Violence in the Media - Term Paper Example

? (school) Violence in the Media Introduction The media remains as one of the more popular forms of information dissemination. It is a tool which performs the usual processes of informing as well as entertaining the general population. In recent years, it has improved its technologies to encompass a larger geographical coverage and to utilize more advances in terms of digital technology. In relation to content however, the portrayal of violence has also become common media material. In some instances, it is even sensationalized, with little regard given for its impact on the individuals portrayed in the violence and the viewing public. This paper shall discuss violence in the media, highlighting ethical concerns in relation to this topic, with reference given to appropriate materials. This paper shall specifically discuss the thesis that the media is responsible for societal increase in violence. This thesis shall be discussed based on strong philosophical argumentation. A sympathetic consideration of both sides of the argument shall be presented with arguments towards one conclusion established. An identification of the ethical issues at hand shall also be considered. Body Violence in the media is apparent with the coverage of different violent events happening around the globe. The media holds a significant amount of responsibility in terms of its content and the impact of its content on their audience. The narrow cultural imaginings which may directly impact on the beliefs of those involved in political violence is very much ingrained in the wider cultural milieu where the media is an important, as well as an overwhelming part. And in these instances political violence is a kind of violence worthy of consideration (Held, p. 132). In instances when the media supports a culture of violence, this may also lead to a promotion of political violence, and all violent activities that coincide with it. Reports provide support for the argument that media in the US does promote a culture of violence (Held, p. 133). Held (p. 133) declares that there is a significant relationship between violence in the media, however attempts to blame the media for such violent acts are tantamount to efforts towards diverting attention and responsibility from the actual causes of violence. Those who are not predisposed to admitting the social issues of society find the media an easier excuse or target. However, Held (p. 134) believes that this would not change the fact that the media are partly to blame for the increased incidents and social injustice in the US. Even as the media refuses to own up to their responsibility in the outbreak of violence, their impact on the viewing public remains persistent. The media decides what sort of descriptions to give to violent acts. A pertinent issue for the media is that the way they describe or label the violent activities is sometimes sensationalized or ‘tabloidized, ’making the violence seem grand or heroic. The media also often portrays sympathetic attitudes towards rebels or freedom fighters, and later such attitudes sends the wrong message to the people, making them think that it is acceptable to violently seek a redress for their grievances. In some ways, there is often a thin line between sympathy for these freedom fighters and sympathy for terrorists. Moreover, even the label ‘freedom fighters’ may be a problematic term because they make these people seem noble and heroic, where in fact, to their victims and to the governments they plague, there are nothing more than terrorists. The issue of terrorism or retaliation is also a major consideration in this case because some acts may again be labeled different by the media, and their labels can serve as basis for the people’s actions. The media deciding whether a certain act is terrorism or retaliation is filled with bias. However, responsibility for these labels and these acts cannot be avoided in the face of the actual negative influence that they potentially bring to the vulnerable population (Held, p. 134). In a major way, such violence spurs the terrorists and other violent elements to more acts of violence, believing their actions can gain appropriate attention for their cause. More often than not, the media has been asked by government authorities not to bestow media coverage on terrorists because coverage helps to perpetuate and publicize their goals and causes. They have also been asked not to glorify the acts of terrorists through their media coverage (Held, p. 133). Undeniably, media coverage, in the long run seems to create a contagion outcome, and government officials advise the media to avoid covering incidents of political violence in order to prevent other individuals or groups from emulating these acts of violence (Held, p. 134). Although there are varying views on the contagion outcome, there is a managed perception on the fact that television and the media does contribute to the dispersal of information. Since the coverage of political violence is very much newsworthy, most of the media outlets are unable to comply with government requests for limited coverage on political violence (Held, p. 135). They also often make the situation and the coverage worse by reporting the incidents as dramatic rather than factual events; and their desire to cover these events are often based on ratings wars with other media outlets. The very issues with political violence are based on the social injustice that oppressed and poor citizens are going through; however, these conditions are often not covered by these media outlets as they concentrate more on what would gain the highest ratings for them (Held, p. 134). In a major way therefore, the media contributes significantly to the proliferation, as well as the spread of violence in society causing these acts to be seen as tools which violent individuals or groups can use to gain attention for their cause and their ideologies. The media often takes the easier and cheaper option in broadcasting and the actual happenings of violence are easier and cheaper for them to cover. Having to go through the process of investigating and researching the history of the individuals and what led them to acts of violence often require a lot of money, resources, time, and personnel (Held, p. 133). Since commercial interests drive these news outlets, they would rather cover the easier stories, and the stories which can gain them the most ratings and the most financial gain. The media also sends the message to the citizens that the world cannot be adequately managed and controlled, and countries are either ‘messed up’ but not require much attention, or so messed up that they threaten the world’s peace and security. And the media extends the message by portraying the latter group to be in need of control and invasion (Held, p. 133). This is not a favorable message to express because those who are predisposed to violence now see violence as their right and their only recourse towards resolving their so-called messed up country. There is an element of imitation and emulation involved in the violence portrayed by the media. Among adults, social psychologists declare that there is often an automatic desire or reflex to imitate the behavior of other individuals, especially individuals which are portrayed as famous in some way (Hurley, p. 170). Humans tend to adjust their behavior based on what they see around them and what is portrayed by their friends and general society. This is the reason why trends often have the tendency to easily take off as soon as other people see its popularity. There is a basic desire for most people to want to fit in and be part of the normal crowd, and if acting out in similar ways would help them fit in, then they would likely take on and adapt similar actions (Hurley, p. 170). In applying the above precept to violence, exposure to apparent representations of violence seems to sharpen mental representation of violence causing people to follow the person leading such hostility (Hurley, p. 171). As a result, when prompted by rude words, people tend to respond accordingly in equally rude terms, tones, and behavior. For example, when people are talking to someone who is rubbing their face or stroking their arm, individuals often unconsciously end up mirroring the behavior of the person they are talking to (Hurley, p. 171). This is how stereotypes are often established. When people’s mind set about a person or a group or individuals are wholly ingrained in their perception through the popular notions which they encounter from majority of society, then such mindset often ends up guiding their beliefs and behaviors. In effect, if the popular nation in their group is the superiority of the white race, then such perception would dictate that their behavior should be directed towards a disparaging and discriminatory attitude against racial minorities. Based on such understanding, the portrayal of the media of violent images and sensationalizing these acts as worthy of people’s attention firmly portrays the image that violence is a favorable option for people. When something is portrayed in the media, the attention that is given to it is often flattering and ego-boosting. Even in the face of violence or unfavorable media coverage, the fact that the cameras and the mikes are trained on these individuals gives a sense of endowment for those under the spotlight. As a result, the viewers may sometimes consider these acts as acts worthy of emulation. They often end up supporting a cause because it is popular, not so much because they believe, understand, or support its ideologies. If a cause therefore requires violent acts, as is popularly portrayed by the media, the members would not hesitate in perpetuating such acts. Their only concern is on being on the television and gaining the public’s attention. Hurley’s arguments are however refutable. DeBruin (p. 503) discusses that Hurley did not provide an adequate basis for the correlation between media violence and the actual perpetuation of violence among the general population. In other words, Hurley presented a disconnected conclusion, one which is not sufficiently linked with the premises and the logical presentation of ideas. DeBruin (p. 501) points out that Hurley’s discussion on media violence and its impact on actual violent behavior is not supported by autonomous behavior. In other words, when a person watched violence in the media, in order for it to be considered as the cause of a person’s subsequent violent act, there must be a non-autonomous nature to the act; and that that the media violence directly led to the person actually committing the violence without intervening thought or independent judgment. Hurley apparently dismisses any intervening actions on the part of the parents in allowing their children to watch media violence and their autonomous judgment of the violence portrayed. Hurley’s discussion discards the fact that man is able to discern right from wrong and that watching violence does not spur a person, independent of logical judgment, to carry out violence. DeBruin (p. 501) further argues that there is no sufficient link between media violence and the emulation or imitation of violence. When a person would watch a movie where a character gets a gun and fires at people, this cannot be linked to him later going to the store and shoplifting something. In another example, watching a child on television being violent to her doll would not necessarily spur another child to immediately do the same to her doll or to other people. There is still an element of autonomy in a person’s actions. Similar to being hypnotized or brainwashed into doing something, this is the premise of Hurley’s arguments – that people would mindlessly and autonomously follow what is being portrayed by the media in terms of violence. And such premises and conclusions are illogical and not adequately supported by the adequate processes of research. After reviewing the above discussions by authors Held, Hurley and deBruin, it is logical to conclude that the media is responsible for the proliferation of violence. Held discusses how the political violence covered by the media often seems to legitimize the actions of rebels and terrorists, giving them the media attention that they crave and seemingly portraying their actions as commendable – in other words, an innate right. In the current commercialized world where network executives are battling each other for the most up-to-date and the latest scoop, coverage on violence gets people to watch and react. Media coverage on the cause for the violence, including poverty and social injustices would not sustain people’s attention. It would likely get people to watch for a few minutes, but it would not get them to stay to the end of the broadcast. This argument may be likened to a police car chase being covered live by the news. When flipping channels, it is a news broadcast which would immediately capture people’s attention. A bomb going off in the middle of a town square in Iraq would gain more coverage from the media and would capture people’s attention, more than any coverage about Iraqi women and children suffering from political injustice. Based on such fascination with violence, one which is being fed by the media, individuals or rogue groups wanting attention for their cause often end up perpetuating more violent acts. They know that their poor state or even picketing a US embassy would not gain as much attention to their cause as violence would. They know that violence would make the people stop and stare, would get people to watch, and would get people to listen to what they want to express. Away from political violence, there is a less clear correlation between media violence and the actual perpetuation of violence. Hurley discusses that there is an element of emulation and imitation often seen in the portrayal of violence in the media and the actual perpetuation of violence among the citizens. Individuals watching violence would be drawn into these acts of violence because it is a sight which engages their attention and fascination. There is a modicum of truth in this premise among young and impressionable children, adolescents and young adults. Their fascination would often translate to emulation, believing that such behavior is cool, acceptable, and that it would give them a sense of belongingness in their social setting. However, this argument cannot be considered in the face of a more powerful sense of autonomy in people’s thoughts and actions. As argued by deBruin, for an action to be considered a direct consequence of media violence, there must be a lack of autonomy on the part of the person acting. However, for the most part, the direct link to media violence and actual violence cannot be clearly established outside an autonomous setting. Based on this polarized discussion, I would still argue that as far as political violence is concerned, there is indeed a direct and significant link which cannot be ignored and dismissed. However, outside the sphere of political violence, media violence has a partial contribution. Although, there is indeed a sense of autonomy in people and their actions in relation to non-political violence, the link between the images portrayed in the media and the actual outbreak of violence still cannot be denied. Incidents of non-political violence in the streets may not be directly caused by violence portrayed in the media, however, it cannot also be denied unequivocally that the violent acts are not in some way spurred on by what these violent individuals see in the television, in their movies, and other forms of media. Until the direct relationship between media and violence is actually established, there must be an understanding that violent images may lead to actual violence. Only with this understanding can the media be spurred to cease their habit of sensationalizing violence in their news coverage and their simulated entertainment portrayals. Works Cited Boudewijn de Bruin 'Media Violence and Freedom of Speech: How to Use Empirical Data.' Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (2008) 11: 493-505. Virginia Held 'The Media and Political Violence.' Journal of Ethics 1997 vol. 1, issue 2. 187- 202. Susan Hurley 'Imitation, Media Violence, and Freedom of Speech' Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 2004, vol. 117, issues 1-2. 165-218. Read More