal violence? It depends on what you look at and when. Journal of Communication, 65(1), E1-E22.

Gentile, D. (2014). Media violence and children (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Grossman, D., & Degaetano, G. (2014). Stop teaching our kids to kill. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Stanhope, M., & Lancaster, J. (2014). Public health nursing. London, UK: Elsevier.

Introduction

Media violence is considered one of the most controversial topics in modern society. Movies, computer games, the Internet, and other sources, are stated to have brought virtual harassment to the next level (Gentile, 2014). With new technologies such as VR simulators being introduced to the market, violent entertainment is becoming more elaborate and realistic. Personal computers, TV sets, and smartphones are becoming more available to the population.

Individuals face interactive violence every time they turn to modern electronic devices. These devices serve as outlets of exposure to media violence, offering a plethora of games ranging from military simulators like Battlefield and Call of Duty to horror games inspired by Stephen King and Lovecraft. Each game offers its unique modicum of violence.

Media violence has become a widely-accepted norm in our society. While certain groups of concerned parents, teachers, and psychologists show worry over this tendency, it is downplayed as an “attack on the gaming industry” and “unnecessary moralism.” At the same time, these concerned groups represent the stratum that has the most power in influencing the spreading of media violence and mitigating its effects.

Stanhope and Lancaster (2014) claim that parents, teachers, and psychologists have an important role to play when the issue of media violence is taken into consideration. Adults are believed to be more resilient towards the alleged effects that media violence has on the psyche, but children, adolescents, and teenagers have to rely on parental guidance and advice to avoid any lasting impressions on their mental and behavioral patterns.

The government also plays an important role in mitigating the negative effects of media violence. For decades, it has focused on developing measures and regulations to address the issue. According to Grossman & Degaetano (2014), these measures include ratings and bans, unspoken rules, and official statements, as well as government initiatives to reduce the amount of violence shown on the screens.

Although filming and gaming industries are run by private corporations, the government can influence them by promoting laws and regulations, which these companies are expected to follow. They are not alone in this effort, however. Individuals and non-government organizations have embarked on developing measures, which would counter the negative aspects of media violence, but these have become rigid in modern society.

The government can ensure that that rules and regulations are developed and followed, to address the issue of media violence. However, their initiatives have to be assisted and supported by both non-governmental and governmental agencies. Thus, the government and society must address this issue together, for the initiatives to be successful.

With the increasing levels of criminal behavior in the USA and other countries caused by media violence, passing relevant laws and legislation will have a significant potential for reducing the scale of violent conduct among minors and adults.

History of Media Violence Legislation

In the USA, the legislation of media violence was pushed forever since the appearance of motion pictures. The primary concerns were voiced by various religious catholic groups, colloquially known as the Catholic League, which feared that realistic representations of blood, indecency, sexuality, and anti-social behavior would pave the way for the moral collapse of the society (Critcher, 2012). In 1934, these concerns were addressed by the Motion Picture Production Code, which was also referred to as the Hays Code. The code focused on covering the restrictions and limitations of sex scenes, violent scenes, and manslaughter (Critcher, 2012).

Additional concerns were given towards the values promoted by main characters of motion pictures – they were expected to express positive values and achieve them through honorable means. Anti-hero character archetypes were looked at with caution. This code, while technically voluntary and having no official legislative strength, left an imprint on numerous motion pictures of that time. However, the code was abolished in 1968, as it was severely hindering artistic freedom of expression and started to hurt ticket sales (Critcher, 2012). It was replaced with the rating system, which is in use up to this day. In 1996, the Act of Computer Decency and Telecommunications was enacted.

This Act focused on the regulation of the flow of material, which is shared via the Internet and the television network. As such, the act was aimed to censor any indecent content (Creech, 2013). This Act was eventually abolished due to several challenges, which were faced in its implementation. The most important challenge that the act had to face was the impossibility of censoring the Internet, due to its chaotic and all-encompassing nature, which required a great deal of equipment and resources even to attempt to control (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014).

The only country to successfully manage to censor the Internet in China. Its system, colloquially known as “The Great Chinese Firewall” effectively isolates its users from any sort of violent or sexual content deemed inappropriate by the Chinese government (Xu, Mao, & Halderman, 2011). It works as a giant hub, through which all internet requests to the outside sources are processed before the system decides to either grant access to a particular resource or decline it (Xu et al., 2011). While this measure has proven itself to be an effective censorship tool, its success is largely attributed to being developed in a totalitarian country such as China. In the USA or any other country of the third world, this measure would be met with protests and accusations of treading on constitutional and human rights.

European countries implement media violence laws with various degrees of extensiveness. In Germany, these laws are considered to be some of the harshest (Creech, 2013). In many instances, like with ratings for scenes and games, these laws are similar to those implemented in the USA. However, the difference is that while in the US ratings and age requirements are largely considered to be recommendations by both the legislators and the general populace, in Germany these are mandatory to follow.

German censorship laws are notorious for limiting the amount of blood and gore in movies and video games, to the point that game developers have to create different game versions for German markets, where the amount of blood is toned down, and human enemies, in some cases, are replaced with robots or cyborgs (Creech, 2013). This is done with an effort to abstain from the players from associating living humans with targets in the crosshairs. Should certain media products be considered too “obscene,” the government has the authority to disallow entry to the German market and physically remove the products from local shops and official distributors (Creech, 2013).

Although Germany received criticism for its censorship laws being “too harsh” and “hindering commerce,” the country remained stalwart in its position towards media violence (Creech, 2013). While there is no conclusive evidence to prove that censorship laws successfully reduced violence in Germany, the country’s crime rate remains on the high end of average, if judged by European standards for homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants (Creech, 2013).

The Social Problem of Media Violence

Human history is full of violence. What is considered the bedrock of modern European civilization was built upon the bloody conquests of the Roman Empire. However, those days are long gone, and modern society has since moved past the medieval attitudes towards violence, and the politically-motivated massacres of the 20th century. The resurfacing of these attitudes in modern society, however, is increasingly becoming a problem (Critcher, 2012).

The situation is escalated by the ability of individuals to access explosives and firearms. Modern weapons readily available to individuals through legal and illegal means enable them to cause much damage and casualties to the unsuspecting victims of assault before the law enforcement gets a chance to arrive at the scene and apprehend the criminal (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014). The young tend to develop violent behavior from watching adults, whether in real life or on the screen. This has resulted in the attainment of a high rate of violence among young people while parents and adults do nothing.

The interactive media, which includes the Internet and video games, tends to have different negative and positive effects on the mental and physical health of the children. As children are exposed to high rates of online material, they tend to develop increased aggressive behavior in society (Critcher, 2012).

Children tend to learn best when they can observe and implement a behavioral pattern in practice. As a result, they take their experiences from video games and movies and extrapolate them to the real world. Violent media can teach specific violent behaviors, which involve the use of weapons and firearms, indiscriminate shooting, dangerous driving, and general disregard for safety and human life (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014). Consequently, these behavioral scripts tend to be learned and stored by children in their memory. Video games offer an ideal environment for learning violence, which can be later implemented in real life (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014).

School shootings, which happen in the US on an alarming basis, can be used as examples of violent media influencing teenagers to take up arms against their alleged oppressors and aggressors. While an argument is made that prime reasons for such events occurring are carelessness of teachers, violence among children, psychological issues, and the availability of guns to the general populace, violent video games can be inadvertently used as tools that help desensitize children towards human suffering (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014).

As a result, they start seeing their classmates as targets rather than people, removing any possible moral and societal inhibitors towards murder and violence. All of the abovementioned problems existed in America for a very long time, but the appearance of school shootings in the US coincides with the rise and promotion of numerous violent movies and video games in the local media market (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014).

Causes of Violence and their Connection to Violent Videogames

Violence among children, teenagers, and young adults is caused by a multitude of issues, which include poverty, exposure to the community and domestic violence, psychiatric disorders, abuse of drugs, child abuse, and family psychopathology (Council on Communications and Media, 2013). However, the exposure of the children to media violence also plays a significant role in the violent behavior etiology among young people.

There is a direct correlation between aggressive behavior and media violence, which states that prolonged uncontrolled exposure to violent media influences violent tendencies within children (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014). This has been scientifically proven by several researchers who have focused on the topic of media violence and aggressive behavior among the youth (Grossman & Degaetano, 2014). Therefore, the evidence suggests that media violence hurts the children’s psyche and is causing violent behavior among young people, which poses a danger to society.

During the early stages of growth and development, children find it complex to make a distinction between fantasy and reality (Gentile, 2014). As such, they consider violence to be an ordinary occurrence. Children are known to be notoriously cruel towards their peers for undeserving reasons, due to their moral compass not fully developed by the standards of modern moralities. Movies and television depict violence as a conflict resolution model. In numerous movies, shows, and video games, violence is presented as an inconsequential, frequently-implemented, and efficient way of getting what the player wants (Gentile, 2014).

Instead of earning an item the hard way, the player can simply kill the shop owner and loot the body. Stealing is enabled and sometimes encouraged. Killing and violence remain unchecked. Heroes tend to be violent, and many games reward them for such behavior (Critcher, 2012). The movie industry is littered with numerous examples of the anti-hero archetypes, who stop at nothing to achieve their arguably justified goals.

This creates a dangerous connotation of the ends justifying the means and violence being an acceptable tool, so long the player’s actions are internally justified. Most of these games and shows do not depict the consequences of such actions, creating the illusion of blamelessness and acceptance (Gentile, 2014). As a result, these heroes become role models for young people in our society.

For example, the youth develop the feeling that it is cool to have an automatic weapon, which can be used to dispose of the bad people in society. Victimized youths with different social issues may resort to the use of violence as a means of solving their problems (Council on Communications and Media, 2013). Therefore, society should focus on addressing the issue of media violence and formulating rules and regulations, which aim at protecting people from its negative impact.

Controversies about Media Violence

Despite a compelling amount of evidence and the “common sense” telling us that violent media should have some detrimental effects on youths, skewering their perceptions of reality and definitions of right and wrong, the society is still engulfed in a debate whether these concerns are legitimate or negligible. While many psychologists, parents, and other concerned parties focus on depicting the negative impact of media violence, some researchers claim that TV and video games have minimal or no detrimental effects on the psychological status of a person (Ferguson, 2015). As such, media violence is assumed by critics as something that should not be demonized by scientists, legislators, and the general public.

These critics also argue that there should be no waste of government resources in formulating rules and regulations that limit the free expression of the media. The proponents of media violence laws retort that these studies are inherently biased and are promulgated by the movie and video game industries, who are lobbying their interests and oppose any laws that would encroach on their freedom to promote violence as means of extracting profit.

Mainstream psychologists and scholars believe that media violence has a significant impact on school-based shootings. As evidence, the perpetrators tend to engage in several violent acts, which are copied from the video games and movies that endorse violence and abuse as primary means of solving any problems (Gentile, 2014). Currently, there is no consensus among different scholars that are studying the issue. There are numerous views and opinions about the impact of media violence on the behavior and activities of young people.

Rules and regulations need to be developed for this specific reason, as they would put down ground rules for the society to function under and would assist in determining what is good or bad in the modern society.

Effectiveness of Media Violence Laws

Governments tend to formulate media laws to protect the customers, who are the end-users of the product. However, other considerations play an important part in any legislative efforts to curb down media violence. The laws are aimed at ensuring that people are not provided with any media content that does not uphold the moral and ethical standards of society (Wulff, 2007). Thus, individuals are offered to enjoy their life and quality media content, which does not have any negative psychological and social effects.

However, this stance has the inherent controversy within itself. Personal moral and ethical standards often do not correspond with the society’s alleged notion of morality, which begets a question of whether the government has the rights and the capabilities to enforce these norms on everyone else. Still, revising the effectiveness of modern media laws can give valuable insights into the process of regulation of media violence.

For example, in Canada, there is a revised Code on the violence of broadcasting (Wulff, 2007). This code has ensured that the region gets media content suitable for society by establishing and defining the kind of content that should be limited and subjected to restrictions. This content involves overly gory and violent scenes, scenes of drug abuse, rape, and terrorism (Wulff, 2007). The same can be done in the United States. The prime requirement for this initiative is to have an inclusive stakeholder discussion on what issues media violence laws should address.

Such a discussion would ensure that there is no resistance among the stakeholders when the media violence laws are formulated and administered in society. The primary stakeholders in this discussion would be the representatives of the general populace, the scientific community, the educational authorities, and, of course, the representatives of media and video gaming industries.

The UK Video Recordings Act of 1984 also gives a good example of how effective media violence laws are in society (Creech, 2013). This is supported by the British Board of Film Classifications, which seeks to ensure that individuals get media content that adheres to ethical and moral standards and requirements in the community. Another successful and effective media violence law is found in the Pan European Game Information System (PEGI) (Creech, 2013).

These laws are aimed at restricting access to violent media to children, adolescents, and teenagers, limit the amount of violence permitted at each age rating and offer mechanisms for enforcing these restrictions and limitations within the society (Creech, 2013). These examples show that Canada, UK, and Europe have formulated media violence laws, which have become successful in society. It is paramount to focus on formulating these laws to ensure that society is safe and protected from any form of attack by the media, which could create a generation of violent individuals.

Nevertheless, Perry (2003) claims that it is impossible to establish effective media laws, due to the ambiguity of standards and terms, which are used in these laws. Furthermore, the availability of heuristic overinflates the actual impact of media-generated violence. This reinforces the opinion of the opponents of media laws, who state that to reduce violence in the society, violent media should not be the main focus and that the campaign against violent media is distracting the government and the general populace from real issues, such as poverty, violence, and the availability of guns. Susca and Proffitt (2011) offer a counter-argument to the ideas presented by Perry.

These authors give a good summary of the media laws regulations and state that in the majority of these laws, the limits and borders are well-defined, thus rendering the argument of the ambiguity of standards to nothing (Susca & Profitt, 2011). The evidence provided above thus indicates that media violence laws can see moderate success, when implemented correctly and when the terminology and the extent of influence of these laws are well-defined. However, these laws have to be formulated in line with the issue of violent behavior and media violence among children in society.

The council on communications and media (2013) offers a different perspective on the issue of media violence. The focus is on the medical perspective. The media regulation laws should be backed up by medical evidence, as while questions of morality and values are inherently subjective, medical data is not. It is something that can be quantified and can give a relatively straightforward answer to how media violence influences the human psyche.

The evidence presented in the document states that violent video games, literature, and motion pictures have profound negative effects on the children and their psychological health and development (Council on communications and media, 2013). However, by formulating laws on media violence, it will be possible to overcome these negative effects and ensure the safety of the children, adolescents, and teenagers (Council on communications and media, 2013).

Addressing media violence

Legislative efforts are not the only tools that society has that could counteract the negative effects of media violence. Child and adolescent pediatricians, psychiatrists, and physicians have a significant influence on the issue (Buckingham, 2013). As such, physicians should focus on having an open conversation with parents on the extent and nature of the patterns within their homesteads. To counteract exposure to violent media, parents need to limit the time that children spend watching television or playing video games (Buckingham, 2013). This includes focusing on addressing the questionable material that children see on the television.

Furthermore, physicians need to ensure that schools and parents are made media literate (Buckingham, 2013). It will ensure everyone has a good understanding of the risks of the exposure of children to violence. The proposed measures include teaching children on how video game and movie content should be interpreted, as well as the intent of different commercials (Buckingham, 2013).

Media violence laws should not exist solely to protect children and adolescents either. While the children are naturally more susceptible to the corrupting influence of violent media, studies show that adults are not excepted from this influence either (Buckingham, 2013). This statement comes from medical studies on the subject, which have discovered that prolonged exposure to media violence can affect even a fully-formed adult psyche in a negative way (Buckingham, 2013).

Additional factors that affect susceptibility towards media violence are education, social status, and personal physic-psychological qualities of a person. The researchers state that different people have different levels of susceptibility to influence and suggestions. These people are in as much danger of being negatively influenced by violent media as children and adolescents are, and media laws should be aimed to protect them as well (Buckingham, 2013).

Families and schools should focus on teaching children about the best ways of resolving interpersonal conflicts that they will be facing in their lives. Physicians, as the promoters of health, need to aim at media education and be able to address the sensitive subject of youth violence in society (Wulff, 2007). There is a need to speak to the cable vendors, networks, federal agencies, local stations, and political officials to ascertain the effective functionality of the proposed legislative decisions.

The media violence arena is a great frontier for the medical community to take a political stance and prove that physicians have the potential of promoting health via public advocacy and education (Buckingham, 2013). Other agents that could prove useful in educating the general populace about the dangers of violent media and of ways to cope and limit its influence on the psyche. More empirical data on the dangers of violent media would help present the argument more convincingly, and convince the listeners that the issue is important and should not be ignored or looked down upon (Buckingham, 2013).

Lastly, it is required to develop effective mechanisms for enforcing these rules and regulations, for them to be effective. In the past, such as with the Hays Code, the rules and regulations were enforced by the motion picture directors voluntarily due to peer pressure and the bigger influence of religion on the moral compass of the society. However, this system worked largely due to the endorsement from Will H. Hays, which is why the MPAA was named the Hays Code in the first place (Critcher, 2012). This system was neither accountable nor offered any longevity, as it hung upon the authority of a single person. Instead, a committee should take its place, and be held accountable for the rules and regulations it will impose on society.

Conclusion

The evidence provided above shows that while the effects of media violence on the crime rates are difficult to discern, the influence on the psychological state of the children and adolescents is obvious. Violent media may catalyze real acts of violence, as it desensitizes the players and gives them a warped perspective on reality. This serves as the main reason for the government to focus on formulating rules and regulations to prevent the development of violence and violent tendencies in society. However, during the development of media violence laws, it is paramount to include all of the important stakeholders in the conversation. Such a measure will ensure that the proposed laws would not be met with opposition and disobedience when introduced into the media sphere.

Most laws on media violence that exist today assume that young people that are 18 or older already possess sound judgment and well-formed psychological resistance and a moral compass not to be swayed by the violence depicted in the media. However, there is strong evidence that prolonged and uncontrolled exposure to a stream of media violence has serious long-term effects on a human’s psyche, causing the person to feel less empathy and become more accepting of violence and murder as a means to an end.

The current legislation in the USA is not adequate to minimize the potential harassment expected from media violence. Therefore, the government should develop strategies, which are aimed at addressing the negative impacts of media violence. This is achieved by having rules and regulations that address media violence. Other countries, such as Canada, Germany, and the UK, have experience in media violence legislation. The experience should be used to develop a set of rules and regulations for the American people.

However, the legislators need to fit these regulations to the situation within the USA and take account of various issues such as the availability of firearms and the general level of violence within the country. If anything, the regulations within the USA should be stricter, as the potential for armed violence is much greater.

Lastly, the government should avoid excessive measures like firewalls and overbearing censorship, which would send the country towards totalitarianism seen in China. The greatest legislative challenge of developing a media censorship code is to safeguard the viewers without treading on their essential human and constitutional rights. At the same time, effective tools for enforcing the regulations must be developed to ensure they are followed, lest they become nothing more than “recommendations” that anyone can and will discard at their leisure.

References

Buckingham, D. (2013). Media education: Literacy, learning, and contemporary culture. London: Polity Press.

Council on communications and media. (2013). Children, adolescents, and the media. American Academy of Pediatrics, 132(5), 958-961. Web.

Creech, K.C. (2013). Electronic media law and regulation. New York, NY: Tailor & Francis.

Critcher, C. (2012). Screen savers. Case histories of social reaction to mass media, children and violence. RecherchesSociologiquesetAnthropologiques, 43(1), 7-15.

Ferguson, C. (2015). Does media violence predict societal violence? It depends on what you look at and when. Journal of Communication, 65(1), E1-E22.

Gentile, D. (2014). Media violence and children (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Grossman, D., & Degaetano, G. (2014). Stop teaching our kids to kill. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Perry, A.M. (2003). Guilt by saturation: Media liability for third-party violence and the availability heuristic. Northwestern University Law Review, 97(2), 1045-1073.

Stanhope, M., & Lancaster, J. (2014). Public health nursing. London, UK: Elsevier.

Susca, M.A., & Proffitt, J.M. (2011). Patently offensive: what Pacifica tells us about regulating broadcast violence. Free Speech Yearbook, 45, 81-94.

Wulff, C. (2007). Violence and mass media: Are laws and regulations effective? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 210(2007), 547-550. Web.

Xu, X., Mao, Z.M., & Halderman, A.J. (2011). Internet censorship in China: Where does the filtering occur? Passive and Active Measurement, 6579, 133-142.

Mass media has become an integral part of human lives and it has a significant impact on individuals’ values and beliefs which, in turn, define the way people act. The topic of exposure to violence in mass media and a consequent probability of developing more aggressive behaviors is widely investigated and discussed in the literature. In this paper, the relevant evidence provided in three recent scholarly articles will be summarized.

Overall, research findings verify the assumption that media violence increases the risk of aggression in real life. Such a conclusion is made in all three of the reviewed articles by Anderson et al. (2017), Coyne (2016), and Tanwar and Priyanka (2016). The mechanisms through which such a detrimental effect is achieved include the normalization of aggression, which means that abuse and other types of violence become regarded as something normal (Coyne, 2016).

Additionally, Anderson et al. (2017) note that long-term exposure to media violence leads to desensitization to violence and automatization of aggression-associated scripts, while short-term effects comprise psychological arousal and imitation. Considering that people learn about the world from mass media, its impact on developing personalities of children and adolescents can be particularly profound. As Tanwar and Priyanka (2016) state, due to the lack of experience, children frequently cannot discern fantasy from reality. Thus, they are prone to adopting aggressive models of conflict resolution, especially when they watch TV shows capturing violence too much.

However, age, duration of exposure, and the type of media are not the only factors determining the behavioral outcomes. Anderson et al. (2017) observe that the overall cultural background plays a role as well. For instance, they found that the magnitude of detrimental effects due to media exposure was lower in Japan and much higher in the United States and China (Anderson et al., 2017). It means that values and beliefs promoted in the macro-cultural environment can either mitigate or foster media-influenced aggression. Nevertheless, regardless of possible insignificant differences due to cultural upbringing, the media can induce aggressive behaviors in individuals living across the world.

References

Anderson, C., Suzuki, K., Swing, E., Groves, C., Gentile, D., Prot, S.,… Petrescu, P. (2017). Media violence and other aggression risk factors in seven nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(7), 986-998.

Coyne, S. (2016). Effects of viewing relational aggression on television on aggressive behavior in adolescents: A three-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 284-295.

Tanwar, K., & Priyanka. (2016). Impact of media violence on children’s aggressive behaviour. Indian Journal of Research, 5(6), 241-245.