Since the introduction of television and the internet, the media has been littered with violence and negativity. While this violence is fictional, media can create a sense of reality, especially among children with developing minds. Some may question that if this media violence has such negative effects, then why is it allowed and so widespread? The answer is simply that it is what people want. Everyone enjoys a fight scene in a movie, or a murder mystery, but the real world implications are rarely thought of. While the aim of any successful media company, or business in general, is to make money and supply a demand, the consequences of satisfying these demands must be taken into account. Research backs up the claim that media violence does have an effect on children, and it is negative. Exposure to media violence leads to aggressive tendencies among children, which often carry over into adult life. These tendencies can lead to lifelong issues of abuse, crime and emotional instability. Precautions must be taken not only by the media industry, but by parents as well to make sure children are viewing appropriate content in order to avoid possible psychological damage. 

The more research that is done, the more it reveals the question, what exactly is media violence, and why is it so dangerous to children? Media violence is defined as visual portrayals of acts of physical aggression by one human or human-like character against another (Huesmann: Theory). Exposure to these violent portrayals is an issue because children are extremely impressionable. In the past children would learn from parents and friends, developing traits similar to those with whom they were close. This has begun to change over the past couple decades due to the ever-increasing involvement of media in people's daily lives. In a 2009 article for the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Victor Strasburger cites that on average, youth consume seven or more hours of media a day (par. 3). When nearly one third of your day is spent being exposed to some form of media there are bound to be lasting effects. Especially nowadays when parents will just give a child an iPad, or put them in front of the TV when they have something they need to do. With all this being said, children have begun to develop behaviors based on the media to which they are exposed to, which is concerning considering the amount of violence portrayed in today's media. 

The way this violent media is effecting children appears simplistic, but the effects can be detrimental. As previously mentioned, children are impressionable and tend to imitate what they see. When children watch a show or play a game that contains violence, sexual acts or drugs, they are generally more likely to develop an interest in whatever that may be. This is not only true for young children but teens as well. Studies have shown that if a teen likes watching a certain alcohol commercial, then their likelihood to drink goes up (Paul Thomas, MD). With younger children, their minds do not always separate media from reality, so if they see events occur with no real negative outcome, they will not fully understand the consequences associated with that event (Paul Thomas, MD). Parents therefore need to take a more active role in controlling what their children see and explaining the real life penalties of that content. 

Studies conducted over the past 20 years or so have revealed a correlation between media violence exposure and how exactly that correlation effects children. The main consensus among psychiatric professionals is that exposure to media violence does indeed lead to more aggressive tendencies among children (Thomas, Huesmann, Strasburger, Locker, Chaves). This consensus is two-sided though; some claim that these negatives effects are chronic, but others argue that these effects last a lifetime. For example, in 2006, Rowell Huesmann published an analysis of a 15-year study conducted by The American Psychological Association regarding the link between media violence and childhood aggression. The study found that children who were exposed to large amounts of media violence tended to react to altercations in a more physical way as an adult than those who were less exposed as children (5-6). Other professionals such as Dr. Christopher Heffner argue that the negative effects of media violence on children are nothing more than a "phase". Heffner draws his conclusion from a study conducted by the US Surgeon General, which claims that the evidence is not strong enough to back the theory that exposure to violent media as a child leads to lifelong aggressive tendencies(par. 5). While this theory does have some backing, more studies have yielded that media violence effects on children do in fact carry over into adulthood. 

The violent tendencies created by exposure to media violence during childhood carry over into adulthood. Children who are exposed to large amounts of media violence tend to be more violent when dealing with issues and generally more troublesome. During adulthood, those who are overexposed to media violence as children tend to have shorter tempers which can lead to issues associated with crime, spousal abuse, and an overall likelihood for solving problems in a physical manner ("Longitudinal Relations"). While violent and aggressive behaviors are the main focus of how media affects children, other issues such as drug addiction, emotional instability and habits of crime are associated with the negative effects of media. Some of these personal issues will change or be cured, but some may last a lifetime. Because of these lasting effects, more attention needs to be put into stopping this exposure early on in childhood. 

There is plenty of evidence to back the theory that media violence exposure leads to aggressive tendencies among children, but oftentimes other factors are overlooked. While children are likely to imitate the things they see on TV, certain lifestyle factors will facilitate these negative tendencies. Brad Bushman, a professor of psychology and communications at Ohio State, states that other factors such as socioeconomic status, involvement of parents, and IQ level can lead to aggressive tendencies among children (Locker par. 3). The amount of media a child is exposed to can be easily monitored, but external factors are more difficult to control. These influences do play a large role in how children develop and act, but the inclusion of media violence definitely adds an aggravating factor to the mix. For example, a child who grows up in a lower income area is statistically more likely to commit a criminal act. When growing up exposed to violence in the media, that same child becomes more likely to translate what they see on TV or in video games into their real world actions. 

Violence can be seen in any asset of the media, but some forms of media are more dangerous to children than others. Media can be anything from television and movies to the internet and video games.  According to Time Magazine, Children on average watch about 35 hours of TV and movies a week, which comes out to five hours a day. Considering how much television children are exposed to, it would seem television would strongly influence them. That is not the general consensus among researchers though. Many believe that violent video games have more of an influence on children than television or movies. The reason is that with a video game, the child is virtually participating in the violence with no real world implications. Nearly 91% of kids aged 2-17 admitted to regularly playing video games (Van Camp). With that amount of children being exposed, issues are bound to arise. In a 2008 article, Soledad Escobar-Chaves makes exactly this claim. She draws her evidence from a2005 study conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as a later review on media violence conducted by the U.S. surgeon general. These studies found that while television and movie violence do have a negative effect on the behavior of children, video game violence generally has a worse effect. This brings attention to the fact that television is not the only form of media that needs to be regulated, video game regulations must be put in place as well. 

While numerous studies have been done to prove that media violence negatively affects children, both during childhood and into adulthood, there are still people out there who disagree. Naturally, the media industry would be one of the strongest opponents of the theory, but surprisingly they are not the only ones. Supporters of the theory stretch from parents, to doctors, to scientists and many in between. The same goes for opponents of the theory. Some of these opponents say that the data is biased due to the spike in concern following incidents such as mass murders and school shootings (Ferguson par. 4). Naturally when an event of that magnitude occurs, it brings into question what the causes were, and people look for explanations. Just because more focus is drawn to the effects of media violence after incidents like school shootings does not mean that the data is necessarily skewed. These studies have been conducted periodically for years, not just after certain incidents, which shows this is constantly an issue, not a new one. 

Because this is not a new issue, politicians have weighed in on the argument by establishing policy to help regulate media content. This again ties into the rise of concern towards things like gun violence and media violence, which occur after events such as the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Some would say that such events create an opportunity for politicians to draw light to issues upon which they hold a strong position on and hopefully push their own political agenda. Christopher Ferguson claims, "Empirical evidence is misrepresented by politicians, pundits and scholars" (par. 4). He goes on to explain that ideological views can often block factual evidence, which takes away from the credibility of research (par. 6-7). Events such as the shooting at Sandy Hook definitely do bring more attention to policy issues such as gun control and media regulation, but they do not necessarily have a lasting impact. These events usually create a powerful uprising in the community, which causes politicians to look at policies and see what they could change in order to satisfy the public, but the effects generally only last a couple months. This creates a small window for policy change, which if not capitalized on right away, will close. Since these concerns tend not to last too long, politicians do not necessarily have the support to try and alter legislation which would be effective in the long run. 

Other opponents of the theory argue that tests are inconclusive because a controlled setting is much different than the real world. Findings obtained in psychological laboratories seemingly yield the largest effects, yet the "singular presentation of stimuli and artificial measures of aggressive behavior severely limit the generalizability of many studies" (Ferguson). These statements are logical, but not necessarily true. The laboratory conditions for these studies are set up to replicate real world conditions as closely as possible. Even with the care taken to set up an experiment to reflect the real world, these are only controlled instances. Still these controlled trials give us information that we could not obtain in the real world

Media violence is not something that can be removed in its entirety; it is too popular, but steps to regulate the amount of violence in the media can be taken by both media regulatory organizations and by parents. The main regulatory agency in the US is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is an independent government agency responsible for regulating the radio, television and phone industries (AllGov). To start, organizations such as the FCC can respond to public concern and put in place stricter regulations on what can be broadcasted and when. This is easier said than done, but if enough citizens and organizations speak out in favor of the stricter regulations, it will add incentive for the FCC to try and make changes. Another way the average person can help make change is by reaching out to their local representatives. The more people reach out, the more likely they will receive a response and possible see action be taken. 

When it comes down to it, not all the blame can be put on the media industry or those who regulate it. Parents are the real arbitrators between the media and their child. Sure, children will make their own choices and often view things they should not, but this can be solved by the most part with parental involvement. TV providers almost always offer parental control options, as well as locks on certain channels. Tablets such as the Amazon Kindle Fire have similar features; parents can set viewing controls and time limits to make sure their child is not exposed to inappropriate content or are not overexposed. Outside of parent controls, another solution is simply for parents to view with their children. Pediatricians have suggested that if parents are present during viewing, then children are less likely to develop certain negative tendencies associated with media violence (Paul Thomas MD.). When a parent is watching with their child and something negative is seen, they will be better suited to have discussions about what is seen on TV and explain consequences of the content (Paul Thomas MD). This is true not only for media violence but also for other touchy topics such as sex and drug use. 

Due to the impressionability of children, and the prevalence of things like television, video games, and the internet, children are beginning to develop behaviors based on what they see in the media. This can be dangerous considering the amount of violence that is portrayed in all platforms of media nowadays. These behavioral issues can last long past childhood and often lead to lifelong issues of abuse, crime and emotional instability. The reason there seems to be so much violence is because it is what people want to see. Naturally, the media industry is going to give viewers what they want, but it may be at the expense of the wellbeing of many children. Violence in movies, television and video games is fictional, but for a developing mind, it can be taken as reality, especially when there are no real consequences associated with it. 

While there may be opponents to the theory, there is plenty of credible evidence to back up the claims that media violence does indeed lead to aggressive tendencies among children. The media violence that causes these aggressive tendencies must be regulated. Regulatory committees such as the FCC need to set stricter regulations on what can be broadcasted, but they are not the only ones that can make a difference. Parents must control what their children view as well as discuss questionable content and explain the consequences with them. The negative effects media violence has on children has become too prevalent and must be monitored. If not, children will continue to develop behavioral issues that lead to trouble throughout their whole lives. 

