Violence on Television

Violence on Television 1

Violence on Television

Insert Name Here

Insert Class Here

InsertUniversity Here

Violence on Television

Violence is a genuine issue especially in the United States. We all agree that it is bad. What causes violence? Is it our human base desires akin to animalism, is it some instinct we have, or is it due to the stimuli we receive in the form of entertainment? Television portrays violence to us everyday and it is up to us how we interpret that stimulus. We can reciprocate what we see or we can reject it and teach our future generations that not only is violence wrong but it hurts those closest to one first and the worst. In the following paper, the impact that violence has on viewers will be discussed as well as the way we respond to violence in general. Some would say that violence is not caused by watching it on television however, it does have an impact on the way society responds to violence and it increases the amount of aggression a person has after watching it on television.

Violence is supposedly not caused by watching it on television. However studies show aggression is increased after watching violence on television. “Researchers, they say, have found modest evidence that media consumption contributes to the problem of obesity, modest to strong evidence that it contributes to drinking and smoking, and strong evidence that it contributes to violence,” (Escobar-Chaves, Anderson 2007). In the article Direct and Indirect Aggression on Prime-Time Network Television by J. Glascock the author conducts a study to assess the effect of violence on the average person. According to Glascock, “Verbal aggression was found to be the most prevalent, followed by indirect and physical” (2008).The following graph shows how television displays violence over the course of a three year study. Notice how many of the shows have a realistic setting and consider the effect that would have on viewers.

(Strasburger & Donnerstein,1999)

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) put out a report on violent programming and its effect on children. In response to this the Media Institute published an article by Jonathan Freedman that stated “The evidence is not overwhelming – indeed, it provides no good reason to believe that television violence causes aggression much less serious violence. […] There is no comparison between the effect of smoking on cancer and the effect of television violence on aggression,” (2007). His arguments throughout the article are rife with bias and even during his argument he admits and agrees that violence on television does correlate to increased aggression in children. Most arguments against this fact are similar to the ones made by Mr. Freedman and the bottom line is media companies do not want us to realize the effect of violent programming on our children or loved ones. Then we would simply stop watching and go back outside and enjoy the sunshine and world around us.

News coverage of violent events has become common place in today’s society.The constant influx of graphic images causes one to become immune to violence and see it as something that is normal and natural and cause little to no repercussion to displays of violence that would have been unacceptable fifty years ago. Every night at ten we tune in to the violence of the world and watch with non-chalance at murders and suffering thankful that it is not us that it is happening to, though in reality it is. Humankind is indifferent to the suffering of others until it seems evident that the suffering is on our own doorsteps. This indifference causes us to believe that violence is just a fact of life and something we don’t have to pay attention to.

When the planes hit the WorldTradeCenter, like most American’s I sat and watched in shocked silence. It was not till that moment that I realized that I was vulnerable to the violence around me. I had never locked my doors, or feared for my life. I watched horror flicks on television and the suffering on the news like it was just simply things that were in existence in more a hypothetical way than in reality. People were having intense emotional reactions all around me and I could not figure out why they were all having the same reaction. It was not just shock for the lives lost or the atrociousness of the event, but the fact that at any moment that violence could appear in their very own back yard. They could be affected like the hundreds of thousands of people who died in that attack and those who lost loved ones, they too could have it happen to them.

Suddenly the entire nation was made aware of the violence around them in a single moment and the effect was intense. As a nation we called out for revenge, we called for more violence wishing to reciprocate the pain and suffering we had experienced on the people who did this. We did not consider the effect it would have on the innocents of the other countries involved or that they were probably not even aware of the actions of their leaders or the terrorists harbored within their borders much like the average person in America is unaware of the goings on of the politics within our own country. We simply wanted to return the favor. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. We are a violent race, and kill or maim more of our own species than any other creature on the planet. Then we turn around and broadcast that violent nature to the rest of mankind and never wonder the effect that has on future generations. When that violence is then in turn displayed to us through media formats and on the news we then are placed within a never ending cycle. In order to prevent this cycle from reciprocating itself we need to nip it in the bud. One way to do this is to lessen or eliminate the violence we portray on TV. It may not stop violence but it will lessen the impact said violence has on us and on our future generations.

The media uses deception to flavor the incoming images to create a desired response in their audience. When the images flash across the screen, we do not realize that those images are not truth but fabrications used to create a desired emotion. “Humankind has a history of discrimination and violence, both overt and subtle. Today, however, we experiencea daily barrage of expertly choreographed images and messages of stereotypes and deceptions that enter our homes throughour televisions and computer screens. Mass media are powerful agents that create and perpetuate incorrect representationsof racial and ethnic minorities, women, and those in lesser power positions that, unfortunately, can become our beliefs,” (Beaudoin, 2008). The media desires us to feel, to sympathize with them so their ratings will rise. The more we watch the more money they make. They appeal to our baser animalistic desires like, rage, lust, and hunger, and use those to control our reactions to what we see and even to control what we buy and what we see as beautiful or ugly. The subliminal messaging is not so subliminal it is blatantly glaring at us from our screens and we fail to even notice.

News productions have done this for a long time to cause their viewers to sympathize with them. According to Beaudoin in his article Culture, Race, and Difference Through a Media Lens, the media shows violence and suffering as a way to control its audience through misrepresentation and gains power in doing so (2008). They change the meaning of what is being recorded to create a desired effect and emotion in their viewers. The media often casts a different light on things to suit their needs, like, “In 2007,[…] , when the news media effectively cast these marchers as agents of violence, the peaceful nature and message of the demonstrators was lost on the nation” (Ana, 2009). The media not only takes the natural violent nature of humankind and broadcasts it to the world; they twist it to be something it is not simply for the good of the company. The almighty dollar means more to the media than the effects the broadcasts have on their viewers. The take manipulation to a new level and perpetuate our violent acts and even memorialize them into history.

When it comes to our children violence plays a heavy role in how they grow and develop. Programs on television take the place of parental guidance in many situations. Children watch between 4-6 hours of television a day. In this time period they associate themselves with their favorite characters, usually superheroes that beat up bad guys, and imitate the violence they see on television because they see the violence as a way to fix problems. During this process children begin to become immune to the effects of violence and see it as something they must accept as a part of every day life (AmericanAcademy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry 2009). Something to think about is the child that views violence as a way to solve life’s problems then grows up to become a murderer or rapist. Seems farfetched but it isn’t far from actuality. Psychological profiles of many sex offenders and murders show that the person saw violence as a way to fix their own personal social dilemma, (Collazzi, 2001).

In conclusion, violence is a harsh reality but it is not one we have to idly sit by and accept much less gain entertainment from. We discussed the impact that violence on television has on the individual and on society at large. Even though some have said that violence is not caused by watching it on television, this has been proven statistically to be untrue. Violence on television does not only have an impact on the viewers but how society at large responds to the stimulus provided by violent programming including the news. Violence has become the status quo of life; it is up to us to change that, starting with what we let our children watch on television.Many people will claim that violence on television does not contribute to violence, much like the argument that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. According to the evidence shown while violence may not directly cause violence like guns it is a factor in violence around us. I end this paper with the following image. Do you still think that violence has no effect on those who watch it?

(The Hindu Newspaper,2004)

References

AmericanAcademy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry. (2009). Children and TV Violence. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from

Ana, O. (2009, January). Framing Peace as Violence: TV Coverage of L.A.'s May Day 2007. NACLA Report on the Americas, 42(1), 52-55. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from MasterFILE Premier Database.

Beaudoin, B. (2008, November). Culture, Race, and Difference through a Media Lens. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities & Nations, 8(5), 145-152. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from SocINDEX with Full Text database.

Collazzi, D. (2001). The Emotional and Physical Aspects of a Violent Offender. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from

Escobar-Chaves, S., & Anderson, C. (2008, March). Media and risky behaviors. Future of Children, 18(1), 147-180. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.

Glascock, J. (2008, June). Direct and Indirect Aggression on Prime-Time Network Television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(2), 268-281. Retrieved February 25, 2009.

The Hindu Newspaper(2004).Angry young kids. Retrieved March10, 2009, from

Freedman, J. (2007). Television violence and aggression: Setting the record straight. The Media Institute Policy Views, 1, 1, 1-10.

Scharrer, E. (2008, Summer2008). Media exposure and sensitivity to violence in news reports: Evidence of desensitization?. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(2), 291-310. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Strasburger, V. C., & Donnerstein, E. (1999). Children, Adolescents, and the Media: Issues and Solutions. Pediatrics, 103(1), 129-139.