In class, we've been talking (mainly about the US) how media is the cause for violence in America. To finish off the unti, we've been told to write a page-long report about how the media impacts society with violence.
In this essay, I'm a good student, so I did a bit of research, a reference to Bertrand Russell, a few references to Bowling for Columbine, and I used GabuEx's article on Food causing violence as a persuasive opinion. Mind, this is grade 10 work, and I think I repeated the word 'violence' and 'media' alot within it. Let me know what you think! And tell me if there's any good ideas I may have missed.
And I would love to hear your opinions!
Violence in the Media
I have a varied opinion about how violence in America is due to the media. To start off, I think that 'media' is a vague term, and that the media can be divided into three areas; Informative, Visual, and Interactive. Each area is vastly different in their own ways, and all of them having their pros and cons, depending on from which angle one perceives them.
Informative media is our every day paparazzi. This area represents newspapers, news (television) and online articles. In America, the news can easily stereotype, deceive, and give reverence to dictators. According to Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine; the news is a constant patriarch of fear and terror. I personally believe this fact to some extent, although I have my few doubts if that was actually true. I did a bit of research on online articles, and just browsing the home pages, it seems to me that Michael Moore was correct in how the paparazzi seemed to have a tendency to have violent crimes a priority:
Washington Times: Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor appears to have been the victim of a random burglary attempt, authorities in Miami said today.
Heart O Texas News: Four juveniles crash after police chase.
The Pawtucket Times: Local teen violence took another turn this week when a large fight broke out in the vicinity of North Bend and Wood streets Wednesday afternoon.
I took those three American newspapers randomly on the internet, and those are the first articles on each website. Incredibly, they all have to do with violence; proving Michael Moore's opinion in how Informative media is corrupted by media. But does this actually impact the American's way of life? Could a simple bizarre set of priorities truly impact a nation? In my opinion, the news may have an impact, but it can't be all.
Visual media is television shows and movies. As some may have noticed, today's movies are becoming more and more violent. Some movies, such as Crank and Blade are nothing but violence. In present times, violence and action are almost mandatory for movies.
The most well-known movie trilogies have incredible amounts of aggression, such as Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean and Star Wars, which all three are absolutely loaded with violence. Although these films have fighting, does this still impact society? Michael Moore compared the US to Canada, and figured out that we watch the same television, yet Canada has a lower death-by-gun number. I think that the Visual Media may just be another aspect towards violence in the media.
The final area in the media is Interactive Media. Interactive media can be defined mainly as video games. Of course, video games are up to the brink in violence these days. Some of the biggest games this year are Call of Duty 4, Assassin's Creed and Halo 3. Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 are both shooters, the aim of each game is to shoot the other person, while in Assassin's Creed, you have to assassinate several leaders during the Crusades. Violent? Definitely.
Yet again, we can question the reasoning of video games being the actual cause of violence. Hundreds of thousands of people play video games; therefore, hundreds of thousands of people run out into the street and shoot each other? It all depends on your perspective.
To prove my point, a friend of mine posted this article on the internet;
GAINSVILLE, Fla. - While previous reports have suggested that blame for crimes such as the murder of police officers and teenage crime in general lies with the playing of video games, a new study from Dr. Tom Jackson at the University of Florida has revealed a disturbing new theory on the matter: that all crimes can be blamed on a daily intake of food.
"It's a very disturbing and surreal correlation, no two ways about it," said Jackson. "You take any criminal who just committed a crime, he'll have consumed food within the last week." Is this true of only some crimes? Not so, says Jackson. "Every one of them. Every single one of them did this. The study that was done established a direct one-to-one correlation."
Take teen Sam Thorpe, murdered in Miami in 2005 by gang member Carlos Rodriguez, says Jackson. "The police raided the gang hideout after the murder," he recalled. "What did they find? Food. An entire refrigerator full of food." Was this discovery shocking to Jackson? "Absolutely not. It simply confirmed what I had long since suspected, and which this study proves."
Jackson also noted that none of these gang members had any contact with their parents, and that most had either been disowned or had run away from home. "That fact is really very frightening when you think about it. An entire group of teenagers, and no one is monitoring their food intake. It's no wonder that this happened with such unbridled consumption of food."
Miami police chief John Timoney's recollections of crimes committed within his jurisdiction corroborated Jackson's claims.
"It all sounds very plausible at face value, yes," said Timoney. "Our law enforcement officers have indeed found many, many sightings of food on the premises of houses of those who have committed crimes." Was it admitted as evidence during the trial of the suspect? "We didn't pay it much mind at the time, but in light of this study, we certainly will be paying closer attention to this factor, absolutely."
Some dispute these claims, such as criminologist Skip Tical at the University of Arkansas.
"The thing is- is everyone eats food," said Tical. "Dr. Jackson can't possibly be seriously saying that it has anything to do with anything, can he?"
Nonsense, says Jackson.
"You find a criminal, you find food. Unless someone can show me a criminal who did not eat food shortly before committing a crime, I see no way that you could possibly disprove the findings of this study."
Please be aware that article was not true, yet it had fooled me when it first came out. Yet, surely that's a preposterous idea! Everyone eats food, yet not everyone commits a crime. This is the exact same thing that we find written about video games. It is true that most people who commit crimes probably play video games, yet what about the poor homeless people who can't afford video games, and steal someone's purse? He definitely can't afford a video game! In addition, before video games, or even media, came out, people committed crimes; therefore media can never be solely blamed for violence.
If there was violence before media, than, though I'll admit that I believe that media may have some role in it, in my opinion; media is not the direct 'cause' of violence.
Yet, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell said about perception:
It is evident from what we have found, that there is no colour which preeminently appears to be the colour of the table, or even of any one particular part of the table -- it appears to be of different colours from different points of view, and there is no reason for regarding some of these as more really its colour than others.
hiterto-undiscussed reason to vote for, nay, DEMAND Stephen Colbert for President in 2008:
Log in to comment