Caroline Helfgott 

ENGL 102: Section 091

April 7, 2016

Argumentative Essay 

Word count: 2,604

Society and Violence in the Media

Its no mystery that information drives our modern world. The who, what, when, and where are a popular commodity and knowing the answers to these questions gives you great powering and influence. So what if these answers were as easy as figuring out the question? What if find the who or the what and the power of that knowledge was just at the touch of your figure tips.  In this day in age information is not only easy to find but everywhere, all it takes is click to your favorite news channel or access to any form of internet or social media. Anyone can access information at anytime, so what's the problem? This amount of accessibility is convenient and empowering in many respects but it also comes at a great price, one that has begun to affect society and even human nature in detrimental ways. Constant and excessive exposure of media content will logically influence a society driven by mass media in some way or form. Significant studies and experiments done by organizations like the American Psychological Association and many prestigious universities will also attest to this analysis for a correlation between negative behaviors and exposure to violence the media. Some of these negative behaviors may include, violence, aggression, fear, unsocial behaviors and desensitization toward said violence and other human beings. Recently, researchers and scientists have even seen a dramatic shift in people's "helping abilities" and the overall development of their sympathy (Bushman & Anderson pg.273). This is a domino effect caused by the media and its constant and ever present violence and aggression. This emerging culture of violence will lead to a modern society of normalized violence, one that diminishes our ability practice impulse control and feel real sympathy.

What do the Arguments say?

In 2013 the American Psychological Association wrote an article on the debate about violence in the media, as well as other medias, and the highly probable existence of its correlation to negative human behaviors. They utilize a selection of significant past and present studies to highlight that a correlation does in fact exist. In the 1970s, Albert Bandura did an experiment on the subject of violence and children's ability to imitate said violence, aggression and desensitization. This study exhibited confirming evidence that children are highly susceptible to violent imagery and often perpetuate said actions when no consequences or changes are introduced to the setting (American Psychological Association). Recently, a New York Times article commented on the detrimental effects of this occurrence through means of the media and further elaborated on this debate. The professionals at Broadcast thought who not only wrote this article but study the affects of all forms of media on its viewers agree that the violence in the media does contribute to aggressive and desensitized shifts in behavior. They recognize that people experience violence in the media everyday and only a very small number actually become violent, but the majority of their argument significantly point towards supporting the claims for this dangerous correlation. 

Another significant article published in 2013 by the news source Mail & Gaurdian, highlight how the media not only is rooted in violence but also shapes how we interpret and view the act of violence. He utilizes evidence from South Africa's history of social and political turmoil and how that was reported on, as well as personal analysis, to successfully argue this point. For example, violence was seen as something that only occurred between one race in South Africa because it was reported as such. In this case media took this particular violence, manipulated it and used it to create a new characterization of said group. A characterization that was based in these acts of violence which took a dramatic and negative shape in how people saw and interpreted them. This author claims many things about the volume and large quantity of violence is in the media and its impact, but he essentially claims that the media holds a greater power than violence itself. That the media shapes how cultures and societies interpret one another and that is largely based in the interpretation of violence. If this is true, that violence itself is shaped by the media, then much can be said about the power and influence of the media over its viewers. 

Reviewers and Critics, Cyntha Carter and C. Kay Weaver comment on the book Violence in the Media and also reflects on the media's significant power and influence by analyzing each claim this author makes chapter by chapter. The first chapter is the most significant because it specifically focuses on the particular ways war and social struggles involving violence have been reported on in recent times. The systematic designation of a "good guy" and a "bad guy" is often very bias and one sided along with and the portrayal of a strangely personal threat to your everyday life are just some of the ways the media manipulates violence for the viewers. These one sided views, that often marginalizes other counter opinions or arguments, have the power to justify this violence. Logically, if something is seen as a necessity, a means to an end, or for some greater good we begin to justify it as such. Violence becomes a defense mechanism that is vitally important to protect our way of life, ideals and values. We begin to characterize violence and aggression as not just a necessary evil but also significant part of our culture and so called "way of life" that ironically is based in preventing violence, aggression and destruction.  

Innovations in technology have exploded in the 21st century; movies are more high depth, special effects are more real, and the media is accessible almost anywhere at anytime. So then how is this constant and omnipresent exposure to things like violence and aggression in the media not effecting these generations born during this time? How can you argue that violence has zero effects on the behaviors and attitudes of children who grow up constantly surrounded by vivid examples of such events? The reality of this questions is that logically they can't. Researcher, former West Point psychology professors and author of the book Stop Teaching our Children to Kill, David Grossman points out that children are really unable to distinguish fantasy from reality till around the age of eight, therefor their initial interpretations of the world are highly influenced by the the images they see. The can be applied to the media and how it exhibits and characterizes violence on an everyday basis. Children grow up up not only accustomed to this explicit violence but also desensitized to this world around them. Another article, written right after 9/11, by Joe Woodard, examines a parent's absolute shock at the reactions her 15-year-old son had to the newscast at this time of the tragedy. He was unmoved by the horror that was unfolding in front of his eyes and as the first twin towel fell, he made casual comments such as "wow, it actually stayed up for an hour -- it must have been really well built" (Woodard lin. 7).  What shocked his mother the most was his apparent inability to feel empathy for the human grief of the whole terrible situation.  Maybe if her son was under the age of 8 we could argue that he did not yet understand the reality of these violence acts, but this boy was 15 at the time. He had already lived a large part of his childhood surrounded by similar video-tapped actions and events that had been characterized as normal. This is just one of many examples this article discusses about the growing desensitization of this society. How even parents and kids alike are beginning to characterize violence and aggression as a normalized aspect of modern society and everyday life. 

What does the Science say?

Since the invention of television, people everywhere have been curious about how violence in the media, as well as others forms of medias, has and is affecting the human mind. A study review done in 1983 by professor David Phillips of the University of California, San Diego reported since the 1950's over 2,500 studies have been done to better understand and possibly prove this connection. Currently even more studies and experiments are being preformed for that very reason. The research report "Comfortably Numb" highlights the reality of this possible significant influence on the mind by measuring the how media exposure to violence effect our sympathy and ability to help others in need. This singular experience featuring two study's show hard core evidence of the existence of the correlation between media featured violence and negative behavioral changes. Their studies differentiated in mediums but both experiments came to very similar conclusions that featured violence reduces our ability to offer help to those in pain. People who had only witnessed violence in a movie or who had just play 20 minutes of a violent video game took a significantly longer time to help another in need than those who had not. If this can be said about movie and videogame violence, then how can we ignore the affects of the omnipresent media and the constant violent imagery it produces?

Another article of the scientific nature, written by a group of professors and researchers at Wake Forest and Iowa University and titled Media Violence and Social Neuroscience, also focuses on the arguments that surround this topic of violence in the media. They use historic studies and experiments to first introduce this debate and then go into new and up and coming technologies of the time. Technologies that have not only helped better study this correlation but also the connection between behaviors and attitudes. They even go as far as to mention recent studies that show how violence stimulates and arouses the brain. Brain stimulations caused by violence is curial to understanding how the media is scientifically and physically effecting people today. Thanks to these studies and the research done to learn more about violence in medias and its influencing characteristics, we now have a better understanding of the active brain stimulation it possesses. How it does in fact increase the possibility of aggressive behavior and differences in attitudes of people. 

A recent study was done in 2010 to better understand how watching violent imagery on television, including news medias and video games, lead to desensitized teens and adolescents with blunted emotional responses and possibly aggressive behaviors. Scientists at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders in Bethesda, Maryland asked a selection of boys, ages raging from 14-17, to characterize and rate a grouping of video clips and tapes from the media featuring street fights, stadium brawls and other acts of violence. This experiment resulted in two very significant findings, first the more clips that played the less bothers or effected each subject was. Data gather from their brain activity showed significant hindrance in the lateral orbital cortex movement or area of the brain were information is gathered and emotional responses are elicited. Second the research also found that subjects that had been exposed to the most video violence, new media and videogames, showed the greatest desensitization. Some subjects seemed to even posses the characteristic to become accepting of violence. Over all their results show that violence not only effects the brain by stimulation or arousal, it also significantly influences behaviors of teens and and adolescents. 

What do the Opponents say?

With every theory and hypothesis comes powerful oppositions, and the topic of violence in the media and its affects on society have been a very popular topic for debate. A lot of these opponents focus on the topic of censorship and our freedom of speech. How if we were to act on these theorizes of correlation, we would be introducing an entirely new problem into our society. The author of the review Censorship and Media Violence focuses her article on disproving Kevin Saunder's book Violence as Obscenity, by discussing the implication of passing said censorship laws. The author includes a lot of emotional and historical evidence to influence her readers and support this claim. She even attempts to appeal to the practical side of our thinking asking questions like the reality of current restrictions on violent imagery such as the success of TV parental controls, which has not been great. The author of this article then attempts to draw on our fear of censorship in a news and media setting to elicit an emotional response in favor of her topic. Finally, her historical examples regarding Rome and their attempts at free speech in ancient times is very interesting but off topic, distracting and not very effective in proving her main claim, which is disproving Saunders. Over all she makes a good point to consider, acting on this correlation does bring up interesting questions about freedom of speech and censorship. Can we fix the problem by changing our first amendment rights or our right to know? Is it worth it if it helps benefit society as a whole? Do we have enough information to act on this? 

In 2012 MSNBC commented on this debate by interviewing Dr. Stanton Samenow, forensic phycologist. He commented that logically, there cannot be a definitive correlation between violence in the media and violence and or negative behaviors. That only inherently violent people are attracted to violent medias and they are the ones acting out, not society as a whole. Although the Dr. makes an interesting point, the stats provide by the broadcasters and the American Psychology Associations would suggest other wise. They state that 8,000 murders are seen on TV by kids by the time they turn 11 and by the time they are 18, an average child would of seen over 200,000 violence acts. Further more, of those violent acts 75% are seen with out remorse, criticism or risk of penalty. So logically it is safe to say that the modern child is in some way influences or affected by these imageries. The doctor who so avidly disagrees with this correlation even recognizes an emerging culture of violence in various societies throughout the world. Society and cultures that do not interpret violence and aggression as a negative and damaging act. 

Final thoughts

However, the question of censorship still remains. Is it worth restricting our basic human rights to speak freely and view what ever we wish? Do we have enough evidence to propose such a change? Australian journalist, Hugh Mackay argues that behaviors and attitudes are too complicated to completely understand and the real problem is not how violence affects them but how the government and society is trying to restrict our access to information. This author also goes as far as to make conspiracy theories about "another manifestations of new puritanism" that is beginning to emerging in our culture. His claims may be diluted and confusing but his point about our lack of evidence is notable. Although we do have a significant amount of tangible, scientific evidence that suggests in favor of this correlation, I do agree that we would need even more if we were to implement certain laws that may restrict citizens from viewership of said violence. However, I do think that the amount of evidence that is available is enough to convince anyone that this issue needs to at least be recognize. Making violence less serious and more normal, allows people to accept it more easily, promotes aggression in people as well as decreases our basic nature to feel sympathy. I strongly suggest we recognize the reality of this issue because if we don't, we may be jeopardizing the future of humanity as we know it. 

. 

Work Cited 

Anjali Monteiro. Culture, Health & Sexuality 7.4 (2005): 408 -- 410. Web. 3 April. 2016.

Bok, Sissela. "Censorship and Media Violence". Michigan Law Review 95.6 (1997): 2160 -- 2166. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Bushman, Brad J., and Craig A. Anderson. "Comfortably Numb: Desensitizing Effects of Violent Media on Helping Others". Psychological Science 20.3 (2009): 273 -- 277. Web. 8. Feb. 2016. 

Carmen Chai. "Violent TV shows can blunt emotion; Spurs Aggression in teens: study". Post media News. Lexis Nexis (2010). Web. 2 April. 2016.

Carnagey, Nicholas L., Craig A. Anderson, and Bruce D. Bartholow. "Media Violence and Social Neuroscience: New Questions and New Opportunities". Current Directions in Psychological Science 16.4 (2007): 178 -- 182. Web. 3 Feb. 2016.

"Has America Become Desensitized to Violence." MSNBC. New York City. 18 Dec. 2012. Web. You Tube. 27 Feb. 2016. 

Hugh Mackay. "Attack on the Media Misses Real Problem". The Weekend Australian. Lexis Nexis Academic (1996). Web. 25. March. 2016.

Joe Woodard. "Attack on the Senses: Has desensitization to violence made us unable to feel empathy?". Calgary Herald. Lexis Nexis Academic (2001). Web. 2 April. 2016. 

Phillips, David P.. "The Impact of Mass Media Violence on U.S. Homicides". American Sociological Review 48.4 (1983): 560 -- 568. Web. 3. April. 2016.

Pozios, Vasilis K., Praveen R. Kambam, and H. Eric Bender. "Does Media Violence Lead to the Real Thing?" The New York Times. The New York Times, Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

"Television and Video Violence." Psychology: Science in Action. American Psychological Association, Nov. 2013. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. 

William Bird. "The Media Inadvertently Promotes Violence". Mail & Guardian. Lexis Nexis Academic (2013). Web. 15 March. 2016. 
