Medias Role in Social Violence - Case Study Example

MEDIA’S ROLE IN SOCIAL VIOLENCE By: + The media is, inevitably and undoubtedly, an important part of every country irrespective of its other factors including economical or levels of civilisations. The media has participated in shaping many things besides fighting social vices that have in the past threatened to have a footing in the society. Stereotyping, discrimination, gender violence and even corruption deals are some of the things the media has proactively fought against (Fojas, 2014). Clearly, the media is indeed influential in the shaping of the way the society behaves (Echchaibi, 2013). Sadly, this fact is true even when it comes to negative things that the media might portray through its programming. Some have argued the social violence often witnessed in the society could greatly be attributed to media; others vehemently contend these assertions. With ample evidence, provide here, this paper seek to critically assess the claims that the media violence is indeed a significant cause of social violence. Because the mind of the young people (between 5 and 11) tend to find it hard in differentiating between fact and fiction, it is possible for simulated violence on TV to be manifested in real-life. A couple of things do not help the situation especially in the US where young people are excessively exposed to violence. First, TV-ownership in the US has tremendously grown from a mere 10% in the 50s to a whopping 99%. Besides, it is estimated that 50% of all American children do have a TV set in their bedrooms meaning they can view any program they wish. Further, these children are estimated to spend at least 28 hours every week watching TV. Worse still, before attaining the age of 18, the American child watches a shocking 200,000 violent acts, 16,000 of which pertain to murders. It has been noted that TV programs tend to display at least 812 acts of violence hourly and children programming, including the seemingly harmless cartoons programs have 20 acts of violence each hour (Beresin, 2014; Weinbrenner, 2011). Clearly, from the above findings, it would not be hard to explain the reason behind the ever-rising chases of shootings in the American schools. For instance, on April 16th 2007, Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting spree at the Virginia Tech Campus where fellow students were shot dead. In the end, Cho had killed 32 people before turning gun on self (Fergusson, 2013). This murderous act was blamed significantly on the violent games Cho had watched, not to mention the video tapes Cho sent to NBC holding weapons. The Washington Post pointed a certain violent game called “Counter-Strike” as a potential source of this violent influence, though the paper later pulled down the piece. While the case above attracted different views, and was debated intensely with some arguing that the TV was not to blame, there seems to be a correlation between TV and social behaviour. Children, and sometimes even adults, tend to take a side in any program, whether on TV or on games. For instance, children tend to be on the hero character. In order to win, the character often has to engage in violence after which they are rewarded. It is because of this impression that violence is acceptable in some circumstances that children tend to imitate the trend (Karatay, 2014; McLellan, 2012). When this happens, young people or even the adults feel justified in carrying out heinous acts so long they are justifiable before their eyes. Therefore, one can authoritatively conclude that even though the media may not be fully blamed as the catalyst of social violence, it greatly influences it. Media, by availing violent images or videos, simply prepare a platform for anyone to manifest that which is fictional into reality. The highly contested debate as to how exactly violent fiction leads to real violence seems to overlook a couple of things. First, it is worth conceding that violent movies cannot solely be blamed for the increased violence in the society. However, while the violence on the media might not preordain violence, it is indeed a risk factor (Krahe, 2014). That is to say, violence in the society is not primarily, because the media exhibits violent movies or programs, but this action does contribute largely. When it comes to the effects of violence on the children, a number of things normally escalate the problem including the time spent on watching these programs. For instance, it was noted earlier that an American child spends at least 28 hours weekly in watching either TV or playing violent games which is equivalent to 4 hours daily. In a study, it was noted any adolescent or a child who excessively spends time watching TV, “was causally associated with antisocial behaviour in early adulthood” (Pozios et al, 2013, par 7). In this case, the term ‘excessive’ implied the time spent was two or more hours each day, meaning that the American child is beyond excessive. From the above findings, one can clearly understand the reason it is likely for an adult not be involved in watching violent movies yet exhibit signs of aggression. As indicated, when this trend starts at childhood, it could continue in the adulthood. For that reason, one can clearly see that the argument that movies are inconsequential when it comes to real-life violence is indeed invalid. Often, those holding the above view argue that there are things that could increase one’s aggressiveness levels. They include background, poverty or even other outside factors besides TVs or games. Nevertheless, Smith et al (2003) asserted that one ought to assess critically the source of each. For instance, even if a child learns violence out of seeing it subjected to their parents, it begs the explanation where the partner engaged in it got. Even though adults can also become violent, and end up killing others as has already been confirmed recently, research shows that children are more affected. A study by the American Psychological Association (APA) revealed that children aged between 4 and 11 tend to “become more fearful of the world around them, are less sensitive to the suffering of others and will behave aggressively toward others” after watching violent movies (APA, 2013). For adults once a violent movie is watched, other factors may ignite the remorselessness including hatred toward a person, jealousy, insecurity or bitterness toward the perceived threat (Newman, 2004). Irrespective of the source, it is apparent that media does indeed play a role in the escalation of violence in the society. The psychological effects movies have on people cause them to behave as though the events were happening in real life, and this means the actions could be imitated. Nothing underlines this assertion than the movie Psycho, viewed as one of the scariest movies. It was noted that many people avoided taking a shower after watching the movie. Similarly, the movies Jaws and It happened one night also influenced behaviours of the people who watched them. For instance, Stempel (2015) reported that in the former movie, people started avoiding the seas while in the latter case, undershirt sales for men plummeted. From these cases, one can clearly see that movies do sometimes make it hard for people to differentiate between the reality and fiction including adults. It therefore means that where the movies are violent, there will surely be a replication of these habits in real life. As for children, it is worse especially in their formative stages since they are learning things, which to them are neither wrong nor good. Their minds are starting to learn things meaning that if the movie or program viewed shows violent to be a good thing, the children will not have the capacity view it otherwise. Besides, children at this age are looking for a role model, and the person they like will have influence on their behaviour. Sadly, because children are susceptible to these influences, they can seldom differentiate between right or wrong (Lan et al, 2010) consequently, this will start imitating almost everything; the hairstyle, talking and most importantly, the behaviour exhibited by their idol character. Many of the shooting events that have occurred mainly in the US can significantly be attributed to the kinds of movies the children and adults are exposed to. For instance, the Columbine high school shootings that occurred on the 20th April 1999 can explain the impact of movies on young people. In the shootings, two students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris began shooting fellow students at exactly 11:19 am and by 11:35am over a dozen students lay dead with 20 others injured (Lindeque, 2012). In the subsequent investigations, it was established that bullying or video games elicited the actions taken by the duo. Here, one can clearly argue that the two had learnt how to shoot as many people as possible within the shortest time, and since these were children, the only obvious likelihood is the movies. A case that proves adults are not exceptional when it comes to the influence movies have on them too is the Aurora shooting. James E. Holmes was the shooter of 12 people who were watching movies at the Century Movie theatre in the Colorado state. Later, it emerged that movies such as Superheroes, Suffocator of sins and Batman were Holmes’ favourite. Coincidentally, these movies have violence in them especially the Suffocator of Sins which shows a vigilante exerting justice by shooting the people thought to be evil (Castillo, 2012). This is a case of an adult who is being influenced by the same movies, which a section of people contest their influential power. Even though, movies will not directly compel everyone to take up a firearm, it has been proved that it will indeed influence. Actually, the reason not everyone will be involved in the shooting is the other activities undertaken. Oliveira et al (2013) asserted that when one watches a film and relate to it, the outcome could be devastating unlike others who do it for entertainment purposes. At this juncture, it would be important to demystify the impact of media’s violent videos or games on humans at large. Often, a valid argument rises as to why not everybody is violent if at all the media’s role in violence is that influential. It is important to understand that the media is not solely the source of violence. This paper has not insinuated this, but only highlighted the impact the media has on the same. Other factors could influence a person’s violent character besides the movies including their personality, education background as well as their upbringing. A case that proves this point to be valid involved the Boston bombing where the two brothers sought to kill as many people yet no trace of video was linked to their actions (Bluman, 2014). Clearly, the media is the only driver of violence in the society, and this explains the disparity in violence-related cases. Numerous blames have been directed to the media as a major cause of mass violence; however, these assertions cannot be fully trusted since they have not yet been proven by scientific studies. Those youths who are stressed and aggressive are more prone to bullying and delinquent, and they are also drawn to the video games; however, their traits are not nurtured by the media violence. All youths are guarded against violence by their close compassionate relationships with peers and parents. There has been extensive writing and research on the effect of video games and violent movies on the kid’s behaviour. Nevertheless, these studies are lacking a direct causal affiliation between youth violence and video games. Examination of school shooting events from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Secret Service National Centre for the examination of violent crime do not provide a connection between real-world attacks and video games. Children play these games to enjoy challenging circumstances, to deal with emotions, to form their world, to keep up with friends playing similar games, and to get rid of stress. What desensitizes and influences a person’s behaviour is not media violence but what the person chooses to watch. For instance, hundreds of individuals see violence in the media this is news or entertainment, viewers do not deliberate for a second legislating what they see. The same relates to video games. They are exclusively for recreation. The critical part is not what is being displayed on the screen but what exists already in the mind of the listener, game player, reader, or viewer. Therefore, the relationship between aggression and playing or viewing in the real world. It earlier indicated that upbringing is another catalyst of violence and this has been supported by crucial and credible data. For instance, it was reported that in many homes where violence occurs regularly, children are present 80% of the time. The implication this action would have on children is that they will likely engage in violence regardless of whether they a violent movie or game (Obadina, 2008). Concurring with these sentiments are Zhang D., Zhang Q. And Wang (2013) who protested that it is unfair to always see the media as the major contributor of violence. Actually, the upbringing could be blamed more than the media. It is a reason why not everybody is violent despite watching movie. To some, the violence exhibited has its source more in the parenting than in the games or movies. In summary, there should be no justification of violence on the media by arguing that it has no effect on the social violence often witnessed. The cases of shootings in the schools and even homes have, largely, been a result of influence from movies. Family members have suffered violence whose pattern replicates the ones simulated in the movies. Unfortunately, when it comes to young people, they tend to be prone to the themes fronted by the movies more than the adults are. However, that is not to say the latter are immune; they too suffer, and their subsequent actions tend to be worse that the young people’s. All the cases listed in this paper prove a fundamental truth, which ought to be analysed without bias: the media could be an accomplice to social violence, but not the only source orchestrating this vice. Personalities and upbringing are other factors that ought to be included in demonization of sources of violence. Bibliography American Psychological Association, (2013). Violence in the Media — Psychologists Study TV and Video Game Violence for Potential Harmful Effects. [online] Available at: http://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/protect.aspx [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Berensin, E. (2014). The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions. [online] American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Available at: https://www.aacap.org/aacap/Medical_Students_and_Residents/Mentorship_Matters/DevelopMentor/ [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Bluman, E., (2014). Adjustment Among Area Youth After the Boston Marathon Bombing and Subsequent Manhunt. (2014). Pediatrics. Castillo, M. (2012). Colo. shooter purchased guns legally from 3 different stores. [online] Cbsnews. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colo-shooter-purchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/ [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Echchaibi, N. (2013). Muslimah Media Watch: Media activism and Muslim choreographies of social change. Journalism, 14(7), pp.852-853. Fergusson, C. (2013). Media Violence Effects and Violent Crime: Good Science or Moral Panic?. Psychological medicines, 33(2), pp.38-40. Fojas, C. (2014). Latinos beyond reel: Challenging a media stereotype by Miguel Picker and Chyng Sun (dirs.). Lat Stud, 12(1), pp.143-144. McLellan, F. (2012). Do violent movies make violent children?. The Lancet, 359(9305), p.502. Karatay, A. (2014). Cinema, ideology and reality in the context of movies “children of heaven” and “bicycle thieves”. Idil Journal of Art and Language, 3(11). Lan, K., Abdullah, M. and Roslan, S. (2010). Understanding Media Violence and the Development of Aggressive Behaviour of School Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, pp.522-527. Lindeque, B. (2012). Reflections on the Aurora Mass Shooting. Orthopedics, 35(10), pp.835- 836. Newman, R. (2004). Perceptual restoration in children versus adults. Appl. Psycholing, 25(04). Pozios, V., Bender, E. and Kambam, P. (2013). Does Media Violence Lead to the Real Thing?. [online] New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/does-media-violence-lead-to-the-real-thing.html?_r=0 [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Pettit, D. (2005). Belief and Understanding: A Rejoinder to Gross. Mind, 114(453), pp.67-67. Obadina, S. (2008). Domestic violence: Impact on children and young people. Br J School Nurs, 3(8), 370-372 Oliveira, E., Martins, P. and Chambel, T. (2013). Accessing movies based on emotional impact. Multimedia Systems, 19(6), pp.559-560. Smith, S., Lachlan, K. and Tamborini, R. (2003). Popular Video Games: Quantifying the Presentation of Violence and Its Context. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(1), pp.58-59 Stempel, T. (2015). American Audiences on Movies and Moviegoing. Lexington, The University Press of Kentucky.pp.250 Sodian, B. (2011). Theory of Mind in Infancy. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), pp.39-41. Weinbrenner, M. (2011). Movies, Model Ts, and Morality: The Impact of Technology on Standards of Behavior in the Early Twentieth Century. The Journal of Popular Culture, 44(3), pp.647-649. Zhang, Q., Zhang, D., & Wang, L. (2013). Is Aggressive Trait Responsible for Violence? Priming Effects of Aggressive Words and Violent Movies. Psychology, 04(02), 96-97. Read More