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