Violence in the Media

Hussmann article about media violence increases the risk significantly that a viewer or game player will behave more violently in the short run and in the long run. The long term size of the effect of exposure to media violence behavior is about equivalent to 20 to 30. (L. Rowell Hussmann 2007). The article is credible because it is in a published HHS Public Access. This will be helpful for my easy paper because it is about the media violence effect and violent crime. People living in a free society must get used to inconvenience caused by having to see or hear speech that they may dislike or even hate. My educated , thoughtful society can live with more freedom the more its citizens take personal

Media violence’s history began in the 1950s when television became a mainstream media; TV networks sought a simple successful formula to increase their revenues. In present day “an average of 150 acts of violence and about 15 murders entertain us and our children every week, and that does not count cartoons and news” (Gerber, G. 1996). The average American child has viewed at least 40,000 murders and 200,000 violent acts, according to the research of TV-Turnoff Network research. The excess of violence on TV and the video game industry accompanied by the absence of parental love and involvement creates a dissident reality that can only increase the level of aggressiveness in children.

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

Living in a world full of crime and violence, people begin to wonder what the cause of the violence is and how it can then be prevented. Unfortunately, there is not a single root cause that can be found when people attempt to decipher why children are deciding to bring guns to school and murder their peers. Some may believe that it was influenced by being exposed to a hostile family, violent films, or gory video games. Although sometimes this might be the case, a lot of the time it is not as black and white, making this topic very difficult to analyze and understand. Both Jonathan L. Freedman in “Villain or Scapegoat? Media Violence and Aggression” and L Rowell Huesmann and Laramie D. Taylor in “The Role of Media Violence in Violent

Lastly the government should not be able to regulate media violence because it is protected by the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment. Violence in the media is nothing more than ideas from the people of society. Society, according to the First Amendment, is allowed to express what they feel freely and without opposition. Adults are still upset by the increasing amount of violence in the media although they have the choice whether or not to watch what they choose. If adults do not care to watch violence they can easily choose not to.

Whether it’s a story on the news or a drama at the theatre, violence has become a social norm in the media. Today, companies have significantly relied on the use of violence to ensure that their audiences are still motivated to watch. According to the Media Education Foundation, the level of violence on prime time television has increased 167% since 1998. Although there is a widespread belief that watching fictional violence causes people to become violent, the rise of violence on TV compared to real-world crime statistics over the past 20 years tells a different story.

The media is currently regulated according to voluntary industry established rating systems. Many critics state that these systems that are in place do not effectively inform guardians or prevent children from accessing violent content. In 2007, the United States government addressed that some regulations might be placed in order to protect children. Such regulations have yet to be seen but are being pushed (Gerdes81). Violent media is protected by the first amendment, which is why society is fine without the regulations. They would rather place the possible effects on children growing up rather than feel like their freedom of speech is being tampered with. As stated, “Naturally, debate over media violence stirs up strong emotions because it raises concern about the balance between public safety and freedom of speech” (Matter 1). In order to keep hold of our rights, society is not willing to regulate the amount of violent content that is presented in the media. Professionals such as doctors should also be more aware of the role that media is playing on the lives of their patients. It is crucial for them to be asking what devices that patients have at home and what they watch and play. The government realizes that they should place regulations, but it is a difficult situation for them due to the courts protecting violent speech under the first amendment. This is in order to help place some regulations and maintain a healthy amount of violence in the media that they are intaking (Beresein 1). Eighty-two percent of parents that allow their children to watch between two to four hours on a daily basis believe that violence in children's programming is concerning, and nine out of ten says that they are seeing a negative impact taking place in their children (Gerdes 82). Many counter this by saying that it is the parent's

In a world in which acts of heinous violence, murder or crude and shocking behavior seem to be a normal occurrence, it may lead one to wonder what has put society onto this slippery slope. How did this type of behavior come to be so acceptable and in some cases glorifiable? A careful study of society may lead to multi media as being the main cause in this changing of ideals. The modern world has become desensitized to the acts shown on television, movies, video games or printed in newspapers and magazines. Censorship must be employed if morals and decency are to be preserved.

Labaton, Stephen. “F.C.C. Moves to Restrict TV Violence.” 26 April 2007. www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/business/media/26fcc.html. Accessed 27 February 2017.

I don’t know if media violence contributes to the amount aggression in the world, but I think it definitely normalizes it. People are so used to seeing violence and aggression on and in the news that the news organizations have to hunt for a feel-good story so the whole broadcast isn’t all negative. Adults and young adults are typically able to control their aggression, but kids who grow up watching the news with their parents are learning that violence and aggression is normal, and no one will really only talk about it, instead of doing anything about it. When I was a kid, my family would watch the news together while having dinner. This was just after 9/11 happened, so all of the news coverage was over in Iraq and Afghanistan about how many

It is evident that tensions between truth and representation exist in all manner of situations. It can be argued that such tensions as represented through media are more influential than others.

Many parents go through the same cycle in regards to dealing with their children. Kids come home from a long day of school and want a distraction from all the knowledge they consumed that day. However, a parent does not always have the time or even the ability to entertain their kids, so while they remain in the kitchen finishing preparing dinner, their children sit on the couch and engage in video games. Obviously, each parent wants what is best for their child and worries about the effect of all these violent video games corrupt with shooting, punching, blood, gore, and of course, death. Which is exactly what leads them to this question. Researchers at Ohio State University asked parents, media researchers, pediatricians, and psychologists of their opinion on this matter and here is what they observed: 66

"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

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.

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