Gerbner
notes that we are amidst a ‘”Cultural Revolution.” In his definition it is made
clear that this involves a societal change that results in a “transformation of
the common symbolic environment that gives [the] public meaning and a sense of
direction to human activity” (144).
In relation to the other readings, I related this to the readings on the
violence we see in the world today.
Children raised in America are expected to “have seen over 8,000 murders
and more than 100,000 other acts of violence” by the time they are in the 5th
grade (Wartella et al, 399). These
numbers seem incredibly high, especially for the time frame it is in regard to
in a young child’s life. In
addition to this, a study reported on by Fox News also presented the statistic that
after analyzing 444 hours of kids’ daytime TV shoes, The Parents Television Council found 6.3 incidents of violence per
hour which is more than what they found in prime time aimed at adults during a
2002 study (Associated Press).
Now,
not every child is going to witness these acts and then become murderers or
aggressive as a result, but there are other effects that unfortunately do not
gain as much attention. The idea
of children becoming desensitized to real world violence is an interesting
one. According to Wartella,
Olivarez, and Jennings, “Research has demonstrated that prolonged viewing of
media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward real world violence and the
victims of violence which in turn can lead to callous attitudes toward violence
directed at others…” (403). In a
study featured on Fox News they reported that “children under age 8 are
cognitively unable to distinguish between real and fantasy violence.” Additionally, in a study on reactions
to the violence of the September 11th attacks, a researcher found
that children were must less upset than adults, which he potentially linked to
their inability of determining the seriousness of this violence in comparison
with what they are regularly seeing on TV (Associated Press). Granted this could be a stretch, there
is relevance. Gerbner notes in
terms of cultivation theory that “the usual purpose of the fictional and
dramatic modes of presentation is to present situations rather than fragments
of knowledge as such” (148).
However, when we use this idea to look at children’s television it
becomes much deeper. Yes, fiction
is meant to be fantastical and is not always a reflection of reality, but not
all children have the wherewithal to determine this for themselves. This is where we see the violent
behaviors presenting themselves in a child’s day to day conduct.
The
last point I want to make on the topic is about the fear that many Americans
have due largely in part to what the media focuses on. It is not only the fictional television
shows that we watch, but also movies and actual news broadcasting. In the world of journalism I have
learned that “if it bleeds, it leads” which is directly applicable to the
American media industry. Even if a
shooting isn’t overly serious, you can beat that it will be one of the biggest
stories on the evening news. Our
society has been hardwired to pay serious attention to violence and its
frequency in our daily lives.
Wartella, Olivarez, and Jennings quote Gerbner in saying that “heavy
viewers of television become fearful of the world, afraid of becoming a victim
of violence and over time engage in more self-protective behaviors and show
more mistrust of others” (404).
This goes for adults and children as well. The more violence that they consume in the media they
intake, the more it seems people are afraid of the world we live in. It truly is shameful that people have
to live in this way and children are being taught to adopt a nonchalant
attitude to violence through media so silly as cartoons, something we deem as
innocent and entertaining.
**Additional article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186670,00.html
Culture largely determines why violence is so prevalent, especially in American media. You just don’t see this level of violent content in other places. Gerbner expressed it well when commenting on the “cultural indicators”, the elements of culture that assign value to something like violence: “…in what culture, at what point in time, and in the context of what public message systems cultivating the emindedreinforcement or inhibitions of such beliefs…” (147). I find myself trying to think of what the public message systems are that make us so unemotional over violence. Maybe it’s similar to something like discrimination – if I don’t see it, or it’s not in my backyard, I don’t care. I am reminded of the W.H. Auden poem, “Musée des Beaux Arts”, that discusses the intense apathy human beings have for one another’s pain.
ReplyDeleteIt’s obvious that violence saturates our media. Many long-running programs (i.e., The Sopranos, Law & Order, WWE Raw) and even newer shows (i.e., Dexter) deal with themes that always involve violence. It is also a well-known fact that films with violent content (war dramas such as Saving Private Ryan, for example) are much more likely to garner critical acclaim than ones without such material in them. While studies do show that this overwhelming exposure leads to a desensitization towards violence, I have to wonder – can too much violence in the media lead to an opposite response that is sympathetic to those who are suffering in reality?
I thought of it this way: the scare tactic PETA frequently uses of showing disturbing footage of animal cruelty works rather well in terms of gaining support for its cause. Could showing emotionally-charged content have the same effect on media consumers who see violence on television? If someone watches a news report or documentary on a serial killer, could this person be affected to the point that he or she feels for the victims on programs that are fictional? Call me too sensitive (or maybe chalk it up to just being a female), but I do find myself feeling sorry for the guy who gets his kneecaps busted on The Sopranos…
However, there is always another point to be argued. Perhaps someone enjoys watching violent programming because he or she DOESN’T have to connect emotionally to it. Both of these ideas relate to the active audience theory described in the Baran & Davis text: “…the average audience members routinely resist the influence of media content and make it serve their own purposes” (202). The purposes for watching violence on television could range from gaining an appreciation for the normalcy and non-violent conditions of one’s life (my purpose), to “satisfying a person’s aggressive drive” (192), to simply providing a form of entertainment or escape.
- Suzi De Vita [Blog Response 1]
There is no doubt in my mind that the world has grown more and more violent but I am still not sure if it is because of the media. The media does play a small part in the growing violence because of what they give the most coverage to. You can pick up a newspaper or turn the TV on at any given time during the day and the leading stories will be about a theft, death, or some other act o of violence. This is because negative news sells more and is more compelling towards readers and watchers then the stories about the man who saved a women from getting hit my a taxi. “The media of mass communication may well have effects which are quite different and possibly more dramatic or extensive…” (Klapper, 138). The news has turned into a way to stir up drama in the world. I have talked to many of my family members who used to read the paper every Sunday and they all say the same thing now, the news is to negative and violent. Children in today’s age see everything but not necessarily because there is more of it, which I agree there is, but because there is minimal parenting. Back when our parents where younger their parents used to reprimand them when they did something wrong. You were bad you were punished. Today parents “sugar coat” everything for their children and instead of asking their kids what did you do wrong they immediately say of my kid wouldn’t do that. The media should not be taking the full blunt force of this issue because in my opinion the increase in violence is because of the lack of parenting. Every study likes to analyze how when this video game came out the number of crimes increased by this percentage so it has to be because of the game or after this TV episode aired the numbers went up this amount. “98 percent of the 95 million American homes have television sets and nearly three quarters have more than one set; two-thirds have cable TV and four-fifths have VCRs.” (Wartella et al, 399). I have read many studies on this topic because it seems to always come up in my media classes, but in my opinion every analyst is leaving out a big piece of information. How many of these video games were bought by the parents, or how many parents let their kids play it even after knowing what the rating was? Same goes for TV and movies, what was it rated? and why was the kid allowed to watch it? block the channel if it is that bad, TV providers allow you to do that now. In conclusion I do not agree nor disagree with people saying that the media is making the world more violent. I believe there is an area that needs to be looked at a lot more in order for everyone to begin taking sides. It is very easy to jump on a bandwagon and point your finger, that is something our generation is very good at, but if a study was conducted revealing a few more areas that are a little blurry, then it would allow people to pick sides based on facts.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't doubt that the violence seen on television today has an affect on the agressive behavoir in children, I think there are larger factors that lead to this. Certainly the media should take some of the blame, because they are the ones putting the programs on the air and creating the violent video games which kids can purchase; but how about the parents? Just because a program is on television does not mean a child should be able to watch it. It is up to the parents to set boundaries and decide what their kid can and cannot watch. Also, there are ways for parents to lock certain channels or block certain shows on their television. I also think a child's social background plays a profound role. If a child grows up in a rough neighborhood where they are more prone to witness violence, obviously that child has a better chance of developing violent tendencies as opposed to a kid who that grows up in a quite suburban neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not sure the media is to blame for children being numb to violence. There was a point made in the blog that children were less upset about the September 11th attacks than adults were. I think that just comes from the fact that children are not able to fully grasp a situation as well as adults are. However, that doesn't mean that the violence seen on television doesn't play some role in that.
I agree with your reasoning that not every child who sees violence in the media will later become violent. “According to Brandon Centerwall in the Journal of the American Medical Association, ‘Manifestly, every violent act is the result of an array of forces coming together – poverty, crime, alcohol and drug abuse, stress- of which childhood exposure to television is just one’” (Baran &Davis 204). Violence in the media isn’t turning every child into a monster. Not every child that watches violence is going to go out and commit a violent act. But it is these other factors that may lead to someone seeing something in the media and committing a violent act. It is about parenting and social surroundings amongst other things. There are many factors that correlate with violent behavior not just simply the excuse of the media. I do however think that the media has other affects that may be affecting society as a whole. It is really interesting how you correlate children being affected by violence in media with adults being affected as well from the violence that is seen on television. The news is a program that many adults watch and this is something on television that has the most violence featured out of any other program. I agree that the news tends to feature so much of these bloody violent stories and it is causing Americans to become fearful of the world. We are becoming more and more mistrustful as a society. People are so worried about children being exposed to violence on cartoons while adults take it in every night on the evening news. Also an educated person is said to watch the news on a regular basis and be caught up with current events. The current events shown to society are at the choice of the media. It is what they want us to see and that is usually the violent story. Many parents will teach their kids to watch the news on a regular basis to become educated but is this promoting them to be exposed to more violence? Beyond exposing them to the violence it could also be desensitizing them to these images. But if this is the case, aren’t we all desensitized as a society to violence when we see it every night on the news? As Baran and Davis say, “Humans learn from observation” (Baran &Davis 193). Social learning is prevalent in our society and adults still learn things, not only children. I think the news has desensitized us all. It has caused Americans to become fearful of the world. I think this is where cultivation analysis comes into play because the news makes it seem like the world is this crazily violent place which I’m sure it can be at times but with a different act of violence displayed on the news everyday you have to wonder if it is really like that or if television has just created this scary vision of the world. “In the actual world, about 0.41 violent crimes occur per 100 Americans, or less than 1 in 200. In the world of prime-time television, though, more than 64 percent of all characters are involved in violence” (Baran &Davis 340). This just shows that not only is violence on TV maybe having an effect on children but it may be having an effect on society as a whole and our view of this world.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Baran, Stanley J, and Dennis K Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
-Allie Meotti
Society gives the media way too much credit for all the wrongdoing and evil in the world. This is a huge problem. As humans, we are always trying to play the blame game and find reasons why people do the things they do, or things happen the way they happen. Researchers along with others in society keep trying to put all of the blame for violent and aggressive behavior in children on the media. Of course, however, people never want to admit when they do something wrong, so let’s just blame the media and forget about it! This type of behavior typically stems from an outside source, such as maybe upbringing, or other events that have occurred in their lives. The media may only be a trigger. So yes, technically it may cause the violence, but it is not the root of the issue and it should be explored further. Even without the media, I still believe that those children, who act out with the media, would probably act out without it as well. Since “humans learn from observation” (Baron & Davis 193) the child may have observed that same behavior elsewhere, not just necessarily on television.
ReplyDeleteWith this, I agree with the sort of rejection of the catharsis theory in the Baron and Davis reading, as it suggests that the viewers of “movies like Avatar or the Transporter and Grindhouse films” probably didn’t make people “walk out of the theater a tranquil, placid person.” (Baron & Davis 192) Granted the audiences of those films would generally be more adult, I would say the same thing would go for children. I just don’t give the media the credit for the cause of all of this behavior.
What really struck my attention were the studies mentioned in the lead blog regarding desensitization to violence, and differentiating between real and fantasy violence. I don’t think that children get desensitized to real world violence from watching it on TV. I think they get desensitized to real world violence from direct and actual real world violence. One doesn’t get desensitized from death because of television or desensitized to break ups or poor relationships from television. One would truly get desensitized by experiencing these situations over and over again, as terrible as that it. If anything, the child would be desensitized to seeing violence appear on television (not in reality). They would not be fazed if they saw something on the screen, but if it were to happen in real life, they would most likely think something of it. As a child who grew up watching everything on television, I am not desensitized to real world violence because of what I’ve been watching on television my whole life. I also think that the idea of children under the age of 8 being cognitively unable to distinguish between real and fantasy violence is ridiculous. If a child witnesses a violent act in real life, it will most likely affect them emotionally down the road, therefore I would think that somewhere in their brain, they could distinguish that there was a real issue. Seeing a murder on television is most likely not going to affect them later on down the road. If a child commits a violent act, I still think that blaming only the media is not correct. I believe that somewhere in that child’s brain, they still know what they are doing. Children these days act more grown up than ever, so I just don’t believe that the media is an excuse anymore for young children. The September 11th study was shocking. If anything, those violent acts made children frightened of the world that is out there. They were less upset than adults because they may not have been able to understand the concept of terrorism or the concept of dying. It is not that children cannot understand the difference between fantasy and reality, but that understanding the concepts all together may be difficult. I understand that they are scientific studies, but I just don’t buy it.
The “fourth cultural indicators assumption” states “television’s major cultural function is to stabilize social patterns.” (Baron & Davis 342) The news does this more than any other media outlet. It has almost stabilized this idea of violence in our society, as we now unfortunately expect it. Most people would make the same comments about how there is only “bad news” on the news these days, because that is all they air. (“If it bleeds it leads” has been a standard for quite some time.) In regards to fear of the world because of the media, they are not fearful because of the media. What they are really fearful of is the real world. The news does not (usually) sit back and make up violent stories occurring around the world. They are reporting on actual events. Violent and terrible events occur all the time. Even certain episodes of Law & Order SVU are based on true events. The world is unfortunately a scary place, and people should be aware of what is going on. Sure, stories about the local hero saving a woman from a burning building are all well and good. Stories like that should be told, but only reporting that is not real life. The sad truth is that we live in a violent world, and to potentially protect ourselves, we need to be informed and aware of the dangers of society. Of course being in constant fear is no way to live, but being aware of what is out there is a positive addition.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited: Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012). Print.
There is no doubt that there has been increasingly violent programming on television in recent years, largely due to a desensitization on a nationwide level, but I’m still not convinced that this violence is as harmful as many suggest. Television shows, the news, video games, and internet content all boast violence every day, but has there been an increase in violence in our actual lives? In past generations, violent television programming wasn’t as intense compared to what we are used to today, but the nation wasn’t as desensitized as recent generations. Viewing violence can be very impressionable on the youth, which can lead to aggressive behavior, but children’s programming was way more violent decades ago than children’s programming today. Cartoons such as Looney Toons and Tom and Jerry were based around one character trying to kill the other in every episode, whereas today, children’s programming includes no violence at all. As a little kid, I was exposed to cartoon violence, video game violence, and violence in the news, all of which had no lasting effect on my behavior, even though I did participate in aggressive behavior at that age. But violence in the media also helped me learned what was appropriate in real life, based on the content and consequences of the characters in the show. “Their aggressive drive might not have been purged, but they might have simple learned that such treatment of another human is inappropriate.”(193) Sure after watching Power Rangers I would run around kicking my brothers, or get attacked by my older cousin who would play the evil villain, but this behavior isn’t serious violence, and it helps in a child’s cognitive and social development. In my own observations, I have noticed that children do not play as violently as they did when I was a child, even though they have more access to violent media. Adults have increased the seriousness of minor violence between children, the same violence that used to be dismissed in past generations. When boys fight after school on the playground, they get in trouble with their parents, and the school usually suspends the children, however, when boys used to fight in past years, parents or teachers would break up the fight and dismiss them saying boys will be boys. Violence was more in the everyday lives of children then, compared to now. Children were more violent, and parents would use violence to punish their aggressive behavior, compared to now where children are less violent, and parents are afraid to touch their kids and freak out when children fight. Children imitate what they see on television all the time, but they are able to understand right and wrong behavior. I agree that “negative effects occur only in those predisposed to aggression – in other words, those crazy to begin with.” We can blame the media for all our problems, or we can learn from the media, and put restrictions on what impressionable viewers watch.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited: Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012). Print.
Kyle Barry
Rebecca Schneider
ReplyDeleteHonestly, the media is such an easy scapegoat for society to hold accountable for all the evils and violent and aggressive images and messages that teach children to behave inappropriately. According to Baran and Davis, the mass media was seen as the primary cultural and socializing agent in the 1960s, when “a new generation of observers charged that media were harming children and disrupting their lives….young people were more and more being socialized away from parents’ and teachers’ influence” (Baran and Davis 190) With the popularity of television in the 1960s, the media was constantly scrutinized as the primary role in “fomenting social instability and instigating violence” (191) Social Learning theory explains how we learn core values, beliefs, and behaviors from imitation and identification through the observation of others. We imitate behaviors we observe which are then reinforced and learned. The theory argues that we “can acquire symbolic representations of the behavior, and these “pictures in their heads” provide us with information on which to base their own subsequent behavior. Media characters can influence behavior simply by being depicted on the screen. The audience member need not be reinforced or rewarded for exhibiting the modeled behavior.” (195) I think media executives need to devote more attention to this theory when they are producing media programs to be shown to children. Children pick up anything and everything and imitate it to their behavior. I know it’s a stretch to expect a change of content, as violence is unfortunately a primary genre in all parts of media. One thing that can be changed, is how the violence is viewed on such programs. Gerbner distinguishes the mode of fictional presentation as such: “the usual purpose of the fictional and dramatic modes of presentation is to present situations rather than fragments of knowledge as such. The focus is on people in action; subjects and topics enter as they become significant to the situations.” (Gerbner 148) In video games, there is violence and aggression through killing characters, but these video games don’t show the repercussions of these deaths. Video games teaches children that it’s okay to kill or physical harm people if they get in your way, and since it’s not on the screen anymore, they don’t have to deal with it. In the real world, violence is completely different, and children are not taught to believe so. Even in TV programs, there could be more explanations that indirectly teach children the difference between make believe and real. To put it bluntly, violence happens. If you think about it, most of the violence in video games and fictional television and movie programs are based off of real catastrophic and traumatic events. What does that teach kids? The world is a scary place, but the media is not to blame for the violence. People are to blame for violence. I’m not saying that we don’t get certain messages from the media; I am totally behind the notion that the media is a powerful influence. What I am trying to say is that the media takes messages from contemporary society and from what and who are the current role models—which are mainly politicians and celebrities. Maybe before we blame the media, we should put some attention on who are the cultural enforcers of society.
Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012). Print.
Gerbner, George. “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators:’ The Analysis of Mass Mediated Public Message Systems.” Approaches to Media: A Reader. Eds. Boyd-Barrett, Oliver, and Chris Newbold. New York, NY: Arnold, 1995. 144-152.
"Children raised in America are expected to “have seen over 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of violence” by the time they are in the 5th grade (Wartella et al, 399)"
ReplyDeleteThis in an alarming quote from the discussion sparking post from Sunday. I think it is important to discuss the difference between exposure to media violence and violence in real life. There is a huge difference between watching violence on television or engaging in violence through video games and actually commenting violence acts in real life. I think kids that are expose to violence and death in real life, whether it be hunting or fishing are much more likely to become violent adults. To me the violent media that we crave and that our children are exposed everyday pose more of a culture issue than a potential future violence mechanism.
The section about 9/11 and the study that found children we much less upset then their parents about the attacks seems silly. It seems obvious to me that parents would be way more affected and upset by an attack on their country. They are better educated and have a better understanding of reality and of the world than their children do. Children in this country are very sheltered in the institutions we have created. It becomes their reality. I don’t see any like here to media violence and desensitization. Back to my first paragraph I think that people don’t understand what it means to take a life until they actually go hunting and do it. The first time I went hunting and took the life of an animal was very emotionally charged then I expected.
Finally, I think there is a correlation between the amount of violence Americans are exposed to as children and the news media reliance on violent stories. Maybe we are “hardwired to pay serious attention to violence”for an early age.