From my perspective …

From my point of view…

Personally, I think…
I would like to point out that ….
What I mean is ….
I hold the view that…
Show agreement
I could not agree more…
I have to side with you on this one….
I see exactly what you mean…..
You have my full agreement….
I second that…..
You took the words right out of my mouth…
Show disagreement
I see your point, but…
Well, I see things rather differently…
You could say that, however…
I still have my doubts….
That is out of question….
We do not seem to be in complete agreement…
Should media draw the line for violence on television?
Violence: /ˈvaɪə.ləns/: actions or words that are intended to hurt people:
Did you know? By the sixth grade, the average child will have witnessed more than 100,000 acts of violence
on television including almost 8,000 murders.
After seeing my post, my dad texted me, “Why would anyone be shocked by the actions of the boys in that story.
We in media and popular culture have done a great job instilling these values, or total lack of values, in people.
The younger the audience the faster they learn. Say any of that and listen to the media squeal ‘not our fault not
our problem…'”
I argue that the media valorizes violence by making celebrities of killers and uses too much violence in general.
(For example, my post about The Call last week.)
Dad counters that violence sells and most of the people in the industry with real power care about money, not
morality.
I assert that the media helps shape consumer desire. And then we reach a stalemate.
We could go around and around like that forever. Violence does sell. People don’t have to watch violent things.
But there’s so much it’s becoming unavoidable. So, the media should have some accountability for the impact
this violence has on young people, if any, but we don’t have to watch it and violence sells…The feedback loop
is maddening.
Because we’ve had this argument so often, I’ve thought a lot about the violence I consume and I’ve decided to
tune-out when I find violence in entertainment gratuitous or wholly disrespectful. I like mysteries and some scary
movies, but I’m figuring out where I draw the line. For example, I started watching Bates Motel yesterday. Then
I hit (or was hit by?) the controversial rape scene half way through the episode. I found it so graphic and shocking
that I turned it off. For good. And, research junkie that I am, I googled. Most of the criticism around the depiction
seemed to brush it off or focus on the fact that, unbelievably, the show was only rated TV-14. Kerry Ehrin (of
FNL and Parenthood, whut!?) explained the scene, “From the beginning, it was something we wanted to be real.
That you would feel for her what she was going through. We didn’t want to gloss over it, and be, like, oh, and
she gets raped. It’s the most horrible violation. We wanted to not in any way sugar coat it.” (BuzzFeed)
Violence in the media has always been a topic of debate and the connection between overexposure and violent
action has fueled countless studies. Today, we are living in a world where it doesn’t matter if you are watching
The Walking Dead or Channel 5 News, you expect someone to get shot.
It does not difference between see a movie or a real problem in a news in TV.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
In Tom Cooper’s article Between The Summits: What Americans Think About Media Ethics, excessive violence
is cited by consumers as a one of the largest faults in the media and a constant growing concern. It is obvious
that today, as a society, we are entertained by ultra violence in the media. It is impossible to click through
television channels without coming across three different types of Law and Order programs, a murder
investigation, and a rerun of The Terminator. Audiences are completely fascinated and absorbed by violence
and gore. The more blood, guts, and criminal behavior, the better. However, how is this constant exposure to
violent imagery affecting us as a society?
In 2013 the New York Times reported that in 200 studies there was a moderate, positive relationship between
watching television violence and physical aggression against another person. The article goes on to say, “The
weight of the studies supports the position that exposure to media violence leads to aggression, desensitization
toward violence and lack of sympathy for victims of violence, particularly in children.” Children today are growing
up in a violence-saturated world. No child expects the Teenage Mutant Nina Turtles to sit down and “talk it out”
with their enemy. No, they want Michael Angelo to destroy his foe with his nunchucks and then celebrate with a
pizza afterwards. Today’s youth are being taught to fear strangers, trust no one, and expect the worst.
When I sat down with a handful of my peers to discuss violence in the media I started with a very broad question,
I simply asked them “What are your thoughts on violence in the media?” Every individual I spoke to felt negatively
about the portrayal of violence in television, video games, movies, and news broadcasting. One area of concern
that numerous individuals brought up was the concept of desensitization. One individual felt extremely
passionate on the effect of violence on future generations. She said, “In society today, violence is the norm.
Children growing up in this environment will soon be the leaders of society, and when they only know violence,
they will only expect violence.” As whole the interviewees felt that the theme of ultra violence and the
entertainments industry constant attempts to out-shock one another is a very dangerous and damaging pattern.
How far can we push the limit and drown our audiences with such horrible and shocking images and trends
before we start to form an emotional immunity to crime in our own lives?
The debate over media violence is nowhere near coming to an end. Some individuals strongly support the
media’s right to the freedom of speech, and therefor their right to controversial material. Other’s think there
should be some sort of limitation on the content for the sake of younger generations and it’s over all effect on
society. It is impossible to avoid violence in the media no matter what medium you are using, and it will be
interesting to see if the future leads to an increase in coverage of violent material or an increase in censorship.

How much violence can you tolerate in entertainment?

Where do you think the line should be drawn for violence and entertainment more generally (i.e. it might make
you squeamish, but it’s fine for others)?

………………………………………………………
Violence on TV: Wherever You Look, There Will Be Blood

By Maureen Ryan
130

Every so often, America agrees to have a debate about violence in popular culture. There are few if any concrete
results that emerge from these debates, but it’s certainly a discussion worth having.

There’s no doubt that television is generally more violent and resorts to more graphic imagery than it did a decade
or two ago. Whatever you think of the results of this trend, there are quite a few logical behind it.
Every day, an ever-expanding array of networks flood the market with all kinds of programming, and new-media
companies like Netflix and Hulu are stepping into the fray as well. So how do does a network stand out in a
cluttered media landscape? One way to get eyeballs is to gouge them out, apparently. Monday’s moderately
successful debut of Fox’s “The Following” not only showed or mentioned a couple dozen murders but also
featured a disturbing scene with a mutilated dog. Not wanting to be left behind, NBC debuts “Hannibal” later this
season; the drama tells the backstory of the serial killer from “The Silence of the Lambs.” Gone are the days
when a posse of good-looking lawyers or cops were enough to garner a reasonable audience — at least that’s
what network executives concerned about audience erosion appear to be thinking. (Another example: “Do No
Harm,” an upcoming doctor drama on NBC, is about a physician who moonlights as — wait for it — a murderer).
To compete with all the noise in the marketplace, TV has gotten bigger, brasher and louder in a lot of ways (think
of the dumb stereotypes on “2 Broke Girls” or the four-quadrant blandness of “Terra Nova” as other exemplars
of this trend). TV shows have to be brassy and have a hook these days, and even if the hook isn’t vampires,
there’s a good chance there will be blood.

Television obviously isn’t competing only with other networks and the Internet; it’s also competing with other
leisure pursuits, including video games and movies. I’m not here to dump on video games; I play them. But
television executives are well aware that the video-game and film industries are peeling off potential viewers,
and they have responded accordingly. Whatever we may think of the bleed-through among media platforms, it’s
not surprising that certain sequences in “The Walking Dead” resemble challenging levels on “Call of Duty” and
that “Game of Thrones” makes the body count of “The Hobbit” look quaint.

Television audiences have seen a lot over the years, and television writers know that heeding the same old
storytelling conventions may bore their audience. What’s a sure-fire way to raise the stakes in a story?
Threatening to kill or actually killing a characer. Life-or-death stakes are far more common than they used to be
on television, as are cliffhangers, big twists and surprise deaths. When “24” killed off a key character at the end
of its first season, it was a huge deal, and rightly so. But now that kind of thing happens weekly, on both prestige
dramas and pot-boilery soaps, as writers and producers scramble to garner the kind of buzz that social media
exists to feed.

Late last year, as I thought about trends within the shows I’d watched, one visual trope came to mind again and
again: A character being held down, tied up, interrogated, tortured, menaced, taken hostage and terrified in some
way. These kinds of scenes occurred (sometimes in multiple episodes) in “Homeland,” “Revolution,” “American
Horror Story,” “Revenge,” “Sons of Anarchy” and “Arrow” — a very wide range of programs. That’s to say nothing
of the time Don Draper strangled a woman in “Mad Men” (in a dream, but still) or the multiple deaths that occur
on shows like “Boardwalk Empire” and “Breaking Bad.” There’s a brutality at the center of many current dramas
that may indeed reflect something dark and festering in our culture, and the damage that people do to each other
is absolutely an idea that writers should be exploring in all kinds of stories.

But when is enough enough?

Everyone will draw the line in a different place, but one thing is clear: At a certain point, violent scenes become
empty calories that offer nothing nutritious or tasty, even in the short term. A better analogy might be drugs —
nothing really matches the intensity of that first hit, and eventually a much bigger dose barely has any impact at
all.

The approach to violence is key to working out whether it’s being used to advance a show’s plot and themes or
merely to bludgeon the viewer. A significant death near the end of the first season of “Game of Thrones” was
heartbreaking because it was told from the point of view of the victim and victim’s family members, and very little
of the actual death was shown. We saw the devastating effect it had on those who’d loved the character. It wasn’t
about the gore; it was about the empty space that person left behind.

“Justified” is another show that I don’t think of as violent, even though people up dead in many episodes. If
anything, the show is about how Raylan Givens and Boyd Crowder attempt to resist the easy solution of violence,
and its greatest joy is the verbal combat among various characters. They strategize, they bamboozle, they banter
and they reveal themselves in tantalizingly small doses. One of the best scenes of the show’s third season
featured Raylan throwing a bullet at a guy and saying, “Next one’s coming faster!”

For its part, “Breaking Bad” is the most morally compelling show on the air, given its relentless aim to expose
the selfish delusions of a man who won’t admit how much damage he’s done to everyone around him. The
consequences of Walter White’s increasing brutality are never ignored. “American Horror Story,” which more
than lives up to its title, shows quite a bit of inventive gore, but its particular brand of melodramatic excess is
grounded in character journeys, as loopy and surreal as those journeys are. The show’s approach to horror is
part of a unified aesthetic that actually works as a piece of storytelling, and the fact that “AHS” is not like anything
else on TV — and displays some black humor about what it does — counts for a lot.

Violent encounters, murder and the harm done to human bodies — all those things are and should be tools in
the storytellers’ arsenals, but those tools grow dull with overuse. “Dexter” started out as an interesting exploration
of the moral grey area in which a “good” serial killer resided, but the show is now a cautionary example of how
violent fare can come to feel rote and mechanical. After a while, all those bloody acts become little more than
white noise. “The Walking Dead,” on the other hand, has gotten better — and its ratings have increased — not
because it kills more zombies in every episode but because it made the audience care more about the desperate
survivors at the center of the drama. Contrast that with the approach of “The Following”; in next week’s episode,
the victims of the blank-faced acolyte of a “charismatic” killer are presented as a bunch of naive, interchangeable
coeds (and they’re dead coeds, of course). As I said in my review, the whole enterprise adds up to little more
than a collection of serial-killer clichés.

Nobody wants to see stories told inside a plastic paradise in which people’s darker, uglier instincts are never
acknowledged. But television may be reaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to on-screen gore
and artificially pumped-up stakes. Violence is part of who we are, but so are love, altruism, selfishness, ambition,
curiosity — there’s a whole realm of subjects to explore, and not all of them involve axes and knives. There are
many interesting stories that can be told about the human nature, but it takes hard work to create suspense and
audience investment the old-fashioned ways — through expert character development and first-rate storytelling.

It’s hard not to wonder if the stories that make the most noise or shed the most blood are just a little too
fashionable these days — and a little too easy to sell.

This story appears in Issue 38 of our weekly iPad magazine, Huffington, in the iTunes App store, available Friday,
March 1.

DRAWING THE LINE

 ABOUT
discussing what is ethical in the media today

Violence in the Media

by drawingtheline22
Where do you think film makers should draw the line on what is entertaining and what can potentially be harmful
to society? Images and words of violence are constantly coming on the radio, CDs, TV and movie screens. The
National Television Study, analyzed over 8,000 hours of cable programming and found that 60% was violent.
More than fifty field studies over the last twenty years have shown that children who habitually pay attention to
more media violence behave more aggressively and accept aggression more readily as a way to solve problems.

Read more in the pamphlet created by the University of Pittsburgh on TV & Movie Violence.
The Utilitarianism theory states that the consequences of actions are important in deciding what is ethical or not
(Patterson, pg 10). John Mill, the individual behind this theory, may very well argue that violence in the media,
while it may be entertaining to some people, has negative effects on a significant portion of young children,
therefor not benefitting the larger society. However, violent films and TV shows make up for a multi-million dollar
industry, and while many have protested to put an end to this type of exposure, producers want to try to please
what the majority of people want. In this aspect, John Mill may argue that this entertainment is a type of consumer
art that society appreciates and therefor may be justifiable. On the other hand, the Communitarianism theory
states the ability of individual acts to create a moral just society is an appropriate measure of their rightness and
outcomes (Patterson, pg14). In this point of view, the violent content would seem extremely unethical due the
immoral affects it could have on young children.

In the name of art, media may deliberately attempt to break with existing moral values to shock the audience.
That may pose ethical problems when the values abandoned are associated with the values of society. While R-
rated movies prohibit young kids seeing certain films, the internet still holds thousands of opportunities for violent
content. YouTube, MySpace and several violent internet games are just a click away. In my opinion, because it
is such a high profit industry and almost everywhere, there is no way to stop the violence we see in the media.
We should start to concentrate on studying the other reasons that may contribute to a child’s increasing
aggression.

I’ve watched “Saw”, “Chainsaw Massacre” and the TV show “Jackass”. While I was also young when I saw these
films, I was barely affected (aside from a nightmare or two). I believe that the children who have become more
aggressive over time, media is just one of the factors or triggers and not the direct contributor. And while it is
hard to hide violence from children, Parents should do their part in distancing their kids from any potential media
source that could pose the issue, even if it almost everything out there.

So where do I think filmmakers should draw the line with violence in the media? I respect that films are a form of
art, so I wouldn’t say that there is a line. However I do think that any violence they do incorporate should be
because it is a vital component to the film.

Watch this short video on violence in the media, to learn about how our society can change the negative impacts.

…………………………………..

Violence on Television: What do Children Learn? What Can Parents Do?

Author Unspecified

Date 1999

Source http://www.apa.org/pi/pii/vio&tv.html

Copyright Copyright (C) 1999 American Psychological Association

Concepts

variables

causal graphs

interventions

confounders

experiments

Keywords

television

violence

Violent programs on television lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch those
programs.

That's the word from a 1982 report by the National Institute of Mental Health, a report that confirmed and
extended an earlier study done by the Surgeon General. As a result of these and other research findings, the
American Psychological Association passed a resolution in February 1985 informing broadcasters and the public
of the potential dangers that viewing violence on television can have for children.

What Does the Research Show?

Psychological research has shown three major effects of seeing violence on television:

• Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others

• Children may be more fearful of the world around them

• Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.

Children who watch a lot of TV are less aroused by violent scenes than are those who only watch a little; in other
words, they're less bothered by violence in general, and less likely to see anything wrong with it. One example:
in several studies, those who watched a violent program instead of a nonviolent one were slower to intervene or
to call for help when, a little later, they saw younger children fighting or playing destructively.

Studies by George Gerbner, Ph.D., at the University of Pennsylvania, have shown that children's TV shows
contain about 20 violent acts each hour and also that children who watch a lot of television are more likely to
think that the world is a mean and dangerous place.

Children often behave differently after they've been watching violent programs on TV. In one study done at
Pennsylvania State University, about 100 preschool children were observed both before and after watching
television; some watched cartoons that had a lot of aggressive and violent acts in them, and others watched
shows that didn't have any kind of violence. The researchers noticed real differences between the kids who
watched the violent shows and those who watched nonviolent ones.

'Children who watch the violent shows, even 'just funny' cartoons, were more likely to hit out at their playmates,
argue, disobey class rules, leave tasks unfinished, and were less willing to wait for things than those who watched
the nonviolent programs,' says Aletha Huston, Ph.D., now at the University of Kansas.

Real-Life Studies

Findings from the laboratory are further supported by field studies which have shown the long-range effects of
televised violence. Leonard Eron, Ph.D., and his associates at the University of Illinois, found that children who
watched many hours of TV violence when they were in elementary school tended to also show a higher level of
aggressive behavior when they became teenagers. By observing these youngsters until they were 30 years old,
Dr. Eron found that the ones who'd watched a lot of TV when they were eight years old were more likely to be
arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults.

A Continuing Debate

In spite of this accumulated evidence, broadcasters and scientists continue to debate the link between the
viewing TV violence and children's aggressive behavior. Some broadcasters believe that there is not enough
evidence to prove that TV violence is harmful. But scientists who have studied this issue say that there is a link
between TV violence and aggression, and in 1992, the American Psychological Association's Task Force on
Television and Society published a report that confirms this view. The report, entitled Big World, Small Screen:
The Role of Television in American Society, shows that the harmful effects of TV violence do exist.

What Parents Can Do

While most scientists are convinced that children can learn aggressive behavior from television, they also point
out that parents have tremendous power to moderate that influence.

Because there is a great deal of violence in both adult and children's programming, just limiting the number of
hours children watch television will probably reduce the amount of aggression they see.

In addition:

Parents should watch at least one episode of the programs their children watch. That way they'll know what their
children are watching and be able to talk about it with them.

When they see a violent incident, parents can discuss with their child what caused the character to act in a
violent way. They should also point out that this kind of behavior is not characteristic, not the way adults usually
solve their problems. They can ask their children to talk about other ways the character could have reacted, or
other nonviolent solutions to the character's problem.

Parents can outright ban any programs that they find too offensive. They can also restrict their children's viewing
to shows that they feel are more beneficial, such as documentaries, educational shows and so on.

Parents can limit the amount of time children spend watching television, and encourage children to spend their
time on sports, hobbies, or with friends; parents and kids can even draw up a list of other enjoyable activities to
do instead of watching TV.

Parents can encourage their children to watch programs that demonstrate helping, caring and cooperation.
Studies show that these types of programs can influence children to become more kind and considerate.

……………………………………
Media Violence and Video Games – Where Do We Draw The Line?
Kelly Flatley / February 22, 2013
With video games making the news in a negative way over the past few months, we gamers are left to wonder
why. Why should I be punished because someone decided to shoot up a mall or a school? Why don’t people
realize that I have been gaming for x amount of years and I have never hurt anyone? Mainly, for me, this one
has come to mind: Why does no one look at other forms of media or past mental health conditions of these
killers, and why are video games the constant scapegoat when it comes to blaming the violent acts of others on
something? We have all noticed the trend of news reporters, political figures, and ill-informed people who are
quick to point the blaming finger at video games anytime a shooting or mass murder occurs by quickly stating
“he/she was a loner who spent most of his/her time playing video games.”

videogame1
First, I’d like to take a look specifically at video game violence. As a gamer, video game violence is second nature
for me. I am exposed to it almost daily and have been for a substantial portion of my life. In my personal
experience, video games are not directly related to real life violence. I have never personally felt violent, I have
never wanted to physically harm another human being or animal in all honesty, and I have never felt the need to
plan violent acts of murder and/or carry them out. That is me personally, and plenty of other gamers. Below are
some interesting statistics on game player data according to the Entertainment Software Association’s 2012
“Essential Facts About The Computer and Video Game Industry” study;

The average U.S. household owns at least one dedicated game console, PC, or smartphone.
49% of U.S. households own a dedicated game console, and those that do own an average of 2.
The average game player is 30 years of age. (32% under 18, 31% are 18-35, 37% are 36+)
53% of gamers are male, 47% are female.
The average age of the frequent game purchaser is 35 years of age.
Of U.S. households that own dedicated game consoles, PC, smartphone, dedicated handheld system, or
wireless gaming device, 70% play on their console and 65% on their PC.
Simplified, all those numbers mean that there are a lot of gamers in United States. 49% of U.S. households own
a dedicated game console, PC, or smartphone. That means almost half of the United States plays some form of
video game on average. So why aren’t there more violent crimes? I mean, if video games make people violent
then half the population of America is violent killers and/or crime commiters. Plenty of studies have been done
to prove or disprove the effects of video games on the mind, specifically the part of the brain that causes violent
behavior to take place. It takes a great deal of time to find the right studies online, part of them are done by first-
party companies and therefore cannot be fully trusted in my opinion. Another portion are helpful, but only
somewhat by saying things along the lines of “yes they affect the brain” but not specifically linking that affect on
the brain to violent crime. Most are not actually studies at all but rather news reports that are full of hear-say and
no factual evidence. The few that are helpful still don’t directly link violence and video games. That isn’t just my
lack of findings or the internet not showing the studies, it that there aren’t any studies as of now that truly and
indefinitely say violent behavior is or is not linked to violent video games. It’s just something that, until recently,
was not taken as seriously. Vice President Biden has issued a call for studies to be done on video games and
their effects of behavior in light of the devastating Sandy Hook massacre, which is what sparked all this recent
talk about video games making people violent and gun control in the U.S.

Forbes.com reports about Biden’s efforts;

For far too long lawmakers have been saying “violent video games cause real world violence” despite nothing
backing up that statement. Unfortunately, there’s nothing concrete to disprove that either, as results of studies
so far have been inconclusive.

…it is probably the case that if you have a kid playing Call of Duty for six hours at a time, he might come out of
the other end of that acting a bit more aggressively. But the leap from “aggression” to true violence is an
enormous gulf. There’s a difference between being slightly on edge after a rousing gaming session and going
out and murdering a whole bunch of people.

It’s true that the differentiation between aggression and violence has not been touched on by popular news
reports. When a massacre or murder occurs at random, the news jumps straight into the “he must have played
video games” excuse as if there could be no other cause for the act. Being aggressive and being violent are very
different. Varies studies have proven that video games affect the part of the brain that controls emotions and
aggression, which might make someone jump the gun (so to speak) and say that is proof of video games being
related to violent behavior. Again, aggression does not equal violence. I’m sure that driving in commuter traffic
here in California causes activity in that same area of the brain, but you don’t see people jumping out of their
cars and shooting other vehicles everyday. A rude worker at a store can probably make someone aggressive as
well, but people don’t go killing every person who is rude to them.

violence

Another point I’d like to bring up is that video games are not the only form of violent media. If video games are
to blame then other violent sources such as movies, music, television programs, and even news channels need
to take the blame as well. I personally find slasher flicks like Jason to be more horrifying and violent than most
games. There is just something about seeing it really happen (by that I mean with actors not computer
animations) that makes it worse, for me at least. I can play a game like Amnesia all day long and sleep just fine,
but if I were to watch Nightmare on Elm Street I’d be up all night. Even basic action movies like The Expendables
depict realistic violence through explosions and people being shot or maimed. Music hold part of the blame as
well, and this one seems to slip everyone’s mind. Various genre’s of music are known for violent themes in typical
songs. Songs about beating up opposing gang member, killing enemies, or even songs about real life incidents
of violence such as war are all just as violent lyrically as a movie or video game is visually. Television shows and
news media do have more limitations in America is a certain level of violence cannot be shown on daytime
television but think about the subject matter. Take a look at AMC’s The Walking Dead, zombies and humans
are killed constantly and some in extremely violent ways (i.e. smashing a head in a car door). The news
constantly shows images of war and violence here in America as well as in other countries such as Lybia and
Egypt, as of late.

Something important about all of these media sources is that all of them are subject to some form of rating
system which is put in place to protect the people. Games all have ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings
Board) ratings so if a game is rated M for mature a parent needs to be present if the buyer is under 17 years of
age. Movies have ratings as well, R rated movies are not supposed to be accessible to people under 17 years
of age unless a parent is present. Violent or vulgar music albums will have an “Explicit Content” rating on it.
Television shows also have ratings, though it’s harder to monitor since children may have access to a television
at any time in the house. These ratings are mainly to keep youth from purchasing or viewing content which may
be harmful to them, mentally.

mediaviolence

Youth and metal health. This here is the meat of this article, it all boils down to this. The impact of violence,
whether it be from a movie or a video game, severely affect young children and their overall mental status.
According to American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, children under the age of four cannot
distinguish fact from fantasy;

Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy and may view violence as an ordinary
occurrence. In general, violence on television and in movies often conveys a model of conflict resolution. It is
efficient, frequent, and inconsequential. Heroes are violent, and, as such, are rewarded for their behavior. They
become role models for youth. It is “cool” to carry an automatic weapon and use it to knock off the “bad guys.”
The typical scenario of using violence for a righteous cause may translate in daily life into a justification for using
violence to retaliate against perceived victimizers. Hence, vulnerable youth who have been victimized may be
tempted to use violent means to solve problems.

Starting in youth, these children are affected negatively (unbeknownst to them) by violence in the media which
can lead to violent acts further on down the road. It’s true that when violence is constantly being portrayed as a
typical means to an end by film, game, and television heroes it may seem normal to act that way in a child’s
eyes. This makes it all the more important for parents to take the time to censor certain things from their children
and make sure that when violence is shown that their child knows that it is never ok to chastise, hit, or kill another
person. When parents themselves act violently it’s even more difficult for children to understand that violence is
not the answer to everything. For example, if a 5-year-old child sees his dad constantly get his way by yelling at
clerks and other workers, the child will eventually think that since dad acts violently and threatens other the
outcome is good. It’s called “modelling” and it’s something that children often do with parents, close family
members, heroes, and anyone who the child may look up to. The point I’m trying to make here is mental health
based off of childhood exposure to violence and/or mental disorders can have an outrageously important impact
on whether or not that person will act out a violent act.

What is overlooked when it comes to these violent acts is the mental state of the person acting them out. The
media is violent, sure, but you may be thinking “well yeah, but I’ve never been a violent person and I’ve played
video games and watched violent movies all my life” and that may be true, but do you have a mental illness or
personality disorder? Something like antisocial personality disorder paired with a violent video game can create
a real issue, one that may (and often does) result in violent behavior. A person with antisocial personality disorder
is not simple one who dislikes social interaction or social situations, as its name may suggest, it’s much more
than that. Antisocial personality disorder causes people to have “a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting,
or violating the rights of others” and the behavior is often criminal. Imagine a person struggling with that their
whole lives while also being exposed to violent media – it’s not good. Personality disorders are often present in
people who commit the most violent of crimes.

So here we are, at the end of this article. The question posed in the title has been answered by me with my
opinions as well as a few facts. In conclusion, violence cannot be solely blamed on video games as it often is.
There are various other just as violent sources of media which may even be more readily available to the public
than a video game. It’s important for parents to be parents and protect their children from harmful media sources
as well as instill the knowledge that violence is never ok into the minds of their children. Mental health plays a
large factor is most violent crimes, the average person may be able to watch a violent movie and feel no effects
but someone with a serious mental condition may be affected by it in a strong way. It slips the minds of the
people reporting mass murders that this country has some serious flaws with its mental healthcare support. It’s
not the easiest thing in the world to get help for a mental condition when you don’t have health insurance. Reform
to the healthcare and mental health systems needs to happen more than most people think, or want to believe.

walkagainstmediaviolence

The issue of violence doesn’t come down to a video game or even a gun, it comes down to people. Humanity is
not perfect and humanity is violent as a whole. To me, it’s more surprising that more violent crimes don’t occur.
Our species has a long history of genocide, war, and violence against its own kind. No other species is capable
of performing such continuous violent acts on its own kind, it’s a wonder that things aren’t worse in the world
today. We have to defend our own minds and minds of our children lest we become increasingly violent in nature.
It’s time to take some sort of stand against the media’s portrayal of violence and it can’t just be against video
games.

What are your opinions on the matter? Be sure to comment below and let me know what your thought are on
video games and media violence. Thank you for reading.

………………………………………………
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE MEDIA
HOME » WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE MEDIA
Where to Draw the Line in the Media
 1
I heard a Christian speaker talking about needing to avoid certain movies and TV shows. Is it really a big deal
what kind of entertainment I watch, listen to or read? Isn’t it better to know what is going on in the world than be
closed off?
This is an extremely important question. Not only is it pressing (we decide on our entertainment on a daily basis),
but it is also deeply personal. All of us must choose how we will entertain ourselves.

Let’s clarify the importance of the situation. While we could look at this from a cultural perspective, let’s skip that
and bring things a little closer to home. There is a psychological principle that has been termed “the law of
exposure.” This states that the things we expose ourselves to have an effect on us. Music affects our moods. I
have a friend who listens to “death metal.” He knows that it makes him angry and frustrated, but he listens to it
anyway. Language affects our own language. I have another friend who finds himself swearing left and right after
a “weekend with the guys.” Images affect how we see other people. I talk to many men and women who find
themselves in sexual sin after viewing certain photos or videos.

To deny “the law of exposure” is to deny reality. Some people like to claim immunity, but this is simply a lack of
self-knowledge. And it is not limited to people of a certain age. I don’t know how much sillier we could be than
when we will turn off the TV for a child, saying, “You shouldn’t be watching this,” but then return to it ourselves.
Does the fact that I am in my 30s mean that I am unaffected by these images and ideas? Certainly, I am better
equipped to discern the truth, but if a movie is bad for a child, how can I be so confident that it is good for me? If
it is garbage for a 12-year-old, then it is garbage for me, even if I have learned how to sort through the garbage
a little better.

Just as important, we live in a free market society. We vote with our dollars. What do you spend money and time
on? For example, I know a number of Catholics who went to see “The Da Vinci Code” or “The Golden Compass”
even though these movies are clearly anti-Catholic. It does no good to claim, “I don’t agree with them!” The
people making this entertainment don’t care if you agree or not. Your interior motivation matters, but it is not
absolute. Once they have your money, you have already stated that you on their side. And if the movie is evil (or
promotes evil ideas), then you just gave $9.75 to the cause of evil. (How much did you put in the collection plate?
In the end, all of those numbers will be made known and there will be no room for excuses like, “It was only a
movie!”).

Entertainment is never “only entertainment.” Every form of media presents some philosophy of life, a belief about
the world, the human person and God. These ideas mean something, because ideas have consequences. Every
great (and every terrible) movement started with an idea. Have you ever noticed that every dictatorship first
seeks to control the media? Because when you control the media, you control ideas, and once you control ideas,
you can lead people wherever you want.

Rather than attempt to list movies, TV shows or songs, it is more important for our purposes to have some
principles that we can apply. We only have room for one in this column today. When encountering some form of
entertainment, ask yourself, “Does this reveal the dignity of the human person or in some way distort or obscure
it?” Another way to phrase the question is, “Does this entertainment reveal Truth and Beauty?” Some art does
this in ways we wouldn’t expect. Flannery O’Conner is arguably the finest American fiction writer of the last
century. She wrote about sin and grace in a powerful and truthful way, but it was not pretty. I always thought her
stories were grotesque, but they were true. She revealed beauty through writing about ugly things. It is the
difference between the violence and gore in “Saving Private Ryan” and that found in the “Saw” movies.

Pope Benedict once wrote, “We may never be entertained by the suffering of others.” What does this mean when
it comes to “Ultimate Fighting Challenge”? Will I have to change my TV watching?
The next thing we need is conviction. If something is bad for me, then why would I expose myself to it? If I am
going to be a follower of Christ, I need to be the kind of person who makes a decision.

Are you the kind of person who can make a decision? Are you willing to? If you are convicted that “this
entertainment does not uphold human dignity,” are you willing to then not watch it? Seriously, to say, “no matter
how funny this new ‘The Hangover’-style comedy is, it is not good for me and so I won’t watch it.” Because, in
the end, all of this entertainment will pass away. What will remain, for good or for ill, is the kind of person it has
fashioned me into.
AGAISNT
………………………………………………………………………………………

Research Shows Violent Media Do Not Cause Violent Behavior

Research Findings and Tips for Parents
Tips for parents on video games and TV
-know what your kids are playing and watching
-know what’s developmentally appropriate
-Set guidelines for the amount of time your kids can watch TV and play video games

On December 21 the National Rifle Association (NRA) blamed the media for promoting violent video games and
movies and then cited these phenomena as the primary causes of mass violence. The assertion that violent
video games and movies cause violent behavior has not been demonstrated by scientific research. Youth who
have aggressive traits and are stressed are more prone to delinquent and bullying behavior, and are also drawn
to these games, but their behavior in real life is not predicted by playing the games. All youth are protected from
violence in the world by close, supportive relationships with parents and peers. There are a small percentage of
youth, perhaps 5% who are at risk of engaging in violent behavior.

There has been extensive research and writing on the impact of violent movies and videos on behavior in kids.
But research is clearly lacking on a direct causal relationship between violent video games and youth violence.
Analyses of school shooting incidents from the U.S. Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime do not support a link between violent games and real world
attacks.

In 2004, a team of Mass General researchers led by Dr. Cheryl Olson studied 1,254 7th and 8th graders and
500 parents in South Carolina and Pennsylvania, looking at what kids were playing, how much time they played,
and the possible relationship to delinquent behavior. They found that many of these kids played violent games;
two-thirds of 14 year-old boys played at least one violent game often versus a quarter of the girls surveyed. The
researchers also found that kids played games to cope with their emotions, to enjoy challenging situations, to
keep up with peers playing similar games, to create their own worlds, and to relieve stress.

There were correlations between playing violent games and self-reported physical fights and delinquent
behavior, particularly with greater amounts of time played. However, this was only true in a small percentage of
children who already exhibited aggressive traits and a high stress level. They found that the traits of aggression
and stress were predictive of delinquent behavior and bullying and not the playing of violent video games
themselves. Researchers also found that parent involvement and parent/peer support seemed to be protective
of these negative behaviors.

However, there seems to be a relationship between about five to six percent of kids who get into trouble,
sometimes violent, and the amount of time playing violent games. There were no causal relationships found
between violent games and violent behavior, just correlations, and this could mean there are other things in life
that may be involved.

Problems also exist in the research about violent movies. Most of the science is not very good. However, in the
few sound studies, there was also an apparent relationship between the time watching violent TV or movies and
 aggressive acts in real life – but only for a small percentage of kids and young adults. There seems to be a
greater effect on younger children who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. It also appears
that when violence is coupled with an attractive movie star and combined with sexuality, the impact appears to
be stronger.

The bottom line is that for violent movies and video games, we just do not know the relationship between viewing
or playing and aggression in the real world. Research to date does not inform us. But we should be concerned
and wary of risks.
Advice for Parents

Here are some tips for parents when they consider their kids video game playing and movie watching:
 Know your kids! If you child is impulsive, aggressive or excessively angry, it may not be wise to allow violent
games. If their behavior tends to soften after playing, it may be helping in some manner. By the same token, a
fearful, anxious child should refrain from playing games or seeing movies that are filled with horror. Never make
your children watch something that they’re afraid to watch.
 Sound and supportive relationships with family and peers appear to be protective against violent behavior.
Remember that well-adjusted teens are less likely to be at risk.
 Know what your kids are playing and watching. Play the game with your kid to see what the game delivers in
terms of content. Watch TV and movies with them and watch for their reaction. For school-age kids and
teenagers, use this as an opportunity to talk with them about their reactions to what they see and the impact on
them. It is always good to start such discussions early in a child’s life, and keep this an ongoing open dialogue.
 Keep an eye on what is developmentally appropriate. Younger kids (or immature children at any age), who
cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy, should not be allowed to watch violent movies, cartoons,
or play violent videogames.
 Set guidelines about the amount of time kids can play, and be sure that other activities, such as playing with
friends, time with family, etc., provide a good balance.
 Review information about the ratings and content of games at the following sites: Commonsense Media and The
Coalition for Quality Children’s Media
For more information, click here to read Dr. Gene Beresin’s post in Psychology Today.
…………………………………………………….

Should you let your kids watch violent films?

Tom Fordy grew up on a healthy diet of on-screen violence from an early age – so why is he wary about
letting his young son see the same movies he watched as a child?

The original RoboCop movie isn't shy of showing violence

By Tom Fordy
8:13AM GMT 15 Dec 2014
I’m one of an increasingly common type of dad – one who grew up on a cinematic diet of action, horror, and
gore, but is confused about whether to let his child do the same. It’s an issue that will have touched most parents
at some point, and one that’s been raging on for decades. Should we let our kids watch violent films? And if we
do, will we ruin them forever?
As one of the VHS generation, I had relatively easy access to violent films – and at a time when they really were
violent. By seven I had seen RoboCop; by eight, pretty much everything else I could sneak into the VCR. Back
then, it was worn as a badge of honour in the playground: I boasted about the 18s I’d seen and lied about the
ones I hadn’t. Contrary to the ‘video nasty’ hysteria of the time, my innocent little brain was not warped. I have
never yet felt the need to chainsaw massacre anyone or gob pea soup at the vicar.
The common argument is that violent media is somehow dangerous, that it breeds or creates an unbalanced
perspective of real-life violence. This is, for the want of a more academic-sounding term, utter nonsense – an
 ultraconservative means of distracting from the real reason why horrific violence happens. That’s not to say
children aren’t capable of copycat behaviour on some minor level. I know for a fact they are, because in 1988 I
got 'pretending to be the Karate Kid' banned from school after dishing out some expertly replicated chops and
crane kicks. But I believe people – yes, even children – are perfectly capable of distinguishing between play-
acting and real, frightening violence.
Now, as a father, I have a dilemma. I’ve always defended the dramatic license of violent films; equally, I’ve
attacked the censorship of art. But the thought of letting my son watch the likes of RoboCop, Braindead, and
other video-shop classics in just five years’ time feels instinctively wrong, irresponsible even. I also find myself
playing down violence, avoiding words like “fighting” – even if that’s what characters on TV are quite blatantly
doing – in a feeble effort to stop him grasping the concept of it.
I do, however, allow my son to watch some films that others would call too violent or scary for a two-year-old (I
know this from the way other parents look at me when the subject comes up). These films include Ghostbusters
and the Jurassic Park films, which I allow him to watch for the following reasons: firstly, he absolutely loves them,
whether he should have access to them or not; secondly, his delight in watching a dinosaur eat people usually
means I get ten minutes peace; and lastly, he’s too young to understand what’s really going on anyway (he might
be cute, but he hasn’t got much going on in the brains department yet).
Related Articles
 The men from Friends are no friends of mine
For now he’s fine with these films, but as parents where do we draw the line? And what about other, more socially
acceptable forms of violent media? How about the brutality of the natural world, as seen in wildlife shows such
as David Attenborough’s Life Story? Or what about the news, with its almost daily broadcast of graphic war-zone
imagery? Or even Tom and Jerry? Commonsense should prevail, but we should consider how our kids are
exposed to violence on many different levels.
The reason it feels instinctive to not let my son see more extreme screen violence is because I’m driven by the
strongest parental instinct of all – to ensure my child feels safe. So when I protect him from violent imagery, it’s
not because of an irrational fear that it’ll turn him into a bloodthirsty nutcase; it’s simply because I don’t want to
scare him, which is clearly going to happen if I let him see certain films too early, much as I was scared by some
of what I saw as a child.
There’s also an element of social responsibility. It’s not just about your kids; it’s about the kids around them, too.
If you let your child loose with your horror collection, do their school friends suddenly want to do the same, only
behind their parents’ backs? In the VHS age it was possible; in the digital age it’s instant.
Once again, it’s a matter of commonsense – but it’s also a matter of knowing your child, because there’s no
exact science to how people respond to screen violence. Some of us can deal with it, some of us can’t.
I trust that by not completely sheltering my son, he’ll respond by being able to differentiate between what’s real
and what’s not, and understand how violence can be used as an artistic tool, a way for us to process what scares
us about it. It’s an important lesson for kids – and adults, for that matter. We should be afraid not of on-screen
violence, but of not taking about it. Which is why I’ll let my son watch reasonable amounts of screen violence –
even RoboCop one day, though maybe not quite as young as I was.
After all, what’s the worst that can happen?