Media's influence?

[Vampyre]

Just another thought to ponder on. It's probably been brought up millions of times by people. But anyway, I'm interested in seeing what you people think about media and whether or not it's responsible for violence. Personally, I think blaming media is the biggest load of shit there is. People say "Oh there's so much violence nowadays. In the good ol' days, people were nice and had tea parties." --- No. In the "good ol' days" there was still people like Jack the Ripper and H. H. Holmes (the first American serial killer - from 1893) And don't forget the whole dog eat dog world of the old west. Did they get their ideas of killing from watching movies and playing video games? No. They just decided they felt the need to kill people, and thus they did. Holmes was even killing people for a reason. He made money from it by taking insurance claims with a fake identity. And then there's the thought "But they didn't have gang back then having wars all the time and killing several innocents." --- No they didn't have gangs, instead they had Crusades and death marches to kill innocent people, and they made sure that they were dead. There was none of this drive by stuff where you can easily get injured, and not killed. Instead it was a sword in the gut and several stabbings, followed by your house being burned down. And what happened about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? That was tons of people being killed for no reason at all. Both of those places were trying to surrender to the americans for almost a year and yet they still got bombed. We don't have more violence today because of media. We have different violence, and it's a lot dimmed down. We have people getting shot in a drive by, instead of people having their villages burned down.

[Mystical_Journey]

I think you might find this magazine helpful and interesting : www.adbusters.org I enjoyed reading your rant, we used to talk about this kind of stuff when I studied film. In respect to violence you should watch David Cronenberg's 'A History of Violence', i hear it address' the concepts of violence in the modern day enivronment. I would say the media does influence people but cant be arsed to get into a discussion about it

[Vampyre]

I was more over tryign to get the opinions of people on here. So forget the press, books, and movies. Let us hear what you have to say. And I just realized that I tried combining the sentences "Does the media cause violence" and "Is the media to blame for violence" and resulted in a huge grammar error. Well, I can't change it, so whatever.

[AirRick101]

How the hell are we supposed to know??? I've seen some pretty gruesome stuff in the media, it just disgusts me, does not make me wanna kill or rape people. It's all up to the invidual's personality, I'm sure. What does contribute to criminal activity, is oppression. If a kid's tolerance threshold is continually violated more and more, he might indeed grow up to be a very violent and vengeful man. I probably might have if it happened to me. Then again, I don't know. Psychology is unpredictable. But I also believe it's bullshit, like u say. Media's a two way street. One, alleviate your less-than-good desires and urges. Or fuel them. Media is really just an artificial portrayal of life. Most people are aware of that. Like watching a play, but on a higher level. It won't make us lose sense of reality unless we are predisposed to that, then something other than media will fuel that.

[Roller]

I think it's not quite so simple, but here's my thoughts: Does media influence people? Yes of course it does, and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant. Why do companies pay millions to advertise every year, if it didnt' influence people into buying their product? Ok, of course there aren't tv commercials advertising violence, but there is definatley an abundance of it. Of course there was violence beforehand in society, and there always will be, but media can make a lot of things available to people that they wouldn't normally encounter. Bear in mind that by 'media' you are referring to a HUGE part of society, blindingly huge even. The internet, radio, tv, newspaper, billboards, pamphlets etc. It is hard to imagine a single day without a single one of those elements in it. I don't have any statistics from research on hand, but I think you'll find it's more complicated than simply saying "There used to be violence without media, so therefore in today's society meida has no influence on violence in society". Of course blaming everything on the influence of media is severely flawed, but there is no doubt at all that media shapes us, and to think that it influences us in lots of ways except violence is just as flawed. So in answer to the question - Is the media to blame for violence? No of course not, it's human nature. Does the media influence and encourage violence? Yes.

[Vampyre]

Well Roller, you have a good point there, like Air Rick, but the idea is how there's people who say that TV, video games, and music are to blame for violence, and they think that it's the complete reason behind it. I agree that media does have an impact, but the question is whether or not it is actually the cause of violence. To which you stated that you disagree.

[Belisarius]

I accidentally voted Yes when I should have voted No. For the most part it's a load of crap IMO, but Michael Moore's arguement about it in Bowling for Columbine was part-way convincing,

[Roller]

Yeah I disagree totally with the notion it is the sole cause of violence in today's society, it's like the debate over nature/nurture. On that part of the debate, here's something I watched on TV a while ago that is quite interesting: I watched a docco that dealt with the nature vs nurture aspect of violence in people. They wanted to know whether kids in violent families would become violent later in life, or whether it was in fact to do with their genetics. Now persoally I have always thought it was a combination of the two, and this research proves it right. The scientists located a gene called MAOA that had two versions - long and short. Those with a long version grew up to be perfectly normal adults, those with the short version had a high rate of violence. The short version meant there was an imbalance in noradrenaline, steretonin and dopamine in the brains, the effect being that they could not properly control their emotions, and often became very depressed, or instead lashed out with violence. The researchers in New Zealand gathered people born in a certain year, and questioned them every year, asking them how often they had experienced violence in their family and surroundings, and how often they themselves had resorted to violence. What they found was this: People with the long version of the gene would grow up as more or less balanced adults, whether or not they came from violent families or normal families. People with the short version of the gene that grew up in normal, loving families also grew up to be normal balanced adults. People with the short version of the gene that had grown up in violent families and been exposed to a high rate of violence as children grew up to be violent and unstable people. So from this you can see that it is both nature and nurture at the same time, and not black and white- if you have the short gene and a violent family then you will be violent also. Simply saying "it runs in the family" is not strictly true anymore. This reserch can be seen at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1372609.htm if you are interested. So what does this have to do with the media? Well I would argue that given this research, we can see how violence in the media might actually be the sole contributing factor in some people becoming violent. Picture this: We have a child with the short version of the gene, growing up in a loving and caring family with no abuse. Normally this would mean that the child, despite having the gene that predisposes them towards violence, would grow up normal and balanced. Seeing as the kid is not the subject of abuse, they are not 'learning' violence or having it imprinted upon them in any way. But what happens if the parents buy this kid violent video games, and lets him/her watch movies depicting graphic violence? In this way something like the video-game would be very powerful in influencing the child's mind, seeing as it is interactive, and the child is actually 'learning' how to be more violent or skillful, and being rewarded wtih extra levels in the game etc. Also, watching any blockbuster action moive would have the same effect - the child learns that beating up and killing all the bad guys the person can save the day, and that it is actually acceptable in the context of the movie. Any normal kid watcihng this might not be effected, but the chances are very high that the kid with the short gene would be learning that violence is the way to solve their problems. Naturally you can see how the kid in question would become violent as an adult, and whenever that person is emotionally stressed causeing the imbalance of chemicals in their brain, they would turn to violence as a way of 'making things better'. Well this was a rather long argument, but gives a lot of things to think about, and not just about the subject of violence and media, but a host of other things. Now I have come to reach a different decision - is the media directly to blame for violence in society as a whole? No Could the media be soley to blame for violence in some individuals? Yes. Now say that the correlation between the long and short gene were 50/50 in your average population (though it's highly unlikely), then the media could be directly responsible for violence in a huge percentage of the population of any first-world country. What do you think?[/i]

[Vampyre]

Well Roller, you broguht a few interesting points and such. I stil find that media isn't that responsible for violence. Because, kids learn so many things, how can one thing impact them THAT much? I remember a long time ago when I lived in a bigger city, and at school, there was fights every single day, not just fights that happened. You'd be lucky if you went three days without getting into a fight. How it starte dI have no clue, but did media influence it? Probably not. I consider that situation to be completely derrived from tradition. Because you couldn't help becoming violent, otherwise you'd wind up just getting the beats constantly. Did I learn it from media? Not at all. I have never learned anything about fighting from the media. I know what it's like to scrap with someone because I had to do it for my fair share of times there. Media was not a factor at all. Not for me, or for anyone else. Watching TV or movies at that time didn't make you want to punch some kid in the face. That kid constantly annoying you or calling you on made you want to. And that's what I think causes more violence than media, tradition. Think about it, it's huge and supports nasty things all the time. Look at slavery. Why were black the only slaves? No reason, they looked different so they were easy to distinguish. And traces of racism like that still exists today, mostly in the southern states and it's not as open, but it's there. If you don't believe that then your naive. And look at the "old west" days. Why were people then so quick to shoot each other? Because they felt no restrictions and that they could get away with it. That's probably all that stops people from killing in many cases, just the idea that it's hard not to get caught. Then there's the medeival times, where if someone bad talked you, you smacked them upside the head or stabbed them with your knife/dagger. I think people just have a general fascination with violence, and media feeds on it. I mean looks at news. About 90% of the things in the news are about some kind of violent event, like a shooting, earthquake, hurricane, etc. because people want to know about all the violent/bad things that happen for some reason. It's somehow developed that people like knowing how other people are sufferring, while they are not.

[justme]

i dont blame media for violence, I blame it for makeing all the little 5 year olds today think they have to act like preps and wear makeup all the time and wear little skirts and act like sluts, also that chould be lazyniess... anyway i just blae selfeness and apathy for violecnce not to mention anger

[Alric]

Why doesn't any one ever say that the media is a positive factor in giving kids strong morals? Maybe I am on another planet than everyone else. I remeber a million tv shows when I was a kid that taught you to be a good person, to be nice to others, the importance of friendship, to have good sportsmanship, to always reach for your goals, ect. So they hit each other in the head with a pot in comedies, or killed each other to get between the plot points in the stories, that doesn't mean everything is negative. And your wrong about the news being about 90% violent events. Its more like 30%, if that.

[Roller]

I agreee with you, Alric - there are a lot of programs that are good for kids too, an dnot just on tv, but lots of other things. Ever heard of that kid's group called The Wiggles? They all trained in childhood development and decided to make songs to help young children's early development, and not they are the wealthiest entertainers in Australia, touring all over the world. This is really a great thing, and a perfect demonstration that media etc can be used in many positive ways, and also be hugely profitable. I think that more educational things should be shown on tv. When growing up the only tv station we could get was ABC (aussi broadcasting corperation) and it was full of documentaries and current affairs, and as a result I think i have an above average general knowledge etc, now I can't stand wathing any other shows on tv - shitty american investigative shows (CSI- grr!) although the BBC does some really good crime shows... I love them. I can't stand reality tv and I would much rather watch a documentary - any docco - than to sit in front of the tv and switch off my brain to mindless shit... I think a lot more can be done to improve TV and make it more educational - things like the discovery channel etc are doing good, but there is always room fro improvement, what do you guys think?

[Vampyre]

The way tv is probably won't ever change, because the people in that business don't care about anything except what gets good ratings. Like from Bowling For Columbine, that guy who said that shows with violence does good, and shows that help everybody and influence them to be a better person, do not so good. Thus he could care less what they're airing, he just wants ratings. Selfish piece of crap. That's definitely one of the people who deserve a good punch in the dick.