America has become the most violent nation in the industrialized world. The many violent images seen in movies and on television on a daily basis, though not the only cause, are a strong contributing factor.
There are those that feel the point-of-view from which the audience views the violence varies directly with the way the scene affects them. A film’s perspective determines the audience’s reaction. In “slasher” films, for example, the point of view shifts between the attacker and the victim. So the audience feels the terror of the victim and the lust of the victimizer. If the viewer shares the experience with the victim they feel helplessness, fear, and also the rage that comes with being attacked. However, when the viewer is allowed to share the experience of the attacker the perspective is different, they get the sense of power and being in control.
In many sexual assault scenes the camera focuses on the victim’s face, which puts the viewer in the position of the rapist. What is of concern is that many Americans want to identify with the powerful attacker. It can be argued whether or not this is a direct cause of imitative violence but it, with out a doubt, offers viewers the vicarious experience of violence related to sex. (Censorship, 1985)
Television does not make people commit crimes, but it provides the ideas, social sanction, and often the instruction that encourages anti-social behavior according to Madeline Levine, psychologist. (Viewing Violence, 1996)
The Term Paper on Women As Victims Of Violence
Popular images of women as victims in violent crime have probably strayed far from reality. Rather than a mature women attacked by strangers in alley ways, the average female victim is young (often a child), poor, and a passing aquaintance of the attacker. The perpetrator is most likely an older male of the same race, with a past history of violence toward others. Further, women are not the most ...
Dr. Jib Fowles, a researcher from the University of Houston would disagree. He testified to the U.S. Congress that TV violence was a good way to relieve tension. Dr. Radecki strongly disagreed saying that “Fowles has never done a single psychological or aggression research study in his life…No aggression researcher alive today supports the long-disproved catharsis theory.” (Censorship, 1985)
One of hundreds of studies done on this topic was The National Television Violence Study; a three-year research project funded by the National Cable Television Association issued in 1996. The study involved efforts from media scholars from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill among other schools. The study found that violence is often presented in ways that could harm viewers. Perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes. This should be of great concern because when violence is presented without punishment, and oftentimes with rewards, viewers are more likely to learn that violence is successful. In addition to the perpetrators going unpunished, in 47% of violent scenes no harm is actually shown to the victim. In 58% of scenes no pain is shown. In only 16% of programs that portray violence the long-term negative affects such as psychological, financial, and emotional harm are shown. There are programs that show violence but emphasize an anti-violence theme by condemning the violence. Sadly these are a rarity, only accounting for 4% of all the violent programs on television. (Media Violence, 1999)
Although it’s not likely for people to be lured into a life of violence by seeing a body on TV or a barroom fight, the context of the violence is important. When violence seems justified it is more likely to be imitated, and look at how much of the violence we see on television seems justified and for a good cause. Many programs draw viewers in and make them ‘see the side’ of the criminal. This can have negative affects because research shows that the more we identify and empathize with a character the more likely we are to imitate the character. Not all movies get you to empathize with the bad guy but they often portray him as a powerful and very often rich. Imitating people who are powerful gives us the illusion of borrowing some of their power. Many popular movies carry messages that violence is the ‘manly’ solution to problems. This is evident in our society were we can pick up the newspaper and read of a man killing another man for ‘dissing’, or disrespecting, him. Frequently acts of violence are portrayed as rewarding, monetarily or otherwise. When violence is portrayed as emotionally satisfying, important to masculinity, or as an acceptable way of resolving conflicts what message kind of message is that sending?
The Term Paper on Positive Effects Of Television On Young Children
... by the child. So what are the positive effects of television on children? According the Disney study in ... most of the time TV violence begs for imitation because violence is demonstrated and promoted as ... with the young viewers on the other side of the screen. Children take these and ... more affected by them than adults, children quickly learn the ability to distinguish between a television programme ...
The American Psychological Association estimates an average American child will see 8,000 murders on television before finishing elementary school. Researchers for the UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report termed the action the most popular children’s show’s (such as Power Ranger’s and X-Men) as “Sinister Combat Violence” because they are obsessed primarily with violence. The whole story line leads to violence, and the main characters are always pre-occupied with using violence to get their ways. How does this affect children? The answer to that question has change over the years. In The Surgeon General’s report released in 1972, it was concluded that for children already predisposed to aggression, there was a casual affect from television violence. In 1982 a report from the National Institute of Mental Health found that TV violence affects all children, not just those predisposed to aggressive behavior. The same report concluded that the evidence that TV violence has a harmful affect on normal viewers of all ages was “overwhelming”.
The U.S. Department of Justice report in 1983 concluded that virtually 100% of aggression researchers agree that there is a cause-effect relationship between the consumption of entertainment violence and an increased tendency towards anger and violence in viewers. (Censorship, 1985) The American public is split on their opinion. The poll, “Violence in the media should be regulated”, was conducted May of 1999 by Keating Holland of CNN. When 1,014 adult Americans where asked, How much of the blame should be put on television and movies for violence, 31% replied a great deal, 34% replied some, 8% said only a little, and 26% said no blame should be put on them.
The Essay on Censorship Of Television Children Media Behavior
On one hand parents argue that violence on television causes aggression in their children, on the other hand, media figures, professionals, and figures of authority say that there is no proof that television influences children. There have been more than a thousand papers published on the effects of media on behavior. There have been studies in many countries of the world. Generally, the evidence ...
The National Coalition on Television Violence (NCTV) was formed to reduce the depiction of violence on television and in other mass media.
Dr. Radecki, NCTV’s chairman, found that at one Catholic high school he spoke at, 75% of the student body has seen Friday the 13th, and 20% had seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Both movies that have been proven to cause significant increase in the willingness to rape women in normal collage males. (Censorship, 1985)
The obvious question to ask is, if violent programming has such negative affects, why does it continue to flood the airways? One factor, of course, is making money. During the 1980’s television was deregulated and toy manufactures jumped at the opportunity to create violent cartoons that advertised their toys. From 1983 to 1986 war toy sales increased by 600 percent. Violence sells and it is universally understood so producers will keep producing violent programs for both children and adults. (Media/ Society, 1997)
Fiske sheds a different light on the reason for the popularity of violence than the common belief that we like to see violence because we, as humans, are naturally aggressive. He says that violence is popular because of its metaphorical connection to class or social conflict. In the United States violence on television is more frequent and the gap between the social classes is bigger than in countries such as Britain where welfare and taxation systems mitigate some of the social and class differences. Fiske is not blaming social systems for the violence on TV, but he points out that it is popular because its relevance to people that live where resources are not evenly distributed. Violence is a representation of social domination and subordination and the resistance to that subordination. The heroes that society makes popular are the ones that best embody their dominant values. Victims are those that have the values or characteristics that are deviant from the norms of society. (Understanding Popular Culture, 1989)
The Essay on Television Violence And Its Effects On Children
Often thought of as one of the most fascinating inventions of the Twentieth Century, television has undoubtedly become a major part of our lives, providing us with entertainment and information. However, much of what is on the television today involves violence. Why? Because viewers want to see action and excitement, which usually involves something being blown up, or someone being shot. The only ...
Society is sometimes forced to save individuals from themselves. One analogy given at a two-day hearing on sex and violence in the media paralleled entertainment violence and cigarettes. Smoking has been proven to damage health, and the government has required the tobacco companies to warn people of the dangers. The warnings that have been made against violent programming have for some reason not gotten the same publicity and are not required by the government. It is estimated that the average television viewer will see 2000 advertisements each year promoting entertainment violence, but will almost never hear the warning that the Surgeon General has determined that TV violence is unconsciously harmful to normal children and normal adult viewers. (Censorship, 1985)
Most researchers agree that a main contributing factor for the continuing increase in violence among young people is the incessant glamorization of violence in media. The industry has denied, ignored, and misrepresented these findings. Dr. Levine says brings up the valid point of children being imitators from their earliest months. They are not selective in what they imitate. There have been countless cases of deaths from young people acting out what they see on television and in movies. From imitating real things seen on the news, such as the spree of suicides following Kurt Cobain’s widely publicized suicide, to the slew of violent incidences that seem to have been mimicked from the 1995 movie Money Train. The once highly controversial cartoon Beavis and Butt-head was blamed for a five year old boy killing his two-year-old sister when he set his home on fire. There were several separate deaths involving young boys imitating a scene from the movie Deer Hunter by playing Russian Roulette. Another young boy was killed and several of his friends injured when they imitating a scene from the movie Program. The boys lay along the center divider of a busy road to prove their courage. (Viewing Violence, 1996)
Though these cases are fairly rare, they seem to be happening with more frequency. There are researchers who do not agree that the television shows and movies a cause people act violently. Such as Harvard psychiatrist Robert Coles, he feels images of violence do not harm a child. He says that sometimes they actually help “sort matters out, stop and think about what is true and what is not by any means true”, the child “doesn’t forget what he’s learned in school, learned at home, from hearing people talk in his family and his neighborhood.”(Media Violence, 1999)
The Essay on Lights Camera Violence Media People Women
Lights, Camera, Violence! "Packed with nonstop action and adventure!" We hear this quote all the time when previewing movie trailers. It seems all they show on these trailers are the violent scenes, for example, the blowing up of police cars, the gunfights, and sometimes even worse than that. Why does this interest us? I believe it is because happiness and tranquility does not grasp the attention ...
America is a culture that glorifies violence, neglects our social problems, and puts vengeful, ruthless characters up on a pedestal. If we truly want a society of less aggressive, more compassionate children, we need to create more suitable role models for them.
Bibliography
Bibliography
Croteau, David and William Hoynes. 1997. Media/Society: Industries, . Images, and Audiences. London: Pine Forge Press.
Dudley, William,ed. 1999. Media Violence: Opposing Viewpoints. San . Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Fiske, John. 1989. Understanding Popular Culture. New York: Routledge.
Holland, Keating. 1999. “Violence in the Media Should be Regulated.” . CNN Poll. http://www.ultranet.com/crowleyn/ccnnpoll.html
Levine, Madeline. 1996. Viewing Violence. New York: Double Day.
O’Neill, Terry. 1985. Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. St. Paul, MO:
Green Haven Press, Inc.
University of California at Los Angeles. Television Monitoring Report. . http://www.cep.org/tvviolence.html
