Information drives our modern society and in recent years' new technologies have significantly increased its dominance. (cut) In this day in age information is not only easy to find but omnipresent; on our phones, laptops, tablets or playing in the background of the television everything and everyone is accessible by just one click or tap. 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. (cut) Notable studies and experiments done by organizations like the American Psychological Association and many prestigious Universities will also attest to this analysis. They too support the existence of a correlation between negative behavior and exposure to violence seen in the media. Some of these negative behaviors may include, violence and aggression towards others, fear of the outside world, anti social behaviors and desensitization. One significant study even showed concrete evidence of a dramatic drop in people's "helping abilities" or sympathy to those in pain or in need of assistance (Bushman & Anderson pg.273). (cut) This society has subconsciously begun to normalize and standardize violence by it being less serious and less evident thereby making it harder to identify as a negative. If not addressed, this emerging culture of violence will eventually lead to a modern society of normalized violence, one that diminishes our ability practice impulse control and feel real sympathy.

Arguing for the Correlation

In 2013, the American Psychological Association wrote an article on the debate about violence in the media and the (cut)existence of its connection to negative human behaviors. They highlighted a selection of significant studies, past and present, to highlight the very true existence of this correlation (American Psychological Association). In the 1970s, Albert Bandura did an experiment on (cut) children's ability to imitate violence, aggression and desensitization (American Psychological Association). This study exhibited supporting evidence that children are highly susceptible to violent imagery and often imitate said actions when no consequences or changes are introduced to the setting (American Psychological Association). The New York Times produced an article in 2013, written by the forensic psychologists at Broadcast Thought, that comments on these detrimental occurrences which, in their opinions, have recently been significantly influenced by excessive violent imagery seen through the media (cut). Broadcast Thought's main objective, as an organization is to study the effects of all forms of the media on its viewers; TV, News, etc. These experts all agree that the violence depicted in the media does contribute to aggressive and desensitized shifts in behavior. They recognize that logically people experience violence in the media on a day to day basic and only a very small number actually become violent animals, but their opposing arguments do not address desensitization (Pozios). People may not immediately act violently or aggressively towards one another but over time they will become accustomed to witnessing such acts. So much so that violence soon becomes a normal aspect of society that these regular people can access directly through the news on all kinds of mediums. Violence then ceases to become a shocking issue and soon it will grow into an even more common occurrence. 

Another significant article published in 2013 by the news source Mail & Gaurdian, highlights how the media not only is rooted in violence but also shapes how we interpret and view the physical act of violence. He utilizes evidence from South Africa's history of social and political turmoil, how that was reported on, and 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 (Bird pg. 1-2). Subsequently the media took this particular violence, manipulated it and used it to create a characterization of said group. A characterization that was based on acts of violence which took a dramatic and negative shape in how people saw and interpreted these people. This author largely discusses the (cut) massive quantity of violence in the modern media and its impact on society, but he essentially claims that the media holds a greater power than violence itself (Bird pg. 3). The media shapes how cultures and societies interpret one another and that, in turn, is largely based on their interpretation of violence. Since violence itself is shaped by the media, then much can be said about the power and influence is had on millions of viewers. 

Reviewers, Cyntha Carter and C. Kay Weaver discuss the book Violence in the Media as well as reflects on its significant power and influence (data). 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 (Carter pg. 408). We are all too familiar with the terms "good guy" and "bad guy", especially when discussing conflict. This kind of casual labeling is really a systematic designation that is more than often very bias and one sided and usually benefiting one clear side (Carter pg.408). That, combined with the portrayal of a possibly personal threat to your everyday life are just some of the ways the media significantly manipulates its viewers (Carter pg.409). These one sided, systematic manipulations, that often marginalizes other smaller groups, have the power to justify violence. Logically, if something is seen as a necessity, a means to an end, or for some greater good we begin to justify said actions. Violence then becomes a defense mechanism that is vitally important to protect our 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 their devastations.  

What does the Science Say?

(moved)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. This only means that now acts of violence and aggression are omnipresent and exposure to these things are now effecting us in even stronger, sneakier ways. Scientists and researchers today are finding more and more examples of desensitization and negative behavioral changes as the grasp of the media expands, especially on children. 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 (Woodard). This can be applied to the media and how it exhibits and characterizes violence on an everyday basis. Children grow up not only accustomed to the explicit violence they see on the news but also desensitized to this world around them. An example of this unfortunate occurrence is discussed in this article as well, written right after 9/11 by Joe Woodard and published by the Calgary Herald. He examines a parent's absolute shock at he 15-year-old son's reaction to the newscast at this time of the tragedy. Eric, the son, seemed unmoved by the horror that was unfolding in front of his eyes and as the first twin tower fell, he only commented, "WOW, it actually stayed up for an hour -- it must have been really well built" (Woodard).  What shocked his mother the most was not his casual attitude but his apparent inability to feel real human empathy (cut)(Woodard). Maybe if her son was under the age of 8 we could argue that he did not yet understand the reality of these violent 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 by him as normal. This fully functioning, social and seemingly normal teenage boy could not recognize the tragedy of the collapsing tower. He was not able to see or understand this violence as something shocking or even completely abnormal. What was abnormal to him was the apparent strength of the tower not the fact that a 767 airliner full of human beings has just crashed into it. 

Since the invention of television, people (cut) have always been curious about how violence in the media, as well as others forms of medias, (cut) is affecting the human mind. A study review in 1983 by professor David Phillips of the University of California, San Diego reported since the 1950's over 2,500 studies and experiments have been administered to better understand and possibly prove this connection between violence in the media and negative human behavior. He also made the significant connection between the broadcasting violent events or news stories in the mid to late 1970s and spikes in the U.S suicide and homicide index (Philips). At one point there was 12.46% increase in U.S homicides following the highly publicized heavyweight prize fighting championship,1973-1978 (Philips). More recently, (cut) the research report titled "Comfortably Numb" reveals more on the reality of this significant influence on people by measuring how exposure to violence in the media effects our sympathy and ability to help others in need (Bushman). These two studies show tangible evidence of the existence of a correlation between video and media featured violence and negative behavioral changes (Bushman). 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 video clip, 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 (Bushman). The overall power, in influence, of featured violence through video is very evident in this experiment, but the tested and reported timeframe is even more significant. It only took subjects 20 minutes to show clear and long-lasting signs of desensitization. If that can be said about small time restricted exposure to violence, then what can this society expect from people who have been watching such acts on the news growing up? 

(move) In order to better understand how watching violent imagery on television, including news medias and video games, leads to desensitized teens and adolescents, who have grown up in this culture, a study was conducting in 2010 to highlight these results(Chai). 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 appeared to be (Chai). Data gather from their brain activity showed significant signs of interferences in the lateral orbital cortex movement or area of the brain were information is gathered and emotional responses are elicited (Chai). (cut) Some subjects seemed to even posses the characteristics of accepting the violence (Chai). Over all their results show that violence not only effects the brain by stimulation or arousal, it also significantly influences behaviors and attitudes of teens and and adolescents. These boys not only started to disregard the seriousness of violence but also begun to accept these actions. They had become so accustomed to excessive violent imagery, even the top, most absurd street fights seemed insignificant. Children who had clearly been exposed to the omnipresent violence in the media throughout their lives showed clear sings of blunted emotional responses and possibly aggressive behaviors. 

Another article of the scientific nature, written by a group of professors and researchers at Wake Forest and Iowa University, titled Media Violence and Social Neuroscience, also focuses on the argument of violence in the media and its significant influences (Carnagey). They use historic studies and experiments to first introduce this debate followed by a discussion on new and up and coming technologies of the time. Technologies that have not only helped better study this correlation but also better understand the connection between behaviors and attitudes (Carnegey). They even go as far as to mention recent studies that show how violence stimulates and arouses the brain (Carnegey). Brain stimulations caused by video violence is curial to understanding how the media is physically effecting people today. Thanks to these studies (cut) we now have a better understanding of the simulative qualities of video violence as well as the very possible and scientific connection between behaviors and attitudes. They highlight how violence in the media does in fact increase the possibility of aggressive behavior and differences in attitudes of people. Which has been a strong topic for oppositional arguments and debate in recent years (Mackay). 

What do the Opponents say?

With every theory (cut) 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 the subject of censorship and the 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 book review Censorship and Media Violence focuses her article on disproving Kevin Saunder's book Violence as Obscenity. The author includes a lot of emotional and historical evidence to influence her readers and support her own claims. She even attempts to appeal to logic by asking questions like the effectiveness of current restrictions on violent imagery(Bok). Such as the success of TV parental controls which have historically not been completely successful. The author of this article then attempts to draw on the reader's fear of censorship (cut) to elicit an emotional response in favor of her topic. Finally, her historical examples regarding Rome and their attempts at free speech, despite their significantly violent history is very interesting but off topic, distracting and not very effective in disproving Saunders (Book). Ultimately she makes a good point to consider, acting on this theory of correlation does bring up interesting questions about freedom of speech and censorship. Do we fix the problem by changing our first amendment rights or censoring the information the media and provide? Or does this introduce a new kind of problem in our society. Still, is censorship worth it if it helps benefit society as a whole? 

In 2012 MSNBC commented on this debate by interviewing Dr. Stanton Samenow, forensic phycologist. In this interview he plainly stated that logically, there cannot be a definitive correlation between violence in the media and violence and or negative behaviors in people (MSNBC). That only inherently violent people are attracted to violent medias and they are the ones acting out, not society as a whole (MSNBC). Although the Dr. makes an interesting point, the stats provided 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 (MSNBC). So logically (cut) 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 (MSNBC). Society and cultures that do not interpret violence and aggression as a negative and damaging act. This statement further discredits the doctor's argument because he recognizes the very real existence of societies with normalized violence.   

Final thoughts

 My research question states that violence in the media has a significant and detrimental effect on society. That constant exposure to such acts leads to negative behaviors such as aggression, fear, lack empathy and desensitization. This being true, the question of censorship still remains. Do we have enough evidence to propose such a change and if we do is restricting our First Amendment rights the right way to go? Australian journalist, Hugh Mackay argues that behaviors and attitudes are too complicated to understand let alone propose new legislation in favor of their correlation (Mackay). He states that the real problem is not how violence affects us 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 (Mackay pg.2). His claim 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 a definite 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 still maintain that the amount of evidence that is available is enough to convince anyone that this issue is present and gorwing . Making violence less serious and more normal, allows people to accept it more easily and promotes aggression, 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. Education will proceed this recognition and educating people on this issue is the first step to change. If current and future generations are aware of problems like excessive violence in the media and desensitization, then maybe we can raise even more questions regarding why the news is reported in just graphic ways and what are the reasons behind reporting on such horrible events. This will also open the door to even more scientific studies and discovered that could give more information on how the human mind works. Maybe then we can stop or even reverse the effects of this growing society of normalized violence.

