The Controversial Issue Of Violence In The Media

In the end, media violence, like all important things in life, has a middle ground. Neither side is completely right, nor is either side completely wrong. It is all a matter of proper usage and  proper exposure to children. Now I won't tell parents how to do their job. It isn't my business to tell them how to raise their child. But I will say that it is important to note that every child is different. One may be mature enough to understand that the actions in a certain movie or game are not good life choices in real life, and others may be be extremely immature and unable to understand how to act in the real world. But, again there is a middle ground. Do you see where I am going? This isn't a matter of,  “it is bad.” or, “it is good.” but a matter of “how do we use this properly?” It is a lot like cars in that sense. We all know cars are good, but does the number of car crashes that happen daily make it bad? No, of course not! It is all about adapting how we use cars to prevent crashes. Tying media to shootings and abuse is also absurd. Since many sane people intake tons of media daily. And most all of those people aren't murderers. Probably a ratio of about 1000 murderers, to 7 billion okay-ish people. Bottom line, media violence and real world violence are to separate things. Should we let kids watch certain things? Probably not. But that is up to the parent, not the government to make laws against it. Media violence almost always comes down to the parents. Maybe perhaps

In America, violence has always been an integral part of national culture. Crime and bloodshed, euphemized through use of “action” (this has a source) plots, are glorified both on and off screen. The more disturbing the act of violence, the more enthralled the public seems. The most prolific of crimes, those committed by infamous serial killers, inspire the most attention. As said by Jeff Lindsay, creator of the book series that inspired the wildly-popular television program, Dexter, “We’re sickened and disgusted, but we need to know. And the more we know about the scene, the more we really are horrified” (“Sympathy for the Devils”). Violence, especially committed by this special class of felons, is enthralling. News reports play a role in this strange attraction, as it is through the news that people even have knowledge of such killers, but the evolution in the “serial killer genre” (Lindsay, “Sympathy for the Devils”) of film and television helps to desensitize people to the gruesome murders that are committed. This begs the question of whether this disturbing trend should be stopped, lest the American “culture of violence” (this has a source) continues to grow stronger. Through news reports, film, and television, criminals are constantly romanticized through use of sympathetic characterization and gratuitous depictions of their crimes, which lends to peoples’ incr

Arguments about the excess of violence in movies often happen between parents and adults. Some people believe it has a major affected on children but others believe it has no effect on them at all. The two arguments provided in the article state their points of view while providing evidence that backs themselves up. Overall there is one argument that is better-supported by facts and more persuasive which is the Point argument. The point article argues "Violence in Hollywood movies has become excessive and is putting our youth and our entire society at risk for violent behaviors"(Point 1).

From 2000 to 2013 there were a total of 160 active shooter incidents and that number is increasing every year. The main reason shootings have become so prominent is because the media has oversaturated the news with pictures of the shooter, their life stories, and their histories of mental illness. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Park Deitz has repeatedly told the media to localize mass shootings to the area effected because the more they fan the flames across the nation of potential shooters, the greater likelihood that another mass shooting will occur in the following weeks (“Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe 25/03/09”). If the media continues to overflow the minds of their viewers with nothing but 24/7 coverage of mass shooters, then we are increasing the likelihood of someone committing such an atrocity. We need to stop the media from extensively covering these stories of men and woman shooting up the public in order to keep the peace.

Television and video games are favorite ways teenagers spend their leisure hours. Parents and teens themselves have wondered about their effects because of numerous concerns raised with regards to the negative influences that these form of entertainment bring. Many of today’s children grow up with a television at home or even in their own rooms and there have been studies dedicated to the analysis of their impact of a young child growing up to adolescence. Young children are heavily influenced by television and video games, many of which are educational. While there are fun educational shows and games that benefit educational

"Mainstream media have never liked video games, but it's just getting silly lately," said Dr Vance. A lot of people like using the Aaron Alexis story as “proof” that videogames cause violence. Aaron Alexis was a sailor in the navy, and had great enthusiasm for the video game “Call Of Duty”. On September 16th, 2013, he started to shoot at innocent people inside the Washington Navy Yard, killing 12 people. The media likes to try and blame his liking of “Call Of Duty” for his actions, but Aaron had actually been suffering from a mental illness which is more likely the actual reasoning for his actions (Claims that 'video). Before his actions at the navy yard, he had reported hearing voices in his head telling him

“When I was at church they taught me something else/ If you preach hate at the service those words aren't anointed/ That holy water that you soak in has been poisoned/ When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless/ Rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen/ I might not be the same, but that's not important/

Violence in the media tends to be compelling to people across America. The average American has seen 200,000 acts of violence, including 40,000 murders, on television by age eighteen. Often, the media plays a pivotal role in the way violence is portrayed to citizens. The media can decide which pieces of information to include or expunge from a broadcast. People soak up the incidents that are happening in other neighborhoods across the United States because it does not affect them personally. Violence shown on television can often be manipulated to fit one side of the story, and is tolerated by the public because emotional detachment is simpler when the violence occurs halfway across America from one’s home.

In the media today, one of the common images we tend to bear witness to is how much media coverage there is of stories revolving around crime, especially in the United States. Crime can be defined as an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited (Dictonary.com). Crime has begun to appear in our media a lot more than it used to in the past, causing it to become something that has become a prominent theme in our society. In recent news, two teenagers were convicted of first-degree murder following a fatal shooting which took the life of a US congress member’s grandson, all over a pair of gym shoes (Dan Good). The overall outcome of this shooting has left people wondering exactly what was going through their heads at the time and what could have caused these teenagers to make the ultimate decision that they did. By using Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx the goal of this paper is to use these three theorist and their theories to get an understanding behind what these two teenagers might have been thinking at the time of committing the crime. These theoriest will better yet give an understanding of the factors that could have influenced their ultimate decision to commit the crime.

It has been said that violence in the real world becomes “much more acceptable after you 've seen infinitely greater violence on the screen" (Maslin 1982). Seeking to test that hypothesis, researchers have sought to find how long it takes for individuals to become desensitized to violence in television. As intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all crime, researchers have sought to understand the causes behind the violence. Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod operationalized violent television exposure by using five slasher films that were found to directly contain violence against women. The men in the study were tested before and after each film on their perceptions and reactions to the on-screen violence. It was found that desensitization increased as exposure to the films increased. After the film viewing, the participants were asked to watch a criminal trial where the victim was a domestic violence women. After hearing the case, the men who had watched the slasher films did not express as much sympathy towards the victim as the men who had not seen the film.

Media violence, in some cases, can be a real issue in today 's society. However, we can not blame all of the reality violence on media portrayals. Media Violence is just as it sounds, the art of violence through media. (1)The official definition of media violence is visual portrayals of acts of physical aggression by one human or human-like character against another. As there are many things that can promote violence in the world we live in today, this could be part of the reason that what happens, happens. However, There are many things that happen on our world that can, or do spark off reason as to why we live in such a violent place. Media violence has increased by a certain amount since the 1960’s, and shows no signs of slowing down. I personally have two different views on if media violence is the reason that violence occurs so often in real life today. My first view on this is that no, I do not think this is the ultimate reason violence is so common in today 's society. I do not think that this is so, because with the population of people that are exposed to this media violence, I feel like violence would be yet even much more common than it already is. However, there are always those crazy people who do get a wild hair from some t.v. show they enjoy, or some video game they play, that promotes violence, causing them to learn from it, and acquire a violent behavior, which is what I ultimately believe is the case for most people.

In this essay I will be analysing whether less visual violence within the media would mean less violence on the streets. Firstly, I will be questioning whether there is a connection between the viewing of media violence and actual acting upon it. To do this I will analyse the usefulness of the different methods used to approach such as complex issue. To illustrate this I will use examples of different media forms that seem to have been a catalyst for acts of violence. I will then attempt to come to a conclusion on whether less media violence could mean less acts of violence.

     “Someone just got shoot on the streets due to the violence in the media.” That is what some people are saying that violence in the media is the cause of that. The controversy of the effects that violence has on people has been going on for a long time. This paper is going to prove both sides of the controversy and let one decide which side is right.

In today’s world, there is an endless amount of information available to people everywhere around the globe. Mass media is definitely shaping our world, whether it is in a positive way or a negative way. Television and the radio waves provide us with hours of entertainment. The emergence of the Internet allows us to access thousands of pages of information within the reach our very own fingertips. But with the convenience of all this information comes along a certain level of responsibility. As a society, we Americans must decide what is appropriate information and entertainment for the masses to access and enjoy. But does today’s society give too much leeway in what it thinks as “appropriate?” Does increased

Hollywood is known as the home of television shows and movies, but is Hollywood getting too violent? As emphasized in the Studysync Point and Counterpoint articles, filmmakers have been adding violence to movies and productions to make the film more enjoyable for viewers, creating a more entertaining activity. The article Impact of Media Use on Children and Youth addresses the fact that movies offer an alternative to violent behaviors, and what kind of parent would let their child see a violent or terrifying movie without the proper age requirements? Many people continue to believe that violence in films influences people’s behavior, when really, this isn’t the case. Violence shouldn’t be a limitation for filmmakers because parents can easily control exposure to movie violence, and movies are good activities to prevent violence in children and adolescents.