Friday, April 24, 2009
AH! oh no...
So I've run into a tiny problem with my paper. I originally was very passionate about attacking the amount of sexuality in media and how it is corrupting our very impressionable youth. The issue which I now face is this: there is little factual evidence proving my case. Most of the articles and quotations I found were focused on the amount of violence in media. I agree that there is an issue there as well, but I am just not at all passionate about that argument like I am the sex one. This may be due to the fact that I have become "desensitized" to the violence on tv/in movies and so no longer regard it as a major issue, whereas my Christian upbringing sheltered me much more from the sex side of the media. Therefore, the sex media is much more offensive to me than violent media. I can still argue the violence side, I am simply worried that it will be an argument that is lacking passion or drive, and therefore a piece of crap paper. Which would royally blow for the final paper.
"Violence and the media" -- Congressional Digest
http://0search.ebscohost.com.libweb.dmacc.edu:80/login.aspx?direct=truedb=f5h
&AN=2488541&site=ehost-live
A detailed article focusing mostly on statistical evidence of the rise in aggression of American youth. The author expresses deep concern in the role of today’s “ubiquitous” media: television, movies, music, and video games. The article pointed out many facts relating to the history of the influence of television programming.
“With television, analysis of programming for 20 years (1973 to 1993) found that over the years, the level of violence in prime-time programming remained at about five violent acts per hour. An August 1994 report by the Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that in one 18-hour day in 1992, observing 10 channels of all major kinds of programs, 1,846 different scenes of violence were noted, which translated to more than 10 violent scenes per hour, per channel, all day. A follow-up study conducted in 1994, found a 41 percent increase in violent scenes to 2,605, which translated to almost 15 scenes of violence per hour.”
The author concludes with a strong solution with “Steps for National Reform”.
If we take steps at both the national level –by dealing with the marketing of, and access to, violent media –and at the most local of levels –by empowering parents to exercise greater control over the material their children access – we can significantly reduce the impact of violent media on our young people.
Seeing as this article is heavy with statistics and not moral code, it will be good to use the facts as a core, which I can then build my paper around. I found it interesting that in a poll the youth itself targeted the media as an influential key in violence like the Littleton, CO shootings. “ATime/CNN poll found that 75 percent of teens 13 to 17 years of age believe the Internet is partly responsible for crimes like the Littleton shootings, 66 percent blame violence in movies, television, and music, and 56 percent blame video game violence.” If the youth, that is supposedly being negatively influenced by the media, recognizes the detrimental side effects as well, it changes the argument from an adult looking in and analyzing, to a person on the inside looking out saying “there is a problem here!”.
&AN=2488541&site=ehost-live
A detailed article focusing mostly on statistical evidence of the rise in aggression of American youth. The author expresses deep concern in the role of today’s “ubiquitous” media: television, movies, music, and video games. The article pointed out many facts relating to the history of the influence of television programming.
“With television, analysis of programming for 20 years (1973 to 1993) found that over the years, the level of violence in prime-time programming remained at about five violent acts per hour. An August 1994 report by the Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that in one 18-hour day in 1992, observing 10 channels of all major kinds of programs, 1,846 different scenes of violence were noted, which translated to more than 10 violent scenes per hour, per channel, all day. A follow-up study conducted in 1994, found a 41 percent increase in violent scenes to 2,605, which translated to almost 15 scenes of violence per hour.”
The author concludes with a strong solution with “Steps for National Reform”.
If we take steps at both the national level –by dealing with the marketing of, and access to, violent media –and at the most local of levels –by empowering parents to exercise greater control over the material their children access – we can significantly reduce the impact of violent media on our young people.
Seeing as this article is heavy with statistics and not moral code, it will be good to use the facts as a core, which I can then build my paper around. I found it interesting that in a poll the youth itself targeted the media as an influential key in violence like the Littleton, CO shootings. “ATime/CNN poll found that 75 percent of teens 13 to 17 years of age believe the Internet is partly responsible for crimes like the Littleton shootings, 66 percent blame violence in movies, television, and music, and 56 percent blame video game violence.” If the youth, that is supposedly being negatively influenced by the media, recognizes the detrimental side effects as well, it changes the argument from an adult looking in and analyzing, to a person on the inside looking out saying “there is a problem here!”.
"Media, violence, youth, and society." -- Surette, Ray
http://0search.ebscohost.com.libweb.dmacc.edu:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f&AN940718
3026&site=ehost-live
A very detailed piece that takes a very well rounded look at the arguments revolving around media’s influence on today’s youth. It takes the radical arguments of those who blame media entirely and those who claim the media has no effect and shows that neither is entirely correct. Deciphering media’s influence is not easy but very complex. Surette stated the different stances of both sides and then showed how it is really the happy-medium of the two that produce the most logical answers.
"If a consensus has emerged from the research and public interest, it is that the sources of violence are complex and tied to our most basic nature as well as the social world we have created and that the media's particular relationship to social violence is extremely complicated. (See the discussion in this author's Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice [1992] and in Crime and Human Nature [1985] by J. Wilson and R. Herrnstein.).... Therefore, when discussing the nature of the relationship between the media and violence, it is important not to be myopic. Social violence is embedded in historical, social forces and phenomena, while the media are components of a larger information system that creates and distributes knowledge about the world. The media and social violence must both be approached as parts of phenomena that have numerous interconnections and paths of influence between them. Too narrow a perspective on youth violence or the media's role in its generation oversimplifies both the problem and the solutions we pursue. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current concern about media, youth, and violence. "
I really liked this article and pulled a lot of quotations from it. This idea is what I would like my paper to be based on but it’s very difficult to find pieces that speak objectively on the matter and weigh both arguments. I find this argument much more intriguing and believable than taking one side or the other. I think that taking a similar stance would make my argument more concrete. I personally lean more towards media being the cause, yet this article has been by far the most interesting and thought provoking that I have read yet. It is so easy to say the radical stances, and that ease causes indifference in the opposing party. This makes both sides stop and think—together.
3026&site=ehost-live
A very detailed piece that takes a very well rounded look at the arguments revolving around media’s influence on today’s youth. It takes the radical arguments of those who blame media entirely and those who claim the media has no effect and shows that neither is entirely correct. Deciphering media’s influence is not easy but very complex. Surette stated the different stances of both sides and then showed how it is really the happy-medium of the two that produce the most logical answers.
"If a consensus has emerged from the research and public interest, it is that the sources of violence are complex and tied to our most basic nature as well as the social world we have created and that the media's particular relationship to social violence is extremely complicated. (See the discussion in this author's Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice [1992] and in Crime and Human Nature [1985] by J. Wilson and R. Herrnstein.).... Therefore, when discussing the nature of the relationship between the media and violence, it is important not to be myopic. Social violence is embedded in historical, social forces and phenomena, while the media are components of a larger information system that creates and distributes knowledge about the world. The media and social violence must both be approached as parts of phenomena that have numerous interconnections and paths of influence between them. Too narrow a perspective on youth violence or the media's role in its generation oversimplifies both the problem and the solutions we pursue. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current concern about media, youth, and violence. "
I really liked this article and pulled a lot of quotations from it. This idea is what I would like my paper to be based on but it’s very difficult to find pieces that speak objectively on the matter and weigh both arguments. I find this argument much more intriguing and believable than taking one side or the other. I think that taking a similar stance would make my argument more concrete. I personally lean more towards media being the cause, yet this article has been by far the most interesting and thought provoking that I have read yet. It is so easy to say the radical stances, and that ease causes indifference in the opposing party. This makes both sides stop and think—together.
"Clueless": Why Do Pediatricians Underestimate the Media's Influence on Children and Adolescents?” -- Strasburger, Victor (MD)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/4/1427#R3
This article is concerned with the lack of sex education throughout the public school systems and the fact that most of the sexual education that teens get from the media is not educational at all. “The media have arguably become the leading sex educator in America today. That's not good news, considering the fact that more than 75% of primetime shows contain sexual content but only 11% discuss the risks of sex. (Kunkel D, Eyal K, Finnerty K, Biely E, Donnerstein E. Sex on TV. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2005).” This article does not only focus on the media, but also looks at “pediatricians, parents, teachers, the entertainment industry, and state and federal governments”. The issue is that the TV is teaching the youth about sex, but no one is taking control over the TV.
The media make sexual intercourse seem like normative behavior even for teens. "Everyone does it" on television and in the movies, or so it seems, yet the need for birth control, the risks of pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, or the need for responsibility are rarely discussed. In this way, the media function as a "super peer," putting additional pressure on young people to have sex at a young age.(Strasburger VC. Adolescents, sex, and the media: oooo, baby, baby—a Q & A. Adolesc Med Clin. 2005;16 :269 –288[CrossRef][Medline]) In a 1999 survey of 2100 teenage girls, only 11-year-olds said that they do not feel pressure from the media to have sex. (Haag P. Voices of a Generation: Teenage Girls on Sex, School, and Self. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation; 1999)
In the end this article is really about sex education, but it does strongly suggest that American television is taking on most of that teaching—saying that the TV is indeed a teaching tool. As a teacher, the media needs to take more responsibility in its overall message to the children that are consuming its lessons. I also like how it shows the media as a "super peer" and confronts an issue of peer pressure. If young adults are worried about being "cool", and the media is "what's hot", it makes sense to link peers to mirroring the media, which does in the end make media the ultimate peer pressure.
This article is concerned with the lack of sex education throughout the public school systems and the fact that most of the sexual education that teens get from the media is not educational at all. “The media have arguably become the leading sex educator in America today. That's not good news, considering the fact that more than 75% of primetime shows contain sexual content but only 11% discuss the risks of sex. (Kunkel D, Eyal K, Finnerty K, Biely E, Donnerstein E. Sex on TV. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2005).” This article does not only focus on the media, but also looks at “pediatricians, parents, teachers, the entertainment industry, and state and federal governments”. The issue is that the TV is teaching the youth about sex, but no one is taking control over the TV.
The media make sexual intercourse seem like normative behavior even for teens. "Everyone does it" on television and in the movies, or so it seems, yet the need for birth control, the risks of pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, or the need for responsibility are rarely discussed. In this way, the media function as a "super peer," putting additional pressure on young people to have sex at a young age.(Strasburger VC. Adolescents, sex, and the media: oooo, baby, baby—a Q & A. Adolesc Med Clin. 2005;16 :269 –288[CrossRef][Medline]) In a 1999 survey of 2100 teenage girls, only 11-year-olds said that they do not feel pressure from the media to have sex. (Haag P. Voices of a Generation: Teenage Girls on Sex, School, and Self. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation; 1999)
In the end this article is really about sex education, but it does strongly suggest that American television is taking on most of that teaching—saying that the TV is indeed a teaching tool. As a teacher, the media needs to take more responsibility in its overall message to the children that are consuming its lessons. I also like how it shows the media as a "super peer" and confronts an issue of peer pressure. If young adults are worried about being "cool", and the media is "what's hot", it makes sense to link peers to mirroring the media, which does in the end make media the ultimate peer pressure.
“Media Violence Affects Inner-City Youth” -- Mooney-McCoy, Caleb
http://www.urbanministry.org/effects-media-violence-inner-city-youth
This was more of a personal article talking about the desensitizing issue with the media. After witnessing a young man bleed to death on a street corner, Mooney-McCoy listened to the off-hand responses of youth and his own surprisingly calm reaction to the scene. Mooney-McCoy tied these “callous attitude[s]” back to the fact that daily, Americans are subject to stage-deaths in media that they think is realistic in society. Looking at children’s exposure to violent television programming, Mooney-McCoy wrote,“....the show being watched is extremely violent, and young people might know that the television program is made up, [but] they believe that the violent act most definitely could happen in real life.”
It is not only the amount of violence in media, but the way it is portrayed. Mooney-McCoy wrote:
"The greater concern about these programs is the way that violence is presented. Most graphic or violent material is glorified. Nearly half of violent interactions involve perpetrators who have some attractive qualities worthy of emulation, particularly for young people. Furthermore, 75 percent of all violent scenes featured no immediate punishment or condemnation for the violence."
I have never witnessed a scene like the one Mooney-McCoy did in this article, but reading this made me wonder what my reaction would be. I'm sure I'd be in shock, but would I be as effected as I think I would prior to the scene? It is very true how media desensitizes people. Even in myself, I can watch peoples heads get chopped off (very realistically) and merely flinch before moving on to the next violent act in a film. Everything happens so quickly in action flicks that we start to associate short lived reactions with decapitated heads flying about because we know that there's more to come.
This was more of a personal article talking about the desensitizing issue with the media. After witnessing a young man bleed to death on a street corner, Mooney-McCoy listened to the off-hand responses of youth and his own surprisingly calm reaction to the scene. Mooney-McCoy tied these “callous attitude[s]” back to the fact that daily, Americans are subject to stage-deaths in media that they think is realistic in society. Looking at children’s exposure to violent television programming, Mooney-McCoy wrote,“....the show being watched is extremely violent, and young people might know that the television program is made up, [but] they believe that the violent act most definitely could happen in real life.”
It is not only the amount of violence in media, but the way it is portrayed. Mooney-McCoy wrote:
"The greater concern about these programs is the way that violence is presented. Most graphic or violent material is glorified. Nearly half of violent interactions involve perpetrators who have some attractive qualities worthy of emulation, particularly for young people. Furthermore, 75 percent of all violent scenes featured no immediate punishment or condemnation for the violence."
I have never witnessed a scene like the one Mooney-McCoy did in this article, but reading this made me wonder what my reaction would be. I'm sure I'd be in shock, but would I be as effected as I think I would prior to the scene? It is very true how media desensitizes people. Even in myself, I can watch peoples heads get chopped off (very realistically) and merely flinch before moving on to the next violent act in a film. Everything happens so quickly in action flicks that we start to associate short lived reactions with decapitated heads flying about because we know that there's more to come.
“Media Has Big Influence On Kids: Study defines time spent on TVs, CDs, PCs.”--Kiesewetter, John, and Cindy Kranz
http://www.parentingbookmark.com/pages/ArticleMedia01.htm
In a survey involving more than 3,000 children 2-18, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that “average American” youth are laden with media. This articles primary concern is how the media has become just as time consuming as a regular school day. The article states,
"A Kaiser Family Foundation national study of media use, the first of its kind, found that “the typical American child” spends five hours and 29 minutes a day using media. That's one minute less than the daily minimum instructional time for Ohio secondary schools.... And kids age 8 and older use media an hour and 15 minutes more daily, according to the “Kids & Media @ The New Millennium” report."
This was a non-aggressive look at the negative aspects of media. It was not attacking the media, but simply saying that maybe there is cause for concern in the amounts of time our youth is spending in front of the TV or computer screen. The concern here is that the media is outweighing the balance that it should when it comes to education. Also, parents are not monitoring what it is their children are “learning”.
I think media should be viewed as a sort of teacher, and treated as such when parents are monitoring what programs their children watch. Popular opinion is very influential, especially in adolescents. The media is also practically unavoidable, so how could someone not realize that they learn from the media? And it is not that all media is bad, there are positives. It just seems that right now the negative aspects are so prominent, while the "good" messages lie buried beneath the heaping piles of "crap".
In a survey involving more than 3,000 children 2-18, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that “average American” youth are laden with media. This articles primary concern is how the media has become just as time consuming as a regular school day. The article states,
"A Kaiser Family Foundation national study of media use, the first of its kind, found that “the typical American child” spends five hours and 29 minutes a day using media. That's one minute less than the daily minimum instructional time for Ohio secondary schools.... And kids age 8 and older use media an hour and 15 minutes more daily, according to the “Kids & Media @ The New Millennium” report."
This was a non-aggressive look at the negative aspects of media. It was not attacking the media, but simply saying that maybe there is cause for concern in the amounts of time our youth is spending in front of the TV or computer screen. The concern here is that the media is outweighing the balance that it should when it comes to education. Also, parents are not monitoring what it is their children are “learning”.
I think media should be viewed as a sort of teacher, and treated as such when parents are monitoring what programs their children watch. Popular opinion is very influential, especially in adolescents. The media is also practically unavoidable, so how could someone not realize that they learn from the media? And it is not that all media is bad, there are positives. It just seems that right now the negative aspects are so prominent, while the "good" messages lie buried beneath the heaping piles of "crap".
"Return to the bad old days? A news perspective" -- Grenada, Paul
http://0search.ebscohost.com.libweb.dmacc.edu:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5hAN
=25818463&site=ehost-live
This is a short article that argues against blaming media for youth involvement in gangs. It focuses more on explaining the youth’s violence in relation to their environments, their family situations, and personal needs to prove themselves. “It would be easy to blame music or television. People always do. But media is as controlled as it has ever been. Yes, an album from a gangsta rapper may give them a soundtrack to their activities, but it's not the inspiration.”
I can use this article as a good piece to focus on countering its argument. I can see the sense in the Grenada’s opinion and agree, yet I feel that media plays a larger role that he gives credit. I, also, do not want to point only at the media and I would like to communicate that understanding in my final piece. I think it is too easy to argue that the media is entirely to blame or is not a problem at all. It may not directly cause the problem, but it is definitely influential. Many children, and even adults, are somewhat driven by encouragement, appraisal, and "punishment" (or society's consequences/ people looking down on a person). The media serves as encouragement. It may not be the first place kids get their ideas, but the media is there to back them up and glorify violent actions.
=25818463&site=ehost-live
This is a short article that argues against blaming media for youth involvement in gangs. It focuses more on explaining the youth’s violence in relation to their environments, their family situations, and personal needs to prove themselves. “It would be easy to blame music or television. People always do. But media is as controlled as it has ever been. Yes, an album from a gangsta rapper may give them a soundtrack to their activities, but it's not the inspiration.”
I can use this article as a good piece to focus on countering its argument. I can see the sense in the Grenada’s opinion and agree, yet I feel that media plays a larger role that he gives credit. I, also, do not want to point only at the media and I would like to communicate that understanding in my final piece. I think it is too easy to argue that the media is entirely to blame or is not a problem at all. It may not directly cause the problem, but it is definitely influential. Many children, and even adults, are somewhat driven by encouragement, appraisal, and "punishment" (or society's consequences/ people looking down on a person). The media serves as encouragement. It may not be the first place kids get their ideas, but the media is there to back them up and glorify violent actions.
Media influences on children and adolescents: violence and sex” --Journal of the National Medical Association
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2594155
A look at the influences of violence, sex, drugs, and alcohol in the media. This article speaks mostly against the amount of violence in media and its prevalence in current research. It is written by many medical professionals that feel that the influences of media play into a patients’ history. “Pediatricians and health care workers should incorporate media exposure probes into the developmental history of their patients and become knowledgeable about the effects of medial influences on youth.”
The article supported my belief that even though the media is not the source of the issue, it is only helping to sustain the problem at hand. “Although there are additional causes of violent behavior other than television, television viewing adds to factors that may already be present. Television serves as a supplement to further ingrain the use of violence as an acceptable form of conflict resolution.”
I’m finding in my research that there is more correlation between violence and TV rather than having a lot of correlations between sex and TV. This fact influences where I will take my stand on the argument seeing as that belief may prove only to be an opinion of mine. I originally wanted to focus more on the sexual side of media, which I do still believe is an issue, but it is much harder to find substantial facts on that. Even if it is merely an opinion, it still is one I hold to strongly, but I cannot argue something solely based on my opinion. I need something to back it up. I may only end up arguing the violent side of media.
A look at the influences of violence, sex, drugs, and alcohol in the media. This article speaks mostly against the amount of violence in media and its prevalence in current research. It is written by many medical professionals that feel that the influences of media play into a patients’ history. “Pediatricians and health care workers should incorporate media exposure probes into the developmental history of their patients and become knowledgeable about the effects of medial influences on youth.”
The article supported my belief that even though the media is not the source of the issue, it is only helping to sustain the problem at hand. “Although there are additional causes of violent behavior other than television, television viewing adds to factors that may already be present. Television serves as a supplement to further ingrain the use of violence as an acceptable form of conflict resolution.”
I’m finding in my research that there is more correlation between violence and TV rather than having a lot of correlations between sex and TV. This fact influences where I will take my stand on the argument seeing as that belief may prove only to be an opinion of mine. I originally wanted to focus more on the sexual side of media, which I do still believe is an issue, but it is much harder to find substantial facts on that. Even if it is merely an opinion, it still is one I hold to strongly, but I cannot argue something solely based on my opinion. I need something to back it up. I may only end up arguing the violent side of media.
"The dilemmas of covering youth violence" -- Belsie, Laurent.
http://0search.ebscohost.com.libweb.dmacc.edu:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=1864077&site=ehost-live
An article addressing the problems with news media. Belsie feels that the in-depth coverage of youth violence only encourages similar violence or “imitation”. There seems to be a cause for concern in the fame that can be had with something as simple as a threat. Instead of throwing the latest teen outbursts on the front page and creating a prime time spot for them as the leading story on the evening news, Belsie suggests to take a more subtle route. “"We do influence our readers - otherwise why would we charge for advertisements or print editorials?" says Sun-Times editor-in-chief Nigel Wade. And ever since the shootings in Jonesboro, Ark., "it appeared that there was a cycle at work: violence followed by publicity followed by another attack."”
The question here is what is the news media trying to sell to the youth that will be bombarded with news coverage? Belsie has a good point. This is a good piece supporting how the media influences youth and how being constantly surrounded by it can lead to actions. Some people go to drastic measures to gain attention or recognition no matter if it is positive or negative fame. This is not an issue I will most likely go into in my paper, but it is an interesting thought. After reading this and other articles on the same topic, I do notice how overdone the media might be when covering teen crime. It could easily be considered someone's "15 minutes of fame".
An article addressing the problems with news media. Belsie feels that the in-depth coverage of youth violence only encourages similar violence or “imitation”. There seems to be a cause for concern in the fame that can be had with something as simple as a threat. Instead of throwing the latest teen outbursts on the front page and creating a prime time spot for them as the leading story on the evening news, Belsie suggests to take a more subtle route. “"We do influence our readers - otherwise why would we charge for advertisements or print editorials?" says Sun-Times editor-in-chief Nigel Wade. And ever since the shootings in Jonesboro, Ark., "it appeared that there was a cycle at work: violence followed by publicity followed by another attack."”
The question here is what is the news media trying to sell to the youth that will be bombarded with news coverage? Belsie has a good point. This is a good piece supporting how the media influences youth and how being constantly surrounded by it can lead to actions. Some people go to drastic measures to gain attention or recognition no matter if it is positive or negative fame. This is not an issue I will most likely go into in my paper, but it is an interesting thought. After reading this and other articles on the same topic, I do notice how overdone the media might be when covering teen crime. It could easily be considered someone's "15 minutes of fame".
“The Influence of Media on Youth”-- The Journal of the National Medical Association.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/pspi/pspi43.pdf
This article describes many studies that have been done in the past in relation to the influence of media. In the summary of the article it states,
"Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts.... The research base is large; diverse in methods, samples, and media genres; and consistent in overall findings."
The article explains that the authors do not feel that the media is the catalyst of heinous criminal activity, but that it does have influence on youth violence. It uses an analogy between a teen playing violent video games and an old man that has been smoking for years. The point these researches want to make is that, just because the man that has been smoking for years happens to still be cancer free, does not mean that the cigarettes are not harming him. Taking that part of the analogy, the researchers are trying to communicate that just because the young adult has not gone out and slaughtered anyone does not mean that he is not somehow being harmed or influenced by the violent media.
I agree with this. While talking to a friend the other day about this topic, he said to me, "Well isn't it obvious? Art reflects life, life reflects art. It is obvious that it is not entirely one ore the other." So these radical views on blaming the media or defending it entirely make no sense. It is a cycle. It probably began, slowly as a cycle. If people had never 'craved' violent and sexual media, it wouldn't have lasted because it would not have been bought. It has all just creeped up gradually, and now society is starting to see some disturbing visuals and social statistics.
This article describes many studies that have been done in the past in relation to the influence of media. In the summary of the article it states,
"Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts.... The research base is large; diverse in methods, samples, and media genres; and consistent in overall findings."
The article explains that the authors do not feel that the media is the catalyst of heinous criminal activity, but that it does have influence on youth violence. It uses an analogy between a teen playing violent video games and an old man that has been smoking for years. The point these researches want to make is that, just because the man that has been smoking for years happens to still be cancer free, does not mean that the cigarettes are not harming him. Taking that part of the analogy, the researchers are trying to communicate that just because the young adult has not gone out and slaughtered anyone does not mean that he is not somehow being harmed or influenced by the violent media.
I agree with this. While talking to a friend the other day about this topic, he said to me, "Well isn't it obvious? Art reflects life, life reflects art. It is obvious that it is not entirely one ore the other." So these radical views on blaming the media or defending it entirely make no sense. It is a cycle. It probably began, slowly as a cycle. If people had never 'craved' violent and sexual media, it wouldn't have lasted because it would not have been bought. It has all just creeped up gradually, and now society is starting to see some disturbing visuals and social statistics.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/business/media/07violence.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=violence%20in%20media&st=cse
This article from the New York Times argues that violent movies actually decrease the statistics relating to violent crime. The study focused on crime rates in relation to release dates of violent films, popular theatre hours (such as weekend evenings) and a short period after the movies had finished. This research shows that violent crime rates drop significantly around the release of a violent film. Many of the quotations talk about keeping the people who are intrigued but such things in a theatre—where there is no drug or alcohol abuse.
\
I’m really glad I found this article. I am (maybe) arguing the opposite side of this argument—that violence in media does have a negative effect. But this is an argument that I had considered as well. I didn’t know that there was substantial research that had been done. This is a very well done article, obviously—New York Times. It has a very strong argument. But one of the opposing voices of the piece does bring up that this study only involved a look at the immediate effects. How is this effecting society in the long run? And as become less interested with the same stuff all the time, we’ll need the media to turn up the violence. It’s like when you take a hot shower and your body becomes accustomed to the water, you turn the water hotter so you still feel warm. If you were to turn the water on as hot as it would be by the end of your shower, you’d burn yourself. So looking at society, isn’t there a logical burning point?
One opposing argument in this article was that movies need not be violent to draw in the crowds that are more inclined to violent crimes (young men). I agree. The study here shows that it was not only violent movies, but any movie that was appealing to young men. This presents a challenge to the media: to, maybe this time, not opt out for the easy thrill of violence that everyone expects anymore, but find a different direction to turn our heads.
This article from the New York Times argues that violent movies actually decrease the statistics relating to violent crime. The study focused on crime rates in relation to release dates of violent films, popular theatre hours (such as weekend evenings) and a short period after the movies had finished. This research shows that violent crime rates drop significantly around the release of a violent film. Many of the quotations talk about keeping the people who are intrigued but such things in a theatre—where there is no drug or alcohol abuse.
\
I’m really glad I found this article. I am (maybe) arguing the opposite side of this argument—that violence in media does have a negative effect. But this is an argument that I had considered as well. I didn’t know that there was substantial research that had been done. This is a very well done article, obviously—New York Times. It has a very strong argument. But one of the opposing voices of the piece does bring up that this study only involved a look at the immediate effects. How is this effecting society in the long run? And as become less interested with the same stuff all the time, we’ll need the media to turn up the violence. It’s like when you take a hot shower and your body becomes accustomed to the water, you turn the water hotter so you still feel warm. If you were to turn the water on as hot as it would be by the end of your shower, you’d burn yourself. So looking at society, isn’t there a logical burning point?
One opposing argument in this article was that movies need not be violent to draw in the crowds that are more inclined to violent crimes (young men). I agree. The study here shows that it was not only violent movies, but any movie that was appealing to young men. This presents a challenge to the media: to, maybe this time, not opt out for the easy thrill of violence that everyone expects anymore, but find a different direction to turn our heads.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Media Violence: Ugly and Getting Uglier
http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/violence/violence.html
This article, by Daphne Lavers, talks about the increased violence across America since shortly after the introduction of the television to society. Lavers writes about the complaints of the Parents Television Council (PTC) against TV networking and the influence it is having on today’s children. There is cause to worry about child addictions to sleazy media and desensitizing them to violent acts. As our young children become more desensitized, their thirst for excitement is heightened, raising the bar for both sex and violent content. The timing of programming that is overloaded with sex and violence is also a big issue. Not long ago, more risqué and violent television was held off until “after hours”—now we see it on prime time television. If we start our kids on questionable media at such a young age, we lay out the perfect path for numbing them to these issues.
Lavers argues that this is not simply an issue of morals:
“Murder rates doubled 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in the United States, Canada, and virtually every country where "free" television was launched... In the last 10 years, violent female role models have emerged on movie and television screens...the violent crime rate has risen 93 percent among females compared to 35 percent for males, and the largest growing portion of the prison population is violent female inmates.”
Current society is portraying sex and violence as, maybe not “glamorous"-as is the word so often used, but as "entertaining". That is why we see TV networks and video games always trying to beat each other with the amounts of blood and guts and slutty characters.
I agree with Lavers. I don’t understand how people can not realize the effect of the media that constantly surrounds us. I think that that is such a popular opinion because we ourselves have been raised with this media. I admit that I consider myself numb to some aspects of the media. I have seen violent things that don’t cause me to blink. But I realize that they should.
The solution Lavers offers is an increase in the use of self-editing when it comes to television. There are available devices for editing profanity and blocking entire programs if necessary. At this point, I feel that though those may help, they won’t get the overall job done. I’m not sure if what we need is attainable with current standards. We would have to seriously back track with the content that is released in the media. If society would stand together on this issue, it may be resolved. After a very long time.
This article, by Daphne Lavers, talks about the increased violence across America since shortly after the introduction of the television to society. Lavers writes about the complaints of the Parents Television Council (PTC) against TV networking and the influence it is having on today’s children. There is cause to worry about child addictions to sleazy media and desensitizing them to violent acts. As our young children become more desensitized, their thirst for excitement is heightened, raising the bar for both sex and violent content. The timing of programming that is overloaded with sex and violence is also a big issue. Not long ago, more risqué and violent television was held off until “after hours”—now we see it on prime time television. If we start our kids on questionable media at such a young age, we lay out the perfect path for numbing them to these issues.
Lavers argues that this is not simply an issue of morals:
“Murder rates doubled 10 to 15 years after the introduction of television in the United States, Canada, and virtually every country where "free" television was launched... In the last 10 years, violent female role models have emerged on movie and television screens...the violent crime rate has risen 93 percent among females compared to 35 percent for males, and the largest growing portion of the prison population is violent female inmates.”
Current society is portraying sex and violence as, maybe not “glamorous"-as is the word so often used, but as "entertaining". That is why we see TV networks and video games always trying to beat each other with the amounts of blood and guts and slutty characters.
I agree with Lavers. I don’t understand how people can not realize the effect of the media that constantly surrounds us. I think that that is such a popular opinion because we ourselves have been raised with this media. I admit that I consider myself numb to some aspects of the media. I have seen violent things that don’t cause me to blink. But I realize that they should.
The solution Lavers offers is an increase in the use of self-editing when it comes to television. There are available devices for editing profanity and blocking entire programs if necessary. At this point, I feel that though those may help, they won’t get the overall job done. I’m not sure if what we need is attainable with current standards. We would have to seriously back track with the content that is released in the media. If society would stand together on this issue, it may be resolved. After a very long time.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Reflection: Paper 1
One of the strongest parts of my paper is the introduction and I was very happy with that because I wanted to catch the audience off guard and really hook them. I'm the kind of person that doesn't judge a book by it's cover, but by its first sentence, which obviously doesn't always work, but it's often something I find myself doing.
I took into account the power of three. From the article that I was responding to, I took three of the author's points from his argument and agreed with him by elaborating on those points with outside information. I think this, along with his specific quotes, gave me a stronger argument.
The organization seemed to all fall together by the time I had my finished product. Some of the overall flow may need a bit more attention, but I felt like my outside research and my in-text quotes from the author complimented each other. My closing paragraph needs some work. I think it could use more of punch similar to the intro so that the audience is given a more dramatic ending that will remain on their minds. I didn't want to repeat myself in the conclusion, but now I'm thinking that I could have gone into a bit more detail on the solutions I have in mind, instead of letting the audience get the main gist from my paper as a whole.
I tend to be a wordy writer, so I tried to stay away from that. I don't know if I accomplished it or not.
Overall, I was pleased with my final draft. It will be interesting to counter it in our next paper, but I like trying to understand both sides of an argument.
I took into account the power of three. From the article that I was responding to, I took three of the author's points from his argument and agreed with him by elaborating on those points with outside information. I think this, along with his specific quotes, gave me a stronger argument.
The organization seemed to all fall together by the time I had my finished product. Some of the overall flow may need a bit more attention, but I felt like my outside research and my in-text quotes from the author complimented each other. My closing paragraph needs some work. I think it could use more of punch similar to the intro so that the audience is given a more dramatic ending that will remain on their minds. I didn't want to repeat myself in the conclusion, but now I'm thinking that I could have gone into a bit more detail on the solutions I have in mind, instead of letting the audience get the main gist from my paper as a whole.
I tend to be a wordy writer, so I tried to stay away from that. I don't know if I accomplished it or not.
Overall, I was pleased with my final draft. It will be interesting to counter it in our next paper, but I like trying to understand both sides of an argument.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Smooth Operations
What is the argument in this essay? Black women used to frown at the thought of plastic surgery, but more and more are starting to warm up to the idea. Ok? But what’s being argued? I respect the women that have held onto the pride they have in their cultural and physical uniqueness, but it’s their choice just as it is for everyone else if they want plastic surgery or not. But,when speaking about plastic surgery in general, I don’t think I could care less. I don’t see a basis for an argument in this essay. What is the author’s point? It’s not as if the author fighting to lower prices so it’s no longer looked at as a “rich, white” thing to do. How do you respond to this essay if all it is doing is stating that African-American women are not opposed to plastic surgery as they have been in the past? There’s no suggestion for or against the topic. It is simply informative of the change in view of some black women and why it was hard to get to that changed view.
Student Sues School District for Banning Anti-War T-Shirt
Maybe I wrote it down wrong, but page 672 is just an intro to the chapter, so I read the first actual essay on 674.
This would be a tricky situation to handle. In the end I’d have to say that the kid could wear the shirt, even though it is hard to believe that there wasn’t any negative reaction from the president being called a terrorist. I have heard so many things said about presidents at school though, so maybe we’re all numbed to it. But if students can speak openly in schools about how they feel about politicians, why couldn’t they wear a shirt?
I think I would fight the confederate flag shirts more than someone having a harsh opinion about a president. (I hate politics though, and think that most kids my age are just filled with the bull that the media is feeding them—therefore they think they’re so smart but really they’re just talking to talk. So they tend to exaggerate. Not all of course, some people know their politics.) I really can’t believe the confederate flag wasn’t banned. That is very offensive. If schools must allow that, then they obviously would have to also allow a political slam. That is much of what politics seem to be anymore.
Keynes points out, “Administrators did not have a right to send Barber home...because legal precedent only permits schools to discipline students who are violation a written rule, and the Dearborn district does not have a policy banning political speech”. Well there you go, case closed.
This would be a tricky situation to handle. In the end I’d have to say that the kid could wear the shirt, even though it is hard to believe that there wasn’t any negative reaction from the president being called a terrorist. I have heard so many things said about presidents at school though, so maybe we’re all numbed to it. But if students can speak openly in schools about how they feel about politicians, why couldn’t they wear a shirt?
I think I would fight the confederate flag shirts more than someone having a harsh opinion about a president. (I hate politics though, and think that most kids my age are just filled with the bull that the media is feeding them—therefore they think they’re so smart but really they’re just talking to talk. So they tend to exaggerate. Not all of course, some people know their politics.) I really can’t believe the confederate flag wasn’t banned. That is very offensive. If schools must allow that, then they obviously would have to also allow a political slam. That is much of what politics seem to be anymore.
Keynes points out, “Administrators did not have a right to send Barber home...because legal precedent only permits schools to discipline students who are violation a written rule, and the Dearborn district does not have a policy banning political speech”. Well there you go, case closed.
Gay Marriage Shows [the Need] to Seperate Church & State
Overall, Moody had a very strong argument. Raised in a Christian home, it is something that is difficult for me to side with completely. As a Christian, I have my beliefs and “religious” morals, but they are not things that I wish to push on other people. I can’t say that I agree with this essay simply because it is against my beliefs, but just as I would not want to live under someone else’s religious views, I can’t force mine upon the homosexual community.
Seeing as my only grounds for debate on this subject stem from my beliefs and I have just slaughtered that argument for myself, I cannot really argue this essay. This is not an argument that is based on beliefs, but the responsibility of the state ruling, not based on my beliefs, but almost with a void of all spiritual beliefs so that they are not partial to one. Even in saying that I feel like it is sacrilegious, and I admit, I may not be convinced of this stance myself.
I thought it was a good point to show how things have changed over time. Even biblically with multiple wives, to “minorities” and women not having rights. At one point in our recent history, as Moody points out, interracial marriages were practically forbidden. Many things have changed over time. It seems to be based on perspective when the law should have a firm foundation. “It is clear that there is no single religious view of marriage and that history has witnessed some monumental changes in the way ‘husband and wife’ are seen in the relationship of marriage.” So where does that leave us? Where do we turn to base our decisions?
Seeing as my only grounds for debate on this subject stem from my beliefs and I have just slaughtered that argument for myself, I cannot really argue this essay. This is not an argument that is based on beliefs, but the responsibility of the state ruling, not based on my beliefs, but almost with a void of all spiritual beliefs so that they are not partial to one. Even in saying that I feel like it is sacrilegious, and I admit, I may not be convinced of this stance myself.
I thought it was a good point to show how things have changed over time. Even biblically with multiple wives, to “minorities” and women not having rights. At one point in our recent history, as Moody points out, interracial marriages were practically forbidden. Many things have changed over time. It seems to be based on perspective when the law should have a firm foundation. “It is clear that there is no single religious view of marriage and that history has witnessed some monumental changes in the way ‘husband and wife’ are seen in the relationship of marriage.” So where does that leave us? Where do we turn to base our decisions?
Gore for Sale
I think that Gahr has a valid point. I agree that video games are too violent and that children that are too young can easily gain access to them. You could also stem from this argument that movies and music can be worse, and that though video games can help the process, we can’t point the entire blame on just this specific chunk of the media. But, looking at video games, how do they bring about any good substance anymore? Some argue that video games are a way for children/ adults to vent anger—somewhat like the punching bag in the basement. It is there to let off steam so you don’t hit the person you’re picturing while the lifeless bag creaks back in forth. What does is matter if it’s not hurting anyone? Win-win right? Vent—no one is affected. Eh...I can see that. But I still think that our society has lost its boundaries when it comes to violence and gore. Body count is the purpose of the game, and the game is solely there to cause enjoyment. Should we really enjoy all the gruesome details that are described in this article? “Fresh corpses...blood everywhere...moaning...begging...screams....innocent victims...decapitated heads...limbs dangling in the air...pools of blood.” Gahr says it well when he says, “The idea is not just to kill but to kill with glee.”
I guess it’s just disturbing to me. Even if we don’t see the immediate effects, why do people not stop to wonder at why we have become so attracted to this gore? We are becoming obsessed as a society! Look at the Saw movies. I refuse to discuss those movies with people because they are actually DEFENDING them! It is sick. Why is it enjoyable to see a human body torn in two? Over, and over, and over, and over again. Maybe there aren’t any studies concerning this issue, but I still strongly believe that it is something that effects our youth more than we may realize.
I guess it’s just disturbing to me. Even if we don’t see the immediate effects, why do people not stop to wonder at why we have become so attracted to this gore? We are becoming obsessed as a society! Look at the Saw movies. I refuse to discuss those movies with people because they are actually DEFENDING them! It is sick. Why is it enjoyable to see a human body torn in two? Over, and over, and over, and over again. Maybe there aren’t any studies concerning this issue, but I still strongly believe that it is something that effects our youth more than we may realize.
Are We Fixing the Wrong Things?
As someone who views the U.S. education system as lacking and somewhat disabling at times, this essay was a refreshing look on the situation. Many things in this world require a “happy-medium” answer—where there may be no “black and white” answer. Why should education differ?
Not saying necessarily that other countries are brain-washed, but the U.S. strives to bring out personality, uniqueness, and individual thought, because then when many individuals are put together, we can find solutions and ideas unlike those of a nation that is standardized. Our creativity is our “secret weapon”. If other major countries, such as China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan are starting to model their education after ours, we must be doing something right.
Math, science, and especially awareness on global issues are all lacking in our education in the states. The author also spoke of learning different languages. The U.S. has definitely fallen behind in realizing the benefits of multi-lingual students. When I visited Norway I was amazed at the fact that everyone spoke English—all very proper English. After asking I learned that English was taught in public schools beginning in fourth grade. We require a mere two years that most only take in order to graduate. So yes, there are areas we need improvement, but why throw out the good with the bad? Why do we feel like when we have a problem we must do the exact opposite to be right? Everything in moderation people.
Not saying necessarily that other countries are brain-washed, but the U.S. strives to bring out personality, uniqueness, and individual thought, because then when many individuals are put together, we can find solutions and ideas unlike those of a nation that is standardized. Our creativity is our “secret weapon”. If other major countries, such as China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan are starting to model their education after ours, we must be doing something right.
Math, science, and especially awareness on global issues are all lacking in our education in the states. The author also spoke of learning different languages. The U.S. has definitely fallen behind in realizing the benefits of multi-lingual students. When I visited Norway I was amazed at the fact that everyone spoke English—all very proper English. After asking I learned that English was taught in public schools beginning in fourth grade. We require a mere two years that most only take in order to graduate. So yes, there are areas we need improvement, but why throw out the good with the bad? Why do we feel like when we have a problem we must do the exact opposite to be right? Everything in moderation people.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Body Image and Adolescents
“Given the overwhelming prevalence of thin and lean female images and strong and lean male images common to all westernized societies, body image concerns have become widespread among adolescents.”
Our current society definitely has some issues relating to body image and insecurity to do size. I wasn’t surprised by most of the statistics in this essay; it all seemed to be about what I would guess. 50-88% of adolescent girls feel negatively about their body shape or size. Almost half of teenage girls know someone with an eating disorder. At EIGHT YEARS OLD, girls believe that weight control is strongly associated with self-worth and view dieting as a means of improving self-worth. I knew a girl, 8 years old, that was going to be a flower girl in a wedding. A month or so before the wedding she decided, on her own, that she should diet so that she’d fit her dress. I’m sorry WHAT?! You’re 8, and hyper, you’ll run it off. There’s not a lot of weight fluctuation issues in 8 year-olds, you’re dress will be fine. More importantly, where did you even get that idea? I don’t think “diet” crossed my mind until my mid-teens.
I did not realize that the average American consumes 11.8 hours of media per day! That is crazy. The media, aside from the family concerns that Croll mentions, is the main cause for all of these self-worth issues. More than that, it is an issue that is almost impossible to avoid! “From childhood to adulthood, television, billboards, movies, music videos, video games, computer games, toys, the Internet, and magazines convey images of ideal attractiveness, beauty, shape, size, strength and weight.” There is so much now in magazines that is “touched up” by computers so that the subjects look “perfect”. Whatever happened to the general understanding that “everyone’s perfect”? Have we lost that entirely? Are we not teaching kids this anymore?
Croll says, “It is prudent to screen all adolescents for body image issues and work to foster a healthy body image among all youth...” Good luck screening everyone for body image issues. That’s a process that would be infinitely long. I do see some changes, if just a few, in media. More realistic sized women who don’t look starved. People that are able to embrace their shape rather than try and break it down into something it should never be. “The average female model is 5’10” and weighs 110 pounds.” I am 5’10” and far from 110 lbs. Though I think that I could shed a few pounds, I realize that 110 would be sick looking on my figure. Some people have legitimate struggles with weight, as some should. I’m not saying let’s embrace our weight no matter what it is because some people are unhealthy. I’m saying get back to where you are healthy for your bone structure. But until the media makes that change, we’ll continue to be mislead.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
"The Hard Truth of Immigration"
Why is immigration currently such a complex and controversial issue in the United States?
"The stakes are simple: will immigration continue to foster national pride and strength or will it cause more and more weakness and anger?"PROBLEM: Unable to accomodate and support the ongoing flow
"No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many are poor and unskilled." (and majority uneducated)
Low-wage jobs (considerably lower than average US wages) = come poor, stay poor
"The more who arrive, the harder it will be for existing low-skilled workers to advance."
Overwhelmed school systems, social services, health insurance, federal benefits
SOLUTION: Samuelson does not end with a straightforward solution.
"Could do a better job of stopping illegal immigration...policing employers who hire illegals."
"Could provide legal status to (those already here)."
"Could make more sensible decisions about legal immigrants--skilled over unskilled."
"BUT the necessary steps are much tougher than most politicians have so far embraced, and their timidity reflects a lack of candor about the seriousness of the problem."
Do you agree with the essay’s conclusion?
I agree that the steps that we have taken/are taking are not going to solve the overall issue of the fact that our society does not have a "boundless capacity to accept newcomers". It is wearing down our stability as a nation. Personally though, I wish there were ways around it all because of the conditions that these people live in if they can't come to the United States. It's a line that's drawn between understanding the economical stress but still harboring human compassion. It makes me think of the situation in 1999 or 2000 (?) when Elián Gonzales was returned to Cuba after all he'd been through to make it to the states.
Provide any comments or reactions to the effectiveness of the introductory paragraph and the essay’s organization and language:
The intro is catching because the structure of the sentences are mind engaging--not something I would wizz through and space off because I got bored halfway through. The entire essay was something I had to read a couple times because there are so many statistics that jumble the flow. Overall is well supported and engaging.
How might this article be useful to your larger problem/solution research project?
Haven't yet decided what my topic will be in general, but I've always avoided the argument of illegal immigration because it's such a difficult issue and because it is personal for me--knowing that I have close friends whose parents were came as "illegals" and then became citizens. But I may decide not to shy away from this topic anymore...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)