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.
Friday, April 24, 2009
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)