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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.