 |
| Created by A. Moon |
As I have struggled to find good sources that properly define arguments against the idea that media violence, I have compiled them all for one post. My searches of the internet suggest that this is the minority view, at least in regards to opinions easily available on the internet. Most sources I find advocate the idea that media violence can be influential in acts of aggression on a broad scale, as well as influential in acts of actual violence committed by a very small demographic. Few sources clearly outline arguments against this, but I have managed to find a few that give some good examples of some reasons against these theories, or even in favor of media violence.
In an article I found on the website media-awareness.ca, they list several interesting points briefly summarized here. Reading the full article will offer a better understanding of each point.
· Media violence is an artistic expression and a form of free speech that is being unfairly threatened with censorship, and that censoring will do nothing cure society’s ills.
· People can benefit from relieving their darker urges through entertainment violence.
· Scary things can be used to teach children life lessons, and violence can even have a good moral impact.
· Media violence is a distraction that keeps the real causes of society’s problems from being properly addressed (Media Violence Debates).
An academic paper published by Psychiatryonline.org offers a more research-based view against theories of media violence influence. Written by Cheryl K. Olson, one of the first points made is that common factors between school shooters is usually “Along with a male gender…a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, often with a documented history of extreme depressed feelings” (Olson).
Also, the author points out that violence in schools has not actually increased, but rather our awareness of the violence through national media has increased (Olson).
One of the most direct quotes made regarding this topic, however, gives details of a Secret Service review. “…one in eight perpetrators showed some interest in violent video games, one-forth in violent movies, and one-fourth in violent books, but there was no obvious pattern…thirty-seven percent expressed violent thought and imagery through poems, essays, and journal entries” (Olson).
Olson ended by suggesting that proving strong links to murder and violent media would be too difficult as one is common while the other is uncommon and rare (Olson).
~*~
The point made by Olson is one of the most compelling…nothing can really be proven. I can give people examples of one vicious act of murder after another, but in the end they are only a handful of the people who actually watch violent movies and play violent video games. This makes it hard to prove a connection with absolute certainty.
The day will probably never come when either side can turn their opinions into absolute fact. In light of this, anyone choosing to form an opinion in either direction must choose to do so based on what information is available to them, and what the potential impact of their choice may be. If you are a parent, would you rather err on the side of caution, or allow your children the ability to make choices for themselves?
Of course, every choice you make whether or not you have children can also have an effect. If you choose to pay to see a slasher film, that increases the chance that more and more violent films will be made in the future. What lives will those movies affect? You may never know, but by considering these things, you will become a much more responsible consumer of media.
~*~
I am ending with this video, a production by some students at the University of Illinois. They surveyed other students on video game violence and their effects with differing results covering both sides of the debate. Enjoy!
Posted on YouTube by Sashtonwam
