Arguments Against Theories of Media Violence Influence

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

Possible Link Between Two Murders and a Popular Television Show



Author Everaldo Coelho
Picture from Wikimedia Commons 



Everyone has heard the accusations time and time again that violent media is suspected of playing a role in recent acts of violence, particularly among teenagers and children. One may wonder how something as seemingly harmless and fun as watching television could possibly be a player in such horrors? According the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, while television violence is not the sole factor affecting violent behavior, they still feel it plays a large role. Please see Children and TV violence for more information.

While the world may never know with any certainly how true these associations are, there are strong indicators to be found in recent murder investigations.

Seventeen-year-old Anthony Conley’s case gives credence to the view that media violence can be a strong, negative influence. In late 2009, Conley turned himself in to police for the murder of his ten-year-old brother Conner. The method of murder was strangulation. An article about the killing on the ABC news website written by Emily Friedman states -

“Negangard said that when Conley was asked to explain his behavior by investigators the teen said he identified with Dexter Morgan, the main character in Showtime's "Dexter," which chronicles the life of an undercover Miami blood spatter expert who doubles as a serial killer.”

The article later goes on to talk about how Conley likened his need to kill to a craving for a hamburger – a very chilling analogy that speaks volumes of the boy’s state of mind.

Also mentioned in the article about Conley is a Canadian man, Mark Twitchell (you can read this story by Josh Gaynor on the ABC news website here), also accused of imitating the show “Dexter” when he murdered John Brian Altinger, a complete stranger he met on an internet dating site while posing as a woman.

These incidents and their connections to a popular television show raise the uneasy question: As violence on television becomes more acceptable and widespread by mass media as well as the general viewing public, are we setting ourselves up for many more incidents such as these in the future? Unfortunately, this is not an easy question to answer, and while many firmly believe that the answer is yes, there are those that firmly deny that violence in media plays any significant role in most, if any, violence. In a blog entry by Rhonda Callow, the theory that children who commit murder or other acts of violence are mentally ill and at worst, violent games and television just triggered what was already there. This point is argued against in an article published on sciencedaily.com, citing research done by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine. The study found that factors other than mental illness were often better indicators of future violence.

The theory of media violence and exposure is a convoluted and hard to follow one at best, but I feel strongly that evidence points towards exposure to violence being a key factor in many violent acts. Not to say it plays a role in every single act of violence, of course, as people have been violent throughout history. However, there are so many strong links between certain recent acts of violence and media exposure that one should put some serious thought into whether the incidents in questions would have ever happened if not for the media violence exposure. In future posts, I shall examine several of these incidents as well as general arguments for and against this theory.