There are many problems in linking media violence with violence in society. First, only a small percent of those who watch violence are responsible for violent acts. Most of us are seemingly unaffected by it. Even though we can’t establish a simple, direct, cause and effect relationship between media violence and violence in our society, we can draw some conclusions from the data. Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place.
An extensive study in five Massachusetts communities found a relationship between viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault, violence and alcohol use. Studies also show that media violence has a desensitizing effect on viewers. As a result, specific levels of violence becomes more acceptable over time. It then takes more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) an audience. History gives us many examples. To cite just one, the Roman Circuses started out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But in an effort to excite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things, they then demanded more and more, until shows eventually became extremely grotesque and barbarian and hundreds, if not thousands, of people died in the process of providing “entertainment.” Next, media violence is typically unrealistic, simplistic, glorified and even presented as humorous.
The Term Paper on Mass Media Audience in Malaysia
... and reception. Media audiences are studied by academics in media audience studies. Audience theory also offers scholarly insight into audiences in general. Early research into media audiences was dominated ... is because, the technology is always developed. Most people do not believe that media violence has had any a negative effect on them. ...
The “bang, bang, you’re dead” sanitized scenario that we so often see on TV or in films communicates nothing of the reality of death or dying. It is only when we see death first-hand or have a loved one killed that we realize that death in film or on TV bears little resemblance to what we experience in real life. The sound of gunshots on TV and in films is so different from real gunshots that people often fail to recognize them in real life. Next, the consequences of killing, especially by the “good guys,” are seldom shown. Violence and killing are commonly depicted as a ready and even acceptable solution to problems. To put it simplistically, problems are solved when the “bad guys” are all dead. The unrealistic element of TV and film violence seems to come as a surprise to some. A young gang member who was admitted to a New York ER after being shot seemed amazed to find that getting shot was not only traumatic but excruciatingly painful. He was blaming the doctors and nurses for his pain, since on TV getting shot didn’t seem to be all that big of a deal.
We’ve all heard about the copycat crimes and movie inspired violence where a mentally disturbed individual sees a violent act on TV or in film and then acts it out in real life. But we now know that even for normal people violence in film or on TV is associated with a number of negative personal and social traits. We also have clear indications that the long-term effects of this exposure will lead to increasingly-undesirable social consequences. In looking over the evidence of the increasing levels of film and TV violence it is taking to satisfy views, and its effects on society, David Puttnam, a highly successful film director, simply observed, “We are destroying ourselves.” As TV producers the problem is in dealing with the apparent conflict between the negative effects of TV violence and positive program ratings. So what’s the answer?
The Essay on Understanding Film Shane Gladstone
In the year 1990 Warner Bros released a motion picture titled Goodfellas. Directed by Martin Scorsese, the narratives main strand dealt with the issue of a misguided youth enjoying his rites of passage from within the inner sanctum of the Italian gangland of the early sixties New York. The narrative continues in a narrated biographical form, following the protagonist through highs and lows before ...
First, we have to take a look at how violence is used. Eliminating all violence from the media is not in keeping with the reality of the human condition. Violence has always been with us and probably always will be. But the 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders over 18 years is clearly unrealistic and exploitative. Violence is being used as a superficial way of grabbing and holding (and exploiting) an audience. Many TV and film producers have elected to “take a higher road” and not rely on gratuitous violence to capture and hold an audience. This route typically results in more accolades for their work and more personal respect from the creative community. One of the most successful television series in history, Star Trek, was created, produced and (largely) written by Gene Roddenberry, whose primary message was peaceful coexistence. The series started in 1966 and its various incarnations continue today. The series has won scores of humanitarian awards. Colleges have even offered English courses that focus on the series.
Anyone who has followed Star Trek knows that (under Roddenberry) gratuitous violence was never necessary. We can also point to scores of noteworthy films over the decades that have achieved great distinction without having to depend on violence. But the higher road is often the more difficult one. It takes talent to engage an audience through the strength of your storytelling and production expertise. In the end, Gene Roddenberry was proud of the message he delivered week after week to millions of people around the world. Violence on the TV does not need to be, in order to have entertainment.
