Mass Media and the Impact of Violent Imagery on Teens - Essay Example

 Mass Media and the Impact of Violent Imagery on Teens An Incomplete Picture: Mass Media and the Impact of Violent Imagery on Teens Debate over the negative effects of mass media on teen behaviour has become so shrill and politically charged that it can be difficult to maintain an even-handed, objective perspective on the merits and drawbacks of exposing adolescents to intense and violent video games, television programmes and films. It is important that a just concern over the negative aspects of media is not allowed to overwhelm the positive, even educational impact of such a potent and creative means of entertainment and for communicating ideas. Ultimately, it is a question of free speech and self-expression, of exercising personal responsibility and learning to use media effectively as a robust and versatile tool. Within this context, one must learn to see media as more than just entertainment. It is also a library, a channel of communication and a means of self-betterment. In other words, teenagers must be guided toward a better understanding of mass media specifically because its function in society is subjective and undefined. Teenagers who are guided toward a broad utilitarian view of the media are more apt to use it responsibly and are less likely to exhibit negative behaviour than those who are exposed indiscriminately to violent video games, programmes and films. Those who criticise the culture of violence that unquestionably proceeds from films, television, the Internet and video games have quite successfully leveraged the impressionable vulnerability of youth. However, this ideological position, which is now widely accepted, underestimates the capacity of teenagers for independent thought and reason. ‘The systematic derision of children’s resistant capacities can be seen as part of a broader conservative project to position the more contemporary and challenging aspects of the mass media, rather than other social factors, as the major threat to social stability today’ (Gerbner 1993, p. 139). This tendency to emphasise the negative end of the spectrum, which is apparently enhanced every time a young person perpetrates an act of violence, is the rallying cry of interest groups and politicians seeking to prove a point. These factions have benefited from the published opinions of scholars and theorists who warn against the terrible residual effect of violence in the media on young people. George Gerbner, a communications professor and social scientist, wrote that while there have been bloodier eras in human history, none have been so filled with violent imagery as the present: ‘We are awash in a tide of violent representations the world has never seen. There is no escape from the massive invasion of colorful mayhem into the homes and cultural life of ever larger areas of the world’ (Gerbner 1993, p. 139). Gerbner and others associate violence with power, the acquisition of which is of keen interest to people of all ages. For teenagers, exercising power in the ‘virtual’ world of video games is an elaboration of personal power that is otherwise beyond the reach of young people. Gerbner argues that violent behaviour among young people should be studied from the standpoint of the ‘cradle-to-grave’ violent imagery with which young people are bombarded. It is not perceived, isolated causes of violent acts that should be considered, Gerbner claims, but other less apparent factors to which pervasive media violence has contributed. He holds that the uniquely modern phenomenon of media-produced violence has engendered unconscious, deeply rooted feelings of vulnerability and personal insecurity and that it is this, more than anything, that produces aggressive and violent behaviour in teenagers (Gerbner 1993, p. 139). It is not incidental in nature but chronic, an almost unrelieved torrent of violent imagery that has spurred young people to act out. If one accepts Gerbner’s theory, then the importance of parental guidance on discriminating what teenagers watch and play would seem to be an effective means of discouraging a violent reaction to media. In other words, if one controls the flow of violent imagery, it is possible to protect teens from acting violently. Gerbner also points out that the violent influences that are so prevalent in American mass media, and the predilection for violent behaviour among American teens, should not be seen as a collectively international phenomenon. He writes that the situation in the U.S. cannot be compared to Britain which, he contends, is not as ‘awash’ in violent imagery as the United States. Any attempt to make an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison between exposure to violent imagery in the U.S. and other countries is simplistic and misleading (Gerbner 1993, p. 139). Others claim that media should be seen as more of a positive influence in the lives of young people. There is little doubt that the media is influential in human behaviour, and that such behaviours are often quite positive. ‘It has been well documented that mass media interventions have been successful in changing and nurturing both public health activities and social and cultural norms. Family planning and reproductive health are two areas which have been widely used in mass media messaging for some time…’ (Basten 2009, p. 2). While such messaging has not specifically been aimed at teenagers, it is nonetheless true that the media has had a demonstrably positive effect on public opinion on many issues, such as tobacco use, HIV/AIDS prevention, and many others (Nicoll et al. 2001). As such, there is no reason to believe that teenagers are not as susceptible to positive influences from the mass media as they supposedly are prone to its violent aspects. There is a growing contingent of researchers who argue that while TV, films and video games may contribute to teenage behaviour, it is too simplistic to ascribe aggressive/violent acts to violence depicted in the media. Research is claimed to be as yet inconclusive on this point and does not warrant the kind of knee-jerk proclamations that have been heard on both sides of the Atlantic. In other words, the media becomes a kind of convenient bogeyman for all manner of social ills, the effects of which are stated to clearly point to messaging fashioned specifically to elicit negative behaviours. ‘Put too simply, just to capture the point, it seems that on the one hand, some researchers anchor their investigation by reference to a social problem in childhood (violence, early sexuality, obesity, etc.) and then ask, not always subtly, to what extent the media are to blame’ (Livingstone 2007, p. 4). Sonia Livingstone, professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics, seeks to broaden the debate by calling for more expansive research that does not automatically discount an important factor: children have the capability of acting independently and responsibly in the face of media influences. The challenge, Livingstone contends (2007, p. 5), ‘is to make research on children and media count. But to meet it, we must begin with the intellectual challenge, for I contend that the very lack of contestation is allowing both sides to evade or ignore their own problems, and so research risks becoming repetitive, or naïve, failing to grapple with key issues or to respond to critics’. There appears to be a tacit concurrence among theorists that media produces effects overt enough to cause behaviours, although there is simply too little data in place to justify such widespread agreement. And yet the assertion itself is widely assumed, even though ‘it seems to be the issue on which there is least certainty and least agreement’ (McQuail 2005, p. 456). Therefore, until the available body of research on the subject becomes sufficiently broad, it cannot be claimed, unilaterally, that video games, TV and films are direct causes for one of many social problems, each one of which ‘is associated with a distinct and complex array of putative causes’ (Livingstone 2007, p. 11). Studies have shown that incidents of aggressive behaviour that are typically associated with violence in the media do not necessarily lessen when the flow of imagery is reduced, which would seem to reinforce Livingstone’s argument. Clearly, such theories must be based on a far broader context than has typically been the case in order that all relevant factors are taken into account. As discussed previously, mass media is a double-edged sword and, as such, studies on such a broad field of inquiry require a much more intensive context. A 2007 study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology recorded the subjects’ physiological effects after playing violent video games and watching violent movies. Young subjects played non-violent and violent video games, then all were shown a violent film afterward. The subjects who had played violent video games showed a lower heart rate than those who had played non-violent games, which the authors of the study claim is clear and ‘compelling evidence for desensitization’ (Carnagey, Anderson & Bushman 2007, p. 495). This, however, does not provide compelling direct evidence that such activities lead to acts of aggression or violence in a real-life scenario. The evidence for desensitisation, compelling though it may be, cannot be said to make a direct connection to actual violence. It is reasonable to assume that individuals who have been playing violent video games are desensitised to video game violence, but it cannot be said that they are any more apt to attack another human being because of media influence than if they had been playing a board game. Such studies doubtlessly contribute useful data to the body of available evidence, but the inclination of those who do not understand that such research is not an end in itself to draw conclusions has led to a virtual industry of blame-finding and finger-pointing, which underestimates the reasoning and cognitive abilities of teenagers. In other words, in such a charged environment it can be easy to forget that teenagers are as capable of thinking for themselves as are adults. In conclusion, it is clear that video games, television and films have some impact on teenagers, as they do on adults. Gaming companies and film studios have come under intense pressure from many quarters for contributing to youth violence whenever a young person is involved in some act of aggression. While it is true that teens are in a more impressionable stage of life than adults, it is also true that they have reached a stage of development and education that enables them to apply intellect and reason to situations, and which equips them to problem-solve, just as adults do. Consequently, it is important that research into media influence on teenagers be seen as incremental, part of a much larger whole rather than as conclusive proof that media imagery causes specific behaviours. As such, it cannot be claimed, as many have done, that video games, TV and films encourage aggressive and violent behavior in teenagers. References Basten, S 2009, ‘Mass media and reproductive behaviour: serial narratives, soap operas and telenovelas’, The Future of Human Reproduction, no. 7, Univ. of Oxford and Vienna Institute of Demography. Carnagey, N, Anderson, C & Bushman, B 2007, ‘The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 489–496. Gerbner, G 1993, ‘The politics of media violence: some reflections,’ in C Hamelink and O Linne, eds., Mass Communication Research on Problems and Policies, Ablex, Norwood, NJ. Livingstone, S 2007, ‘Do the media harm children?: reflections on new approaches to an old problem’, Journal of Children and Media, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–14. McQuail, D 2005, Mass communication theory: an introduction, Sage Publications, London. Nicoll, A, Hughes, G, Donnelly, M, Livingstone, S, DeAngelis, D, Fenton, K, Evans, B, Gill, O and Catchpole, M 2001, ‘Assessing the impact of national anti-HIV sexual health campaigns: trends in the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in England’, Sexually Transmitted Infections, no. 77, pp. 242–247. Read More