Mass-media has been acused along the time that drives people towards a large set of activities and behaviours which otherwise wouldn’t have been considered and towards acepting beliefs, values and idea which otherwise wouldn’t have suported.
Since the wide spread of the televised image, its impact on the audience has been thoroughly studied especially on children and youth. Reserchers have emphasized the negative aspects, underlining the fact that mass-media causes antisocial and psichological activities defined and clasified as „problems” or „threats” of „antisocial”, „damaging” or „dangerous” nature.
Certain groups of population have been identified as being especially vulnerable to such efects, for example children, young people and persons with low education.
The website
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm presents a few results of research studies regarding the effects of media violence, especially on children.
The most important conclusion of these studies is that the exposure of children to programs that promote violence determines long term aggressive behaviors in their evolution as social entities.
Starting from the article "Research on the Effects of Media Violence" published on the website, I tried to find out explanations regarding the media aggressivity on children using the field of psycho-sociology.
During the childhood, every individual is easy to influence, the process of learning being made by imitating other people. Thus, the violence in mass-media influences the behavior of children in an indirect way, through the impact it has on learning values and attitudes. Maybe not all the children become violent but they will tolerate easily the violent behavior of others.
Having worked at a TV station in Romania for 4 years, I had the chance to monitor thousand of mesages from viewers regarding the content of the TV shows. Many mesages reflected the fear of the public that the TV might transform in a „school of crime and delinquency”. Young people have the tendency to reproduce the behavior models seen on TV, which in many cases are in contradiction with the normal socio-moral values. Mass-media does not promote in a suficient way the moral standards accepted in the society, or it presents distorted versions of these norms. This only produces aditional confusion regarding the aceptable norms in the society.
I consider that the frequency of violence showing as a common fact on TV allows for unnoticed, disimulated learnig of sofisticated agresivity techniques by the viewers. The media violence afects the cognitive, axiologic and afective of the psychic, a result of presenting the violent world as a normal one. In the same time, media violence de-sensitizes the receivers (viewers) with respect to the victims.
The psycho-social traits, the atitudes and opinions of the individuals, the socio-cultural context, reference gropus, the weakening of the social control and the economical situation determines the way the media violence is perceived.
According to the Research on the Effects of Media Violence article I bring to your attention, family has an importnat role in order to diminish the negative impact of media on the children. The nocive character of the messages is corelated with existing situations in family and society, situations which can not be ignored or omited. The negative influences of mass-media are exerted especially in unstable relations between individuals and their environment, in situation of social dezintegration, of uncertain normative and value, of an exacerbated spocial tensions and conflicts, of insecurity, poverty and unfulfilled expectations, of frusttration and marginalization.
Conjugating these messages with the mediatic mesage increases the negative impact of mass-media on violence. Klapper (1960) is a supporter of the theory which presents mass-media aggresivity as an enhancing factor of innate agressivity of individuals. He supports the idea that mass-media violence does not directly contribute to the increase in aggresivity but activates the existing inclination of the individual.
The perception of the aggresive message varies from one individual to the other, in function of the measure in which norms and cultural values, social roles and personal characteristics are determined for the violent behaviour. Thus, violent images on the screen can enhance the norms established in the violent individual. In the same time, the non-violent person will select the aggresive images and will perceive only the messages that fit his/her non-violent norms. According to this theory, violent broadcasts and shows act upon the behavior of unbalanced, unstable and less socially integrated individuals.
I consider that it is dificult to establish a direct causal and incontestable relation between the violent behavior and mass-media but a thing is for sure, that mass-media represents a promoting factor of this behavior.
This thing is more opbvious when it is about young people. Even from the beginning of the life, mass-media plays a fundamental role in the genesis of conceptions, in the development of ideas, in structuring the perceptions and thoughts and along his/her development, the child has the tendency to separate herself from the values and norms transmitted by the family and to become more receptive to the values promoted and presented in mass-media. We cannot say that television or mass-media in general invent the violence. They only put it on the stage and help in presenting it in the houses of the individuals, who receive and assimilate it according to their own ste of values and norms.
I conclude by supporting the idea that, despite the idea that mass-media is capable of inciting to violence, they also have the potential to prevent violent behaviour. This is because mass-media plays a primordial role in informing the individual and it has the potential to employ the attention of the public to the complex aspects of violence. By sensitizing the viewers to the problems related to violence, mass-media has the role of stimulating the public to become a more sofisticated consumer of information and to benefit of its educational potential.
I invite you to say your opinion regarding the impact of mass-media violence on the public and especially on the children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While reading this week articles on Violence I could not stop thinking about the behavior of my three nephews-ages 4, 8, and 10. I have seen on numerous occasions how petty arguments turn into violence. I am close to their mother and know how protective she is. The Simpson’s and Sponge Bob square pants are off limits, and they participate in sports constantly, which leave little time for TV. Than the question arises; where is the violence coming from? W. James Potter beats us over the head with his TV violence correlation. However, from what I have seen with my three nephews the TV is definitely ruled out of the equation.
Looking further into my family’s circumstances I have started to correlate genes with violence, rather than media. If the kids initial reaction is to raise his fists (no matter how young they are) than I believe that we are somehow programmed to be violent. Therefore, the cause falls strictly on nature, not nurture.
Does that mean that media has no impact on our youth? Not necessarily. The media does have an impact on the way kids are shaped, but not the impact that Potter implies. Potter himself mention that one of the first reactions that occurred during the raise of the TV age in the 50’s was theft. Viewers wanted to have the products they saw on TV, not buy grenade launchers and blow up the country. Potter mention that violence has jumped 60% in the past 50 years, yet he has forgot to mention the growth in both the population and ownership of weapons. Statistics can be easily skewed to create any graph or chart. However, one has to look a little further to understand whether the content is persuading or informing.
In conclusion, it is easy to blame the media; it is definitely easier to blame it rather than an actual physical organism. But we must understand that violence has been around since beginning of time. Roman’s cheered when Christian’s perished in the Coliseum; the crusades were among the most deadly battles, and the Nazi’s killed millions, all events occurred long before the media age was established.
I personally believe that violent video games, movies, television shows, etc. may cause people to be violent, but it all depends on that person. When I was younger I used to play video games like it was my life, games like "Street Fighter" and "Mortal Kombat." Granted those games weren't as violent as some today, but there still were battles.
Today video games allow players to choose which weapon to use (such as guns, grenades, knives, etc.) to kill enemies. Also, video games now have become very graphic, producing images that look very realistic and lifelike. For example, video games today contain characters with facial expressions and characters based on movie action heroes like James Bond. Are the media to blame for children being exposed to such violent forms of media? I don't think they are the only ones at fault, I think parents are to blame as well.
I think parents need to censor what their kids are watching and what they are playing. There are rating systems for video games, movies, and television shows for a reason and parents should look more closely at those ratings. Family life is a very important factor also. If a child is in a home whose parents don't care what they do, watch, or they are abused at home, they are more prone to exhibiting aggressive behavior. However, if a child is living in a stable home and the parents censor violent media (TV, movies, video games, etc.) then the child isn't likely to exhibit aggressive behavior.
"We learn by observing..." (p.76). This observing leads young children to imitate or act like the person they see in a video game or movie. Some characters in TV, movies, and video games, are portrayed in a way in which their audience may admire them and may want to be just like them. These characters may be portrayed as cool, smart, someone who gets girls, or as a hero, etc. According to Dr. Craig A. Anderson, "Identification with the aggressor increases imitation of the aggressor. In TV shows and movies there may be several characters with which an observer can identify..." (p.77).
In video games nowadays, the player identifies with one character; maybe because they are the best shooter, or good looking, etc. and that’s why they choose them. When the player chooses which character they want to be, they take on the identity of that character and since most video games are played alone, the player becomes more attached to this character. I don’t agree with the third sentence in “Lose the Hierarchies. The Issue is Individual Choice,” which says, “Video games definitely would not cause as much violent behavior as violent film or television…” I mean look at video games in arcades where they have guns and riffles and you have that gun in your hand shooting people or objects. Those games can be increasing the player’s attitude negatively towards guns and the person playing the game may go into another state of mind. Also, look at the Columbine High School shooting, those boys played the video game “Doom” and were big fans of the movie “The Matrix.”
I found it interesting in the "Media Violence and Children" reading (by Groebel) that boys are more interested in aggressive media heroes (characters who have a hero status), like "The Terminator", and consider them role models. In addition, according to W. James Potter, "...Boys pay more attention to violence." While girls, consider pop stars and musicians as role models. According to Potter, "...The more a person, especially a child, identifies with a character, the more likely the person will be influenced by that character's behavior," (p.32).
Post a Comment