Category: Media Violence

Despite the fact that there is some evidence that, lengthy exposure to violent media increases aggressive behavior in people, this exposure alone cannot cause people to become violent and aggressive for there is no established connection between violent entertainment and violent behavior.

On the contrary, there is substantial evidence that violent, belligerent, and emotionally delinquent environments lead to aggressive behavior more than watching violent films does. This may be a contentious issue with numerous people linking violent media to aggressive behavior. Nevertheless, there are other people, as the writer, who think that exposure to violent media alone does not lead to increase in aggressive behavior. I strongly refute the claims that exposure to violent media leads to increase in violent behavior.

First, the research methodologies used to study and analyze the link between violent media exposure and aggressive behavior are more than often flawed. According to Gauntlett, mainstream researchers approach the issue of violent media from the perspective that media causes violence (23).

With this ingrained deeply in researchers’ minds, they seek to establish violent reactions only in the context of media consumption. The anticipated results in such a case would obviously place blame increase in aggressive behavior on exposure to violent media. This should not be the case as research should start by focusing on the violence itself; regardless of the cause, and then try to mire its causes.

This approach would work better to produce results that are more credible. Moreover, most of the studies focus on children without using controls like adults. Most of these studies seek to qualify a “barely-concealed conservative ideology” (Gauntlett 45). To complicate the whole issue, what researchers may consider as ‘violent’ in research premises, may not be violent in context of the viewer. Additionally, the research objects are based on former studies that used blemished methodologies not founded on theory.

Supporters of allegations that exposure to violent media leads to aggressive behavior may be quick to point out cases like the media attention generated by Michael Johnson case. It is true that this case attracted much publicity but these critics forget to indicate that this is not always the case.

Human beings are not copycats and they will draw a clear line between what is good and bad. It is true that there are copycat violent acts like murder and suicide among others. However, Barker posits that, these copycat violent acts occur mostly in abnormal fostering (56). Research indicates that, raising people in violent or aggressive environments will have great impact in life than mere watching of given movies or listening to some music. There is enough evidence to show that most of copycat murderers are mentally unstable.

It beats logic to assume that simply because people have seen violent acts, they will go ahead and commit them. Millions of people watch violent movies all over the world; therefore, if exposure to violent media increases aggressive behaviors then we would have millions of aggressive people world allover.

This is not the case and research indicates that, only few people engage in aggressive behaviors as a direct result of watching violent movies. Moreover, people who watch these movies in their childhood grow up to be normal responsible people (Ward 87). Therefore, to claim that exposure to violent media leads to increased aggressive behavior hold no substance to qualify it.

People like Elizabeth Newson have drawn a strong link between violent media and violent lifestyle. For instance, in 1994, Elizabeth made reported that the movie Child’s Play 3 caused two boys, aged 10, to murder James Bulger. Nevertheless, in response to these allegations, Barker indicates that, Elizabeth’s accounts relied greatly on opinions and press instead of relying on results from an independent research (63).

This points out how flawed research on media violence can be. In the murder of James Bulger, there was no evidence that the two boys had watched the alleged film. Unfortunately, after something pops into the media, people accept it without taking a step further to investigate the credibility of the information. Ward posits that, many researches on violent media have failed to establish adverse effects and that most of the hypotheses have proved to be null (12).

There are cases whereby people have reacted violently even without watching violent scenes in the media. For instance, after watching the evening news, a father kills his entire family using a gun; he is arrested and brought before the judge; he explains that his actions emanated from the ‘bad’ news he watched.

He claims that, the news was too bad that he saw no need of anyone living. Is this case different from any other violent behaviors arising from violent media? The answer is of course no! In this incidence, the man must have been abnormal and his actions cannot be explained entirely under the pretext of ‘bad news’ he watched.

Similarly, the few cases of violent behavior arising from watching violent films cannot be explained by the fact that the assailant had watched a violent film. There has to be something more than watching violent films and this is where researchers fail in their work.

According to Barker, there are other factors as socio-cultural issues in criminal cases. These factors cannot be dictated by watching of violent media only. “We must look beyond a specific film to think about the specific context in which it has been consumed, and the wider social background of the people” (29).

We cannot explicitly say that this issue on media can cause or cannot cause aggressive behavior. The best thing is to probe what other factors as social issues make some people perceive and use media in a way that will bring aggression to them. The bottom line is; influence from violent media alone cannot lead to increase in aggressive behavior.

To cap it all, the research on violent media is minimal and often utilizes flawed methodologies. Questioning the credibility of these methodologies, Ward said, “The real puzzle is that anyone looking at the research evidence in this field could draw any conclusions about the pattern let alone argue with such confidence and even passion that it demonstrates the harm of violence on television, in film and in video games” (34).

According to Barker, if exposure to violent media leads to increase in aggressive behavior, then America would be a violent state (68) because in contemporary times, the media is littered with violent scenes of sundry and diversity. In the US, crime up surged between 1965 and 1980 and this was attributed to violent media. The authorities responded appropriately and crime rates leveled around 1992. Since then, violent media is allover and there is no equal increase in crime rates.

The way out of this long-standing misconception about violent media is to conduct more conclusive research works. Research should be independent and should use credible sources not just opinions and sentiments from the press.

Most of the films that are violent have political themes and this may explain in part why many people do not like them. Nevertheless, people should be informed about what is happening around them. In this regard, we should not criminalize some informative and entertaining sentiments in the media like violent films or movies.

Therefore, we can see that, although evidence suggests prolonged exposure to violent media increases aggressive behavior in people, that exposure alone does not cause people to become violent and aggressive for two main reasons. First, there is no established connection between violent entertainment and violent behavior. Additionally, there is enough evidence to show that violent environment leads to violent behaviors more than violent media does.

Works Cited

Barker, Mitchell. The Newson Report: a Case Study in Common Sense in III Effects in
The Media /Violence Debate. London: Routledge, 2001.

Gauntlett, Dean. Ten Things Wrong with the ‘Effects Model’, Approaches to Audiences – A Reader, 1998. Web.

Ward, Michael. Video games, Crime & Violence, 2007. Web.

Introduction

Craig and Bushman (2002) conducted a study that confirmed studies performed previously regarding the effects of media on aggression and the behavior of children. Studies conducted from 1975 onwards suggest that violent media generates both long and short-term effects that tend to affect the socialization of individuals.

Recent investigators observe that aggression increases tremendously among individuals who play violent video games for over three times consecutively. Whenever such individuals play violent games, they are exposed to aggressive behavior and their expectations tend to be hostile as well. In particular, playing violent games result to short-time violence, aggressive behavior, and nervousness.

Scholars compare playing violent games to smoking. It is factual that just one cigarette cannot cause cancer, but continuous intake would probably increase the chances of contracting cancer. This implies that incessant exposure to sadistic video games might perhaps have a cumulative effect on hostility. Even though video games play a critical role in educating the young people, they affect the behavior of individuals in their entire life in case they are not employed carefully.

The correlation between aggression and violent media is often disputed since many people expect the results to be instant whereby an individual is expected to watch the violent video and shoot another person the next minute. Since this cannot happen, Craig Anderson and other scholars explain the relationship between the violent media and aggression. Craig suggests that a collection of cells in the mind is charged with the role of detecting the occurrence of something new in the environment.

Responsible body organs activate cells anytime something new is experienced. If two things happen at the same time, they are wired together meaning that the body will always link the occurrence of violence to the violent media (Craig, 2004). This paper looks at the three major effects of violent games. An individual’s biological, social, and psychological processes are affected whenever a child plays or watches violent media continuously.

Effects of Violent Media on Aggression

Conclusion

Violent media has a tremendous effect on the life of an individual in society. Biologically, violent media interferes with the heart rate and sleep among children. Research shows that watching aggrieve movies and playing violent videos cause sleep difficulties and heart challenges. Psychologically, an individual suffers from stress and anxiety if he or she is continuously exposed to violent media. From a social perspective, violent media interferes with the socialization of the individual, as he or she tends to develops aggressive behavior.

References

Craig, A. (2004). Violence in the media: its effects on children. Issues in Parenting Education, 1(2), 1-15.

Craig, A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Media violence and the American Public revisited. American Psychologist, 57(1), 448-450.

Griffin, T. (2013). The Individual in Society (2nd ed.). North Ryde: McGraw-Hill.

Krahe, B. (2012). Report of the Media Violence Commission: Media Violence Commission, International Society for Research on Aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 38(1), 335–341.

Nauert, R. (2012 December 11). Negative Effects of Violent Video Games May Build Over Time. Technology News, p. 1.

Regarding the matters of media violence, first of all, it is necessary to mention, that this term is usually regarded in two senses:

1. Information that is provided without any will or determination by the recipient (advertisement, spam, etc)
2. Scenes of violence showed on the screen (movies, news, video games), or described in press (web pages, newspapers, etc.)

As it is mentioned in the paper, just 0.2% of the FBI reports are murders, but more than 50% of the TV news is murders on various grounds. The following outcomes should be made:

• Watchers are attracted by the scenes of violence.
• People are interested in thrilling videos.

As it has been stated by the psychologists, the violent video, or information that describes some violent scenes originate emotional flow, and emotions are known to be a drug: if one lacks emotions and impressions, he/she starts looking for it in the surrounding world. Mass media provides the most available satisfaction of these requirements. Thus, TV channels, newspapers, and other visual sources gain their auditorium, by binding it to the screens and pages. It is necessary to agree with Bushman and Anderson, that violence is an essential part of mass media.

As for the video games, containing violence, a separate paragraph may be devoted to it. It is closely linked with the latest psychological finding: it states, that being killed on the screen, gamer experiences psychological alleviation. The research held by Finnish scientists showed, that killing of the main character of the game originates much more positive emotions than the elimination of the negative characters. Researches also stated that gamers are less subjected to emotional experience. It is closely linked with the full devotedness to the process, which is the reason of interest to the gaming process, the desire to win, to solve the quest, upgrade the character, etc. The indifference to mass media violence is not so crucial for psychology from the angle of emotions.

Surely, violent scenes may cause depression, suicidal thoughts, but all these take their origin, not in the image of blood, murder, raping, etc. These thoughts are genetically defined, and the violent scenes just accelerate the process of their appearing. Ass media is not to blame for this, as sooner o later suicidal determination appears itself, as raises and falls are inevitable in our life. The clear evidence is stated in the paper, and it can not be disagreed with: There are at least six instructive parallels between the smoking and lung cancer relationship and the media violence and aggression relationship. First, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker. Similarly, not everyone who watches violent media becomes aggressive, and not everyone who is aggressive watches violent media.

In the conclusion, it would be necessary to mention, that violence in our everyday life is viewed as something common and routine. It is not the fault of mass media. Its task is just to give trustworthy information. It is the fault of humanity, who more than 65% of the history spent on wars.

Background

In psychoanalysis, communication conjecture and sociology, media persuade or media impact connotes to the philosophy regarding the channels the mass media impact how spectators suppose and perform. Mass media has become a prominent barrier of communication flanking families and the exterior world. Mass media perform an important function in constituting and replicating civic judgment; media integrates the world to persons and generate the character of the community. During the antique, critics suggested that media deteriorate or demarcate the person’s ability to function separately-a times being credited the manipulation such the telescreens in the dystopian book, Kaiser Foundation (2005). In the mid 20th century pragmatic research, nevertheless, implied that more restricted impact of media. Present scholarship affords a more intricate integration flanking the media and community, with the media on engendering in rank from a structure of associations as well as manipulation and with personal definitions and analysis of the in sequence presented, and creating information beyond the precincts of media perspectives.

The impact and corollary of mass media associate not merely to the form newsworthy experienced, although also to a large amount of edifying manipulations that function by the means of media, Kaiser Foundation (2005). Mass media has a brawny social as well as cultural effect on the civilization. This is embedded on the capacity to reach extensive interview that normally transmit strong as well as influential data. It is by means of the articulacy of media the reminiscent of TV sets, broadcasting and paper media that reach out a wider audience. These have been manipulative media as they have been principally answerable in clustering people’s day to day lives and procedures. TV transmission has an extensive quantity of control in manipulating the content that community observed and the times in which they are examined.

This is a characteristic façade of conventional media and although they are by no means superfluous, the progression of the internet infrastructure has braved up conventional chipping in traditions associated in media such as television. The age of the internet has seen a lift on limits mounted on the community by enhancing multiplicity of opinionated notions, communal as well as cultural disparities and heightened echelon of clientele engagement. It is evident and suggestions indicate that enhancing clients to generate in sequence by means of the internet will bring about the barrage of too much in rank. In bid to quantifying the anomalies of aggression within a society, reviewers should commence with the communal aggression and endeavor to illustrate it with reference, quite perceptibly, to those that take part in the same. Gauntlett rolls out to criticize reviews that are oriented towards children by stating that they do not make good use of guardian as a cluster that monitor, in the sense that review findings are constructed fundamentally to protract a scarcely-clandestine libertarian philosophy, and counteract the hypothesis of these findings with the concept that not all depictions of sadism are even bad to spectate, Kaiser Foundation (2005).

The internet almost in the entirety of its existence has been conceived and dedicated to the proposals of a liberalized enormity, a world where online browsers need to know not whom they are dealing with regard to borders, culture, and language among many other factors that define different people of the world. Yet in the recent times this belief has begun to shift. States and business enterprise increasingly try to define boundaries around what used to be a no-border affair Internet to handle attorney, business as well as despotic issues, Kaiser Foundation (2005). One way is by essentially limiting those that have authentic entry to computer systems in addition to gateways, whereas other websites upon access necessitate information diffusion through sieves that rebuff out malicious content, the reminiscent of adult content or information that is perceived as dangerous to the states security. Another method that is tentatively gaining popularity is use of coded programs to tally computers distinctive IP with a wide ranging geographical expanse, as a methodology that is becoming more precise every day, Zuckerman D (2001).Charles Bernstein writes that, Zuckerman D (2001).

Introduction

Violence is defined as any act that causes fear or actual bodily or mental harm on another person, New Oxford English Dictionary (ed 2007). Subsequently, violence comes in many forms including assault, rape, threats, torture, acts of war, aggression, defilement, child abuse, forced labor, confinement, abduction and murder. The media includes radio, television, the press, video, video games and even film. More often than not, given the nature of its activities, it finds itself displaying various forms of violence, Cantor J, (2000). There is a scientific consensus after thirty years of research that viewing of entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive behavior, attitudes and values among people, especially children (Joint statement American Medical Association et al, 2000, July 26).

Quite on the contrary, media practitioners themselves insist that their profession is a victim of maligning in the blame game of a society replete with violence by nature, Brad J. Bushman and Craig A. Anderson (2001). These two arguments form the basis of discussion in this paper. The question is whether we should continue viewing the media as the escalators of societal violence or look for the scapegoat elsewhere.

Violence in the Media

Television is the most widely blamed media when it comes to the issue of broadcasting violence. Television newscasts show all sorts of violence including terror attacks, war, violent talk, riots and graphic pictures of the victims of violence. Television programming is worse since it includes vividly enacted fist-cuffs, gunfights, car-chases, bomb explosions and sexual exploitation, Zuckerman D (2001). Research statistics from more than 1000 studies carried out since the 1950s, with respect to the impacts of aggression on TV as well as films paint a grim picture indeed. One of their conclusions is that by the period a kid attains the age of 18 and above , they would have witnessed on television 200,000 acts of violence and 40,000 murders with average viewing time Huston et al, 1992). Another study shows that children aged 8-18 spend 6½ hours of their total time awake before television. This accounts for 44.5 hors a week. The only other activity they carry out more than this is sleeping, Kaiser Foundation (2005).

However, there is an even more potent media. This is the interactive type in which individuals take part in an illusion of participating in the actual violence and creation of mayhem. These are the violent video games or play-stations. People, especially children and the youth, who participate in these games, experience the illusion, thrill, adrenaline, instinct and swift reflexes of actual violence, without any real threat to themselves. This creates the belief that violence is fun in which nobody really gets hurt. However, when they use what they learn in reality someone does get hurt very badly, not least of all themselves, Gentile, D. A. & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Interactive games like this are more likely, than television programmes which are passively watched, to instill a culture of violence in their audience.

Radio has been used, especially in less developed societies where television is not commonplace, to create far reaching violent propaganda. A case in point is the radio RTML in Rwanda that played a primary role in inciting the minority but well armed Hutu tribesmen against their Tutsi countrymen. By constantly referring to the Tutsis as cockroaches and a threat to Hutu security and progress, the Hutu controlled media contributed in mobilizing the militant members of their community to massacre close to 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus, UNHCR (1995).

Over the years, newspapers and magazines have played their part in fanning mass violence in society. Though their role has been increasingly subordinate to that of Television in recent times, they still have one thing that TV and radio will never have: staying power. A two year old magazine or a ten year old one can still be read today and is just as entertaining. Official policy in most newspaper publishing houses is that news sells and violence is the most dramatic news, Clutter buck, R. (1981). Stories in the press just like on TV give emphasis to violent content to attract readers. Advertisement content also portrays catchy phrases such as “the toughest”, “the invincible”, “and no nonsense”and“unbeatable” which have an underlying message of violence and dominance. In brief, there is an overt representation of violence in the print media just like in the other forms. Print media has gained more rather than less ground. In a world in which it is increasingly possible to reach a global audience through electronic superhighways and linguistic translations; and rapidly increasing literacy levels; they reach an even larger audience.

Effects Of Violence Carried In The Media

The majority of the studies held since the 1950s remark that kid that are glued to watching considerable protracted televised and film transmission with a bias on aggression are little more probable to experience belligerent attributes as well as traits and mores, Bushman (2001). In fact, most of the complaints about violence in the media are primarily concerned with its impact on children. Young children are more likely to be affected by such picturesque violence since they are more easily impressionable, find it more difficult to differentiate between fantasy and reality, cannot easily discern the motives of violence and learn by observing and imitating, Bushman (2001).

Due to the foregoing, children are more likely to be affected by violence in the media than other people. The likely effects are as follows. First, they are likely to increase antisocial and aggressive behavior, Gunter, B., Harrison, J. & Wykes, M. (2003). Secondly, they may view the world as violent and mean thus live in fear of being victims of violence. Thirdly, children will desire to see more violence in entertainment and in real life and will view violence as an acceptable way to settle conflicts. Finally, they are likely to carry violent traits into adult life, (Congressional Public Health Summit, 2000)

When children learn to associate aggressive behavior with rewards, they are more likely than not to become aggressive. The violent characters they watch on TV are heroes who get rewarded for their acts. Even though the characters are portrayed as good individuals out to get rid of some threat or other to society, the means they use to achieve these goals does not escape the audience, and for the younger more impressionable ones, it has a lasting effect. When such individuals are rewarded with social approval, like the enduring motif of marrying the beautiful princess at the end of the show, children get readily carried along. Such children develop a deep longing to get the same kind of social approval and see violence as the only way out, Heusmann (1998). Children are not experienced enough to relate violent acts with the reason for which they are carried out. They simply want to imitate the violence even when the circumstances under which they are acting do not warrant such an act.

In a study carried out in Canada children were found to have become more aggressive two years after TV was introduced to their town. During the same study, it was discovered that many housewives increasingly used TV as a babysitter thus inadvertently increasing the viewing hours of their children.

Yet, it is not just children who are affected by media violence. Adults are affected too. Even though the media is extensively used to moderate state tyranny and promote human rights issues, its relationship to democratic ideals is contradictory. It plays a repressive role itself in facilitating and legitimizing inequality, hostility and hierarchy through advertisement and political propaganda that promotes consumerist lifestyles that are only available to the extreme minority, Zhao and Hackett, (2005). Consumerism of course thrives at the expense of environmental conservation efforts. Moreover, by its very structure, the media excludes the global majority from participation in public discussions, Burton, G. (2005). In addition, the media readily takes sides in any conflict portraying one side or other as the aggressor while castigating the other. This helps to form prejudices that may result in aggression against a certain group. While Al-Jazeera, on the one hand belabors the point of the causes of terrorism in the Middle East, CNN belabors the effects in the west. In this way the two news networks succeed in stirring different emotions while reporting on the same issue. It is all a matter of the news angle.

Over the years, the media has been used as a messenger for state terror. The US mainstream media concentrated less on the Bush administrations unproved allegations of the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq and directed their attention to the equally implausible claim that the Al Qaeda network had organizational cells in Iraq. In this way the media covertly supported the raid of Iraq and deposing of Saddam Hussein. After the catastrophic war that followed begun, the media resorted to belated questioning the basis on which it was fought, Jewkes, Y. (2004). Certainly, the destruction of the twin towers was already embedded cinematically in the imagination of New Yorkers long before it happened, through a profit driven film and TV industry.

This, together with a TV journalism that insists on screening fires, crime, collisions and murder, has enhanced what communication scholar George Gebner referred to as a degrading, inhumane and toxic cultural environment threatened with explosion at any time, Morgan (2002). This culture makes people live in fear of a potential attacks and to generally distrust the world. In this way governments take advantage to advocate for more funds to security complexes, arms trade, aggressive foreign policy and international domination, Jewkes, Y. (2004). Terrorist organizations are born and natured out of the prevailing hatred of such foreign policy in the targeted nations. Aware of this ingrained culture, the Al Qaeda network took full advantage of it in planning their attacks. They knew that after the first plane hit the towers, the drama created would fixate the whole nation and world to the screen in time for the second attack. And that is exactly how it went down, giving them the desired publicity that shocked the world but excited their potential recruits in the Middle East, (Ibid).

Another aspect of the media that promotes violence among the youth especially is the use of music with violent lyrics. Music forms a major part of electronic media entertainment. There are entertainment channels that concentrate solely on playing music. Some of the music, like in the American rap tradition, Jamaican reggae and South African Zulu music; have an underlying message of protest, disorder, deviance and defiance easily picked up by the youth. Thompson, K. (1998). The media has gone further to portray the singers as folk heroes and given their views lots of air-time. Musicians who advocate for street gang survival, violent robbery and arson in public institutions, as well as those who partake of drugs in public, are often portrayed as successful social individuals worth being imitated. The youth actively imitate them in an effort to live lifestyles similar to theirs. In many cases, such musicians are themselves in their teens and twenties lacking the requisite maturity and experience to interpret real life situations in an informed way. Their age makes the youth identify with them even more and take their views as authentic and unquestionable, Anderson C et al (2003)

Sports is another related avenue through which the media conveys scenarios of violence to the youth. The enduring image of popular soccer player Zinedinne Zidane head-butting an opponent during the 2006 Fifa World Cup in Germany was quite impressive to many of his fans. There is also the car chase involving baseball folk hero O J Simpson escaping from the police who was televised live on several American channels with his fans actively cheering him on. Such scenes only encourage young people to solve problems violently in active imitation of these heroes. Youths and children tend to look up to their role models as being infallible and perfect. They therefore do not see any fault whatsoever in the way they behave, and believe that whatever they do is the right thing under any circumstances, Zuckerman D (2001).

Counter Arguments by the Media

The entertainment industry has been accused of hiring consultants and researchers to help deny overwhelming scientific evidence that they influence people to violence. Nevertheless, some of their arguments have proved plausible supported with tangible scientific findings. Some of these arguments are considered below. One obvious fact they put across is that the media did not create violence in the first place. Not many researchers can attest that mass media is what manufactures violence. On the contrary, many researchers have noted that the pathway to aggression is largely genetic. This argument is further strengthened by the finding that serious aggressive behaviour only occurs in a convergence of predisposing and precipitating factors. The predisposing factors include genetical orientation, while, one of the precipitating factors is, in legal terms, a motive driving the criminal or violent act. Apart from the motive, factors such as the personality types involved may result in certain individuals participating violently, while others under the same circumstances will not, Huesmann (1998).

The entertainment industry also points out those complaints about the harmful effects of their trade are nothing new. Plato complained over the effects of plays on the youth. All the same, they argue, that does not prove the plausibility of such complaints. They argue that media violence research effect sizes are very low and do not give a representative picture. Though this argument has been challenged, it points out that just like in smoking-cancer research, the effect sizes involved have been grossly exaggerated, Bushman (2001).

The communal erudition created by Albert Bandura directed much of the research in the 1960s, on the effects of the then new medium of television. This theory suggests that one way through which human entities get informed is through role models. This is embedded on the presumption that a human being will develop behavior similar to that of the person he considers a role model and therefore habitually imitates. This theory goes hand in hand with that of neurophysiological assessment which propagates hypotheses on aggression. Both theories state that media violence exposure, on the short-term, increases arousal, primes aggressive concepts ideas and cognitions and leads one to automatically imitate. The ability to inhibit the tendency of imitation gradually decreases with increased exposure. In the long term, it leads to elaboration of aggressive tendencies, convictions as well as illustrational initiators; violent convictions regarding the global and communal life also develop fully, while the individual becomes desensitized to violent stimuli. But this theory too has its critics who point out that most of the effects demonstrated by the researchers is inconsistent and unconvincingly small. According to another theory by McQuaila, violence from the media is encoded in the cognitive part of a viewer’s brain, and all subsequent viewing of violence activates aggressive thoughts, ideas and behaviour, Zuckerman Diane, (2001).

In another experiment, scientists, Boyatzis, Matillo and Nesbit investigated children’s reaction to TV edition Mighty Morphin to confirm that kids get adopt aggression in their respective forms of play, Zuckerman Diane, (2001).

They used 52 children of ages 5 to 11 who were divided randomly into two groups. Both groups were observed before and after one group was exposed to an episode of the program, while they played. It was observed that those who had watched the program exhibited more aggressive behaviour on the playground. The ratio of violent acts of those who had watched to those who had not was 7:1. Critics of this experiment point out that it failed to distinguish between simple aggressive and the definite intent to harm others. They said that there is a difference between threatening others at play and participating in real violence. Nevertheless, even they could not dismiss the fact that violence is employed in play as a preparation for self defense in later life. As such, the children filed the violence somewhere in the brain for use at a later date. Still, the critics argued that the research, like many others, did not exactly give evidence of a direct relation between media and violence. Another regularly employed argument by the defenders of the media is that most of the research experiments carried out do not adhere to any scientific standards or standardized criteria. This makes some of the findings disputable, Zuckerman Diane, (2001),

Only about two hundred studies carried out have undergone peer reviews appearing in reputable scientific journals. One of the paradoxes that exist is the fact that of these experiments, only half finds a link between media and subsequent aggression while the other half don’t. Taken further, this argument points out that it is quite illogical that, whereas almost everyone living in the same street may watch violent scenes on the same TV programs, only a few of them ever participate in violence. Of the other numerous studies, critics point out that there are methodological flaws. One such flaw is the failure to employ standardized, reliable and valid measurements of aggression and media violence exposure, Freedman (2002). Albeit psychological variables are tricky to measure, it is generally accepted that measurement techniques be standardized.

Where there are no standard measurements, there always exists the danger of authors manipulating the outcome to support their conclusions. Another flaw is the tendency to ignore certain results in favour of those which support the intended argument. An example in point is the experimental portion of Anderson and Dill which measures aggression four different ways using video games in a Competitive Reaction Time Test. The test uses various explosions to judge the reaction time of individuals. The idea is that the more aggressive ones react faster than those who aren’t. In the end, he only finds significance for one out of the four ways of measuring. Critics argue that had Bonferroni correction statistical adjustment been applied, then even his fourth set of results would have been insignificant. This discriminatory documenting is far disparate from the sleeve drawer effect in journals ignore articles with negative findings. In this case the researcher finds mixed results but only selects to report on those that support his position totally ignoring other findings, Zuckerman Diane, (2001)

The third flaw is the failure to account for third variable. These variables are genetics, personality and exposure to family violence at home. This may at times explain why some people either expose themselves to violent movies and programmes or become violent themselves. The fourth flaw is the constant failure to define violence. The legitimacy of the pragmatic dimensions of violence has been questioned, more on the ground that the “aggression” in them is not clearly defined, for example in the case where aggressive play is lumped together with general aggression, Zuckerman Diane, (2001).

The disastrous attacks of September 11

Amusement industry’s rejoinder to 9/11 can be defined as outcome of a civilization that is anchored in the obsession of sadistic and torturous media and consumptive tradition that is explicitly American. When former Mayor of New York City and President Bush mobilized countrywide consciousness in the weeks subsequent the confrontations, Americans were recommended to remain secluded in the face of terrorism partly from going out and going shopping. The events that unfolded on 9/11, an epoch that Americans and the global community grieved has finally been dubbed into artifact consumption by means of mass media, Zuckerman Diane, (2001). A very spontaneous culture that is evident in the US is the pattern rock and roll that is basically taking advantage of the 9/11. In this respect rock music has been closely related with self defining American pride and monopoly, by means of expertise depiction of them as preferred and ultimately ethical.

The 9/11 ordeal triggered the American perception of the Middle East as a violent region. Analogously, the American misconstrued notions about the Arab world have underpinned the enhanced chasms of the hate campaign, where truth has been crucified, and carnage has been abetted. Perhaps one can consider how the cold war interlude whetted a scholastic craving among students for all things Russian; learners in our present time are inclined in themes that are advertised and promulgated by modern concerns, Clutterbuck, R. (1981).

Conclusion

Despite the many plausible arguments by the media, the undeniable fact is that, their alleged weaknesses notwithstanding, the more than 1000 research experiments on the effects of media violence on behavior cannot all be dismissed as baseless. Observations made by the leading public health institutions in the United States cannot all be without foundation. Violence in the media, media propaganda and covert rewarding of violent behavior, do directly contribute to public violence. Children are the most affected by this phenomenon Hill, A. (1997).

References

Burton, G. (2005) Media and society: critical perspectives. Berkshire: Open University Press. Pg 102-09.

Bushman Brad J. and Craig A. Anderson (2001) Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Fact Versus Media Misinformation in *American Psychologist*, Vol. 56, No. 6/7.

Cantor Joanne, (2000, August 5). ‘Media Violence and Children’s Emotions: Beyond the “Smoking Gun”’ Ph.D paper obtainable at the yearly conference of the American Psychological involvement, Princeton University Press; Pg 89-95.

Carter, C. & Weaver, C. (2003) Violence and The Media. Buckingham: Open University press. Pg 60-66.

Clutterbuck, R. (1981) The media and political violence. Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd. Congressional Public Health Summit, 2000, Washington DC. Pg 20-26.

Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pg 30-36.

Gentile, D. A. & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Violent video games: The newest media violence hazard. In D. A. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children. P131-152.

Gunter, B., Harrison, J. & Wykes, M (2003) Children and Television (second edition), Rutledge: London, p.104-08.

Hill, A. (1997) Shocking entertainment: viewer response to violent movies. Luton: John Libbey. P 106-09.

Huesmann, L.R. (1998). “The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior”. In R. G. Geen, & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), /Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for policy/ (pp. 73-109). New York: Academic Press.

Jewkes, Y. (2004) Media and Crime. London: Sage.

Kaiser Foundation (2005): More Than Just Child’s Play?, Center for the Advancement of Health, Charlotte NC. Pg; 130-37.

New Oxford English Dictionary (ed 2007), OUP, Oxford, England.

Reiner, R. (2007) Media made criminality in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology Oxford University Press; Pg 120-25.

Thompson, K. (1998) Moral Panics. London: Routledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.UNHCR Magazine ed. (1995): “Rwanda” UN Washington.

Zhao Y. and Hackett R. (eds.) (2005), /Democratizing Global Media: One world, many struggles (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 1-36.

Zuckerman Diane, (2001) what is to Blame for Youth Violence? The Media, Guns, Parenting, Poverty or Bad Programs? Ph.D. Thesis in “Youth Today”, New York, pp. 23-29.

Introduction

One of the major changes that have been prominent in the social environment is the satiety of the mass media. Proponents believe that ferocious television programs are promoting violence in the society whilst the opponents claim that media violence only instigates excitement, thus making youngsters more dynamic.

This paper analyzes the impact of media violence on behavior, beliefs, and values of youths by censoriously comparing the sentiments of Nancy Signorelli and Jonathan Freedman.

At least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue

Signorelli, a proponent of the idea that media violence imparts brutal behavior to its viewers, provides a number of facts to support her position. One of the facts is that longitudinal studies indicate that boys who were exposed to violent imagery at the age of eight became radical as well as rebellious at the age of eighteen and started participating in criminal acts by the time they were thirty.

Secondly, she shares a recent intercultural research done on twelve-year children. According to the study, violent individuals, especially those who reside in ferocious environments, utilize the media in asserting their mindset and beliefs, which are then armored by the media programs.

Freedman also supports his position by providing several facts. He states that laboratory experiments show that media violence is not harmful rather it arouses the moods, and thus helps people to perform their duties more energetically than those individuals who are exposed to non-violent media imagery (Coyne, 2007).

Secondly, he disapproves the longitudinal as well as cross-national researches that attempt to support the theory that real-world brutality is influenced by media violence. The studies have more non-supportive results instead of supportive ones. For instance, he notes that only 39 per cent of laboratory experiments results were in line with the causal belief whilst 41 per cent of the experiments were unreliable.

At least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue

Signorelli shares her reasons to back her sentiments. One of her main arguments is that ferocious activities in television programs make viewers to adapt a perception that the world is a creepy environment. Secondly, Signorelli asserts that violent imageries portrayed in the media do not reveal the negative impact of violence on its perpetrators.

Consequently, this aspect inculcates the idea that violence is an ethical behavior and it can be performed in certain scenarios (Escobar-Chaves & Anderson, 2008).

This idea can motivate youngsters to concur that violence is a good character because of their premature judgment. Furthermore, Signorelli notes that media violence may influence viewers to become insensitive to ferocity and accept a ruthless society mainly because they frequently watch it in the media.

On the hand, Freedman argues that ferocious acts revealed in the media play no role in promoting violence by providing a number of facts. First, he states that violent media programs do not create the acuity that violence is a moral conduct or evil behavior. The main intent for these programs is to entertain.

He argues that since the imageries do not portray any messages related to morality, it is coherent to conclude that they have zero impact on behavior, values, and beliefs of the viewers. Furthermore, Freedman argues that what promotes violence in society is the exposure to real-world brutalities rather than the media.

He also claims that there is no proof that can confirm that media violence causes desensitization (Mustafa, Hülya & Serdal, 2011).

Some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with the Pro side of the issue

The strengths of the pro side lie on laboratory experiments and numerous studies conducted on the issue. For instance, Signorelli uses a research that was conducted in South Africa as one of her proofs that media violence has a negative impact on the morality of its viewers. According to the research, incidents of manslaughters escalated among the white South Africans when television was introduced in the country.

Furthermore, the argument of Signorelli that most individuals are ready to accept media violence can only affect a third party, but not them is a strong statement. “Third-person effects” discloses that people are aware that media violence has a negative impact on values and behaviors of the viewers, but are just not ready to accept the fact (Christopher, 2009).

However, the weak point of Signorelli’s facts are the results of the laboratory experiments that she presents to back her position. They are more non-supportive results than supportive.

Furthermore, she also admits that not every person’s character can be affected by media violence. These weaknesses can make one to assume that those that become radical in the society do not do so because of the media, but rather because of other factors, which remain concealed (Mustafa, Hülya & Serdal, 2011).

Some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with the Con side of the issue

Freedman’s strengths lie on how he disapproves most of the researches done by the pro side. He asserts most of the researches are not consistent whilst others have very low magnitude of between one and two. Moreover, his sentiment that violent imagery displayed in the media are designed to entertain and not to approve or disprove violence is a strong argument.

Most people can agree with his opinion because none of the brutal programs in television advise people to be violent, rather it is a personal judgment by the viewers (Escobar-Chaves & Anderson, 2008). However, there is some weakness when he states that he has no evidence to prove that media violence does not idealize ferocity. This argument confirms that he agrees that media violence plays a role in escalating violence in society.

The credibility of the authors of each argument and an explanation

Both Signorelli and Freedman provide strong arguments to support their positions on the issue. However, Signorelli offers more credible arguments than Freedman does. Signorelli provides several laboratory experiments and studies to prove the credibility of her position.

Though the experiments have several non-supportive results, there is a consistent proof that media violence affects the lives of its viewers negatively (Joanne, 2008). On the other hand, Freedman fails to present evidence to show that people exposed to media violence have normal lives. The author has majorly based his argument in criticizing the experiments and studies presented by the proponents.

It is wrong for Freedman to argue that the researches and experiments are not consistent. Researches always have some erroneous components, but these elements do not make the research findings wrong (Boxer, et. al., 2009).

The assumption by Freedman that violent imagery arouses excitement and makes viewers more energetic has no evidence. The arguments of Freedman could have been more credible if he had presented a number of evidence to support his position.

The author that I agree with and an explanation

I agree with Nancy Signorelli for she has successfully provided several laboratory and field experiments as well as cross-national and longitudinal studies to prove her opinions. The media plays a core role in molding an individual’s character. Although most of the viewers do not imitate the ferocious behaviors displayed by the media, the violent imagery has long-term effects.

A constant exposure to media brutality causes physical as well as emotional adaptation to violence. It also cultivates fear among viewers. The evidence provided by Signorelli, especially the increase of violence in South Africa after television was introduced in the country, confirms the negative impact of media ferocity.

It is incorrect to focus on the irregularities witnessed in the studies whilst the researches provide consistent proofs that there is a mutual association between media violence and the escalating cases of ferocity in the real world (Escobar-Chaves & Anderson, 2008).

The side supported by contemporary research and specific examples

Recent studies show that exposure to media violence promotes aggressive behaviors. The studies reveal that youngsters normally emulate violent acts they watch on the media as they play with their age mates. According to the researches, children who are below the age of four cannot differentiate between facts and fictions and may consider brutality as a normal incident (Beresin, 2010).

Generally, the brutalities portrayed in the media always focus on conflict resolution. The movie stars are usually ferocious, but celebrated for their acts. Youngsters start viewing them as mentors and try to imitate what they do in the movies (Beresin, 2010). The young viewers also become insensitive about violence as they consider it as a proper method of dealing with conflicts or evil individuals in the society (Joanne, 2008).

Conclusion

Media ferocity is a major threat to the escalating incidents of real-world violence as well as hostility. There is solid evidence from several studies that violent fictional video imagery promotes hostility.

Both Signorelli and Freedman have shared their sentiments about this contentious issue and their opinions should be taken into consideration whenever addressing this matter. However, participants must be ready to present credible evidence when supporting or opposing this issue because media continues to play a significant role in the society especially in determining morality.

References

Beresin, V. (2010). The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions. Retrieved from https://www.aacap.org/

Boxer, P., Huesmann, L., Bushman, B., O’Brien, M., & Moceri, D. (2009). The Role of Violent Media Preference in Cumulative Developmental Risk for Violence and General Aggression. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38(3), 417-428.

Christopher, F. (2009). Media Violence Effects: Confirmed Truth or Just another X- File? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9(2), 103-126.

Coyne, S. (2007). Does Media Violence Cause Violent Crime? European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 13(3/4), 205-211.

Escobar-Chaves, S. L., & Anderson, C. (2008). Media and Risky Behaviors. The Future of Children, 18(1), 147-180.

Joanne, S. (2008). The Role of Exposure to Media Violence in the Etiology of Violent Behavior: A Criminologist Weighs In. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(8), 1123- 1136.

Mustafa, D., Hülya, G., & Serdal, S. (2011). Assessing the Relationship Between Television Programme Choices and Aggression Tendencies in Children Going Through Early Adolescence Early Adolescence. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(4), 257-261.