It has been said in a topic overview that “The pattern of society's response is relatively consistent: Once someone sounds the alarm, the public looks to science for answers and to the government for solutions” (“Introduction to Media…”). However, when science provides the answers, the government will not suspend their disbelief. Instead, they frown upon the idea of violence in the media being an artform or self-expression and healing. Society views such violence as just another act that children can mimic. “In addition to what they see in the news or on social media, children could witness or be victims of violence in many other ways,” says Daniel J. Flannery (“Here’s How Violence…”). Media violence has become society’s scapegoat when what happens on screen does not cause what happens off of it.
The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, protects those involved in depicting violence in the media. Coherently, the scale of violence depicted is never too large to be safe. The bloodiest of movies receive praise by the critics as they are known to be figments of imagination. Some of the most boundary-pushing creators of violent art, Eminem and Martin Scorsese, are always in unceasing legal battles. Since violence caused by committing crimes is not protected, it causes renowned people like them to be judged. But to no avail, their work remains untouched, defended to have no connection to real-life violence. According to Erin Lutes, “Rap lyrics, even those as offensive to some as those found in controversial songs like ‘Fuck tha Police’ and ‘Cop Killer,’ are generally afforded First Amendment protection”. Also, “The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that offensive language is constitutionally protected because ‘one man's vulgarity is another's lyric’” (Lutes et al.).
The only time violence in the media is questioned is when it can be used as evidence. For example, rappers whose discographies are filled with gun glorifying lyrics are normalized until someone dies. Frankly, to the rap community, you are telling on yourself if you are proven guilty by the convenience of your lyrics.
Pat Stack notes in his essay that “In the aftermath of the Birmingham shootings [where four teenage girls were killed in January 2003] we need apparently look no further than rap music in general and the ‘macho idiot rappers’ of So Solid Crew in particular, and video games, to explain ‘gun culture’, ‘black on black crime’, and general ‘lawlessness’ and ‘hooliganism” (“Violent Rap Lyrics”). He then proceeds to defend violent lyrics aren’t new:
True, some rap lyrics are unpleasant, nihilistic, homophobic, and/or misogynist, and some of the artists are far from pleasant people. Yet rap also finds an echo in the realities of modern urban life, and reflects anger and alienation, and to cast haughty judgement on it is little better than my parents telling me that the Rolling Stones were nasty and that you "couldn't hear the words. Ah, it's said, but their violent lyrics are causing all the violence. (“Violent Rap Lyrics”)
Despite the backlash that films undertake on a constantly, the numbers say otherwise. There has been a spike in the number of moviegoers; those in which purchase tickets to see violent films. In that sense, when there is “a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower, even after controlling flexibility for seasonality” (Dahl and DellaVigna). Gordon Dahl and Stefano Della Vigna, economists and writers at the University of California, used statistics to determine "For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crimes decrease by 1.3% and 1.1%" nightly hours, and "violent crime decreases by 1.9% and 2.1%" daily hours. The studies also conclude, "The total net effect of violent movies is to decrease assaults by roughly 1,000 occurrences per weekend, for an annual total of about 52,000 weekend assaults prevented. This translates into an estimated yearly social gain of approximately $695 million in avoided victimization losses" (Media Violence). Hence, an overall reduction of violent behavior when exposed to violent media.
Violence has been cast out by society through parents. Parents themselves know that the content they see in movies are never real unless it is based on a true story. But when they think about their children, they think about their mental health and how movies can affect them over time.
As a child, I went to the movie theater with my father frequently. Rarely did I ever watch movies for kids. If a saw a film that was PG, the rating had a dash and 13 beside it. But in those auditoriums, I expected to enjoy myself because that is what movies are for. Entertainment. Rather than going to a PG movie, with animated characters that taught lessons and the typical coming age story, I had to sit through a couple of hours of blips of images. Each violent depiction that came on, my father would cover my eyes until it was over. I could still hear what was taking place.
Nonetheless, when the local Blockbuster had new rentals on Fridays, I had a chance to revisit these movies I practically missed, only to repeat the same routine. Movies were not the only thing censored for me. Video games that I picked out were put back by my father because there was too much blood and killing for a normal child to see. Years later, though, I waited until my father left for work to go to his office and watch what I was not supposed to. And to no surprise, the violence I finally got to see had not phased me. I was the same kid the next day.
With this in mind, the given ratings by the Classification and Rating Administration would work like they always have, just in modern times. There will still be a handful of parents that shield their children from these movies or video games. But the number of parents who could care less about what their children see is growing.
Going to my younger brother’s elementary school taught me something: kids nowadays have seen more than I have at an earlier age. Some of the students brag to each other about the number of kills they got in Call of Duty: Black Ops III while others discussed the latest war movie. Now that these kids are high schoolers, I have not seen a change in their behavior and attitudes. Violent media keeps them occupied and engaged.
It’s worth highlighting that, although I have not felt a violent urge from media like video games, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in this world who have. More importantly, that doesn’t mean that children can’t be affected by violent media. Daniel J. Flannery, Director of the Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education, believes the range of effects of media violence are at large, and children’s mental health is at risk, stating “even when violence happens in another part of the country, children can be exposed to the event and its consequences immediately, intensely and repeatedly”. Correspondingly, he affirms that “children can come to believe that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems and that it is without consequence. They could also come to believe that violence could happen anywhere and to anyone at any time” (“Here’s How Witnessing…”). Flannery uses his studies and scientific reasoning to educate:
Exposure to violence could harm the emotional and mental development of young children and adolescents. Children at that age aren't able to effectively process what they are seeing and hearing. This may be due in part to the fact that chronic exposure to violence can affect parts of their brain. For adolescents, the front part of their brains is the last to develop and mature. This part of the brain is called the prefrontal cortex, and it is responsible for processing information, impulse control and reasoning. Adolescents exposed to violent video games experience a decrease in activity in their prefrontal cortex, leaving them more vulnerable to having difficulty with problem-solving and controlling their emotions. (“Here’s How Witnessing”)
Sure, some studies prove that media violence correlates with the deterioration of children’s way of thinking. Yes, there are a few instances of killers being birthed from witnessing violent imagery. But does any of those studies prove a direct correlation to real-life violence (Pozios et al.)? The lack of studies means a lack of proof. The motives of killers in school shootings have, in recent times, have been said to be related to mental health. Is the poor mental health due to movies and videogames, or is it due to problems at home and treatment in schools? The number of studies showing no correlation between media violence and violent people is becoming clear: society is pointing their fingers in the wrong directions.
In summary, movies, video games, and music have defaulted to inspiration for violence, while the real reason for violent behavior is waiting to be found. The minute violence becomes a reality, like children, society points fingers at the media. It is entertaining for influencers because they can place blame without anyone questioning it. If a murderer’s incentive is not labeled as a product of mental illness, then it is labeled as a reenactment. To think now, after years of violent content existing, creators are having to defend their art. There are studies for media violence influencing and not influencing violent behavior in children, but the media having no correlation to violent behavior outweighs undoubtedly. Lastly, instead of jumping to conclusions, we can weigh all the other possible causes, becoming more productive than intuitive.
The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, protects those involved in depicting violence in the media. Coherently, the scale of violence depicted is never too large to be safe. The bloodiest of movies receive praise by the critics as they are known to be figments of imagination. Some of the most boundary-pushing creators of violent art, Eminem and Martin Scorsese, are always in unceasing legal battles. Since violence caused by committing crimes is not protected, it causes renowned people like them to be judged. But to no avail, their work remains untouched, defended to have no connection to real-life violence. According to Erin Lutes, “Rap lyrics, even those as offensive to some as those found in controversial songs like ‘Fuck tha Police’ and ‘Cop Killer,’ are generally afforded First Amendment protection”. Also, “The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that offensive language is constitutionally protected because ‘one man's vulgarity is another's lyric’” (Lutes et al.).
The only time violence in the media is questioned is when it can be used as evidence. For example, rappers whose discographies are filled with gun glorifying lyrics are normalized until someone dies. Frankly, to the rap community, you are telling on yourself if you are proven guilty by the convenience of your lyrics.
Pat Stack notes in his essay that “In the aftermath of the Birmingham shootings [where four teenage girls were killed in January 2003] we need apparently look no further than rap music in general and the ‘macho idiot rappers’ of So Solid Crew in particular, and video games, to explain ‘gun culture’, ‘black on black crime’, and general ‘lawlessness’ and ‘hooliganism” (“Violent Rap Lyrics”). He then proceeds to defend violent lyrics aren’t new:
True, some rap lyrics are unpleasant, nihilistic, homophobic, and/or misogynist, and some of the artists are far from pleasant people. Yet rap also finds an echo in the realities of modern urban life, and reflects anger and alienation, and to cast haughty judgement on it is little better than my parents telling me that the Rolling Stones were nasty and that you "couldn't hear the words. Ah, it's said, but their violent lyrics are causing all the violence. (“Violent Rap Lyrics”)
Despite the backlash that films undertake on a constantly, the numbers say otherwise. There has been a spike in the number of moviegoers; those in which purchase tickets to see violent films. In that sense, when there is “a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower, even after controlling flexibility for seasonality” (Dahl and DellaVigna). Gordon Dahl and Stefano Della Vigna, economists and writers at the University of California, used statistics to determine "For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crimes decrease by 1.3% and 1.1%" nightly hours, and "violent crime decreases by 1.9% and 2.1%" daily hours. The studies also conclude, "The total net effect of violent movies is to decrease assaults by roughly 1,000 occurrences per weekend, for an annual total of about 52,000 weekend assaults prevented. This translates into an estimated yearly social gain of approximately $695 million in avoided victimization losses" (Media Violence). Hence, an overall reduction of violent behavior when exposed to violent media.
Violence has been cast out by society through parents. Parents themselves know that the content they see in movies are never real unless it is based on a true story. But when they think about their children, they think about their mental health and how movies can affect them over time.
As a child, I went to the movie theater with my father frequently. Rarely did I ever watch movies for kids. If a saw a film that was PG, the rating had a dash and 13 beside it. But in those auditoriums, I expected to enjoy myself because that is what movies are for. Entertainment. Rather than going to a PG movie, with animated characters that taught lessons and the typical coming age story, I had to sit through a couple of hours of blips of images. Each violent depiction that came on, my father would cover my eyes until it was over. I could still hear what was taking place.
Nonetheless, when the local Blockbuster had new rentals on Fridays, I had a chance to revisit these movies I practically missed, only to repeat the same routine. Movies were not the only thing censored for me. Video games that I picked out were put back by my father because there was too much blood and killing for a normal child to see. Years later, though, I waited until my father left for work to go to his office and watch what I was not supposed to. And to no surprise, the violence I finally got to see had not phased me. I was the same kid the next day.
With this in mind, the given ratings by the Classification and Rating Administration would work like they always have, just in modern times. There will still be a handful of parents that shield their children from these movies or video games. But the number of parents who could care less about what their children see is growing.
Going to my younger brother’s elementary school taught me something: kids nowadays have seen more than I have at an earlier age. Some of the students brag to each other about the number of kills they got in Call of Duty: Black Ops III while others discussed the latest war movie. Now that these kids are high schoolers, I have not seen a change in their behavior and attitudes. Violent media keeps them occupied and engaged.
It’s worth highlighting that, although I have not felt a violent urge from media like video games, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in this world who have. More importantly, that doesn’t mean that children can’t be affected by violent media. Daniel J. Flannery, Director of the Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education, believes the range of effects of media violence are at large, and children’s mental health is at risk, stating “even when violence happens in another part of the country, children can be exposed to the event and its consequences immediately, intensely and repeatedly”. Correspondingly, he affirms that “children can come to believe that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems and that it is without consequence. They could also come to believe that violence could happen anywhere and to anyone at any time” (“Here’s How Witnessing…”). Flannery uses his studies and scientific reasoning to educate:
Exposure to violence could harm the emotional and mental development of young children and adolescents. Children at that age aren't able to effectively process what they are seeing and hearing. This may be due in part to the fact that chronic exposure to violence can affect parts of their brain. For adolescents, the front part of their brains is the last to develop and mature. This part of the brain is called the prefrontal cortex, and it is responsible for processing information, impulse control and reasoning. Adolescents exposed to violent video games experience a decrease in activity in their prefrontal cortex, leaving them more vulnerable to having difficulty with problem-solving and controlling their emotions. (“Here’s How Witnessing”)
Sure, some studies prove that media violence correlates with the deterioration of children’s way of thinking. Yes, there are a few instances of killers being birthed from witnessing violent imagery. But does any of those studies prove a direct correlation to real-life violence (Pozios et al.)? The lack of studies means a lack of proof. The motives of killers in school shootings have, in recent times, have been said to be related to mental health. Is the poor mental health due to movies and videogames, or is it due to problems at home and treatment in schools? The number of studies showing no correlation between media violence and violent people is becoming clear: society is pointing their fingers in the wrong directions.
In summary, movies, video games, and music have defaulted to inspiration for violence, while the real reason for violent behavior is waiting to be found. The minute violence becomes a reality, like children, society points fingers at the media. It is entertaining for influencers because they can place blame without anyone questioning it. If a murderer’s incentive is not labeled as a product of mental illness, then it is labeled as a reenactment. To think now, after years of violent content existing, creators are having to defend their art. There are studies for media violence influencing and not influencing violent behavior in children, but the media having no correlation to violent behavior outweighs undoubtedly. Lastly, instead of jumping to conclusions, we can weigh all the other possible causes, becoming more productive than intuitive.
( Behan the Scene )
www.ChordsAZ.com