Violence in Mass Media

[Balance]

Alright, this has been one of the many controversial topics that are discussed a lot.
However I feel that there are yet again a lot of people who still believe that the violence in media is causing people in general to become either more violent or more aggressive in their behavior.

What is your opinion?

Does the violence in movies, television, TV shows, video games, books, comic books and etc cause people to become more violent?

[*Tsuki*]

i think it does. after my brother plays violent video games, he becomes much more hostile and is always looking for a fight. when he doesn't play them, he's much easier to approach.

Edit: But, only with video games. Books and Comic Books? If that was true, then I would be a very violent person.

[Alycursed]

Some videogames do, but it's usually just a bunch of guys performing the "moves" or whatever. They're just playing around. I know because I've seen it. Lol.

Honestly, I don't think the movies & games [books or comics] make people more violent at all. People play the games to be violent, because they can't do things like that in real life. Movies.. Idk. I've never really seen anyone become more violent after watching movies or playing video games. Books and Comics? Lol. No.

[3pleT]

violence/sex/nudity/whatever in media is not to blame for people's violence.
in US, PTA threatens to boycott fox to make them cancel nip/tuck, which is aired on FX, a subscription channel. in serbia and croatia nip/tuck is aired on public channels and nobody cares. in US, oz was aired on premium cable. in serbia and croatia it was aired on public channel with reruns in the morning and no one complained. these shows are full of sex and violence and, despite being completely available to kids in these two countries, the US still have larger amount of prison population (before one of the resident smartasses mentions population, i'm talking percentage). therefore, knowing that their own child has become a criminal and unable to bear with their guilt, bad american parents won't look for a shrink or try to fix their mistakes like nearly everyone else. instead, they will join PTA and lay the blame on media, george clinton, or marilyn manson. i don't have a clue how they came to be like that, but that's the way it is. and ultimately, they manage to brainwash just about everyone else that TV is to blame.

trust me, don't let your kids watch TV the whole time, and when they do, be there to explain them everything they see and they'll be fine. if your kid turns 12 and still can't understand something he/she sees, congratulations, you just raised a moron.

[Kojack]

I think media violence causes kids to think about violence, but it's something else that's at fault when they are unable to recognize the consequences for acting out what they see.

Or~ media violence could be a result of everyone's thanatos trying to let off some steam before it blows up, and Freud was right all along! Head for the hills.

[Eris]

If people were so easily manipulated that showing violence were to make them more violent, society would not be possible. Showing a single picture of someone committing suicide would wipe out the human race. Clearly, this is not how people function. There are weaker elements with impaired impulse control who can be manipulated in this fashion, but they should not be allowed to roam free as they pose a danger to themselves and the public, irregardless of what they see on TV.

[Sagat]

Just another attempt for people on a whole to deflect their problems on to something else - in this case all those damned evil shows/games/songs that warp people.

Never mind the fact that the root of the problem lies in society itself, its beliefs, culture, mannerisms, etc. They don't seem to be this rabid in other places, Netherlands, or France, or other European countries.

Why does the western world take the cake? Because, it is easier to point the finger away from ourselves. What? Face the facts that we have fundamental problems from the bottom up? No, forget that. That would mean admitting personal responsibility and confronting the problem head on and maybe, just maybe, looking into a mirror. And realizing that most people see violence on the mass media because, though most won't admit it, the masses like watching violence. It sells. Back to the "problem from the bottom up" statement again.

No, it wasn't poor little Timmy being picked on for looking different, or because he didn't conform with all the other mindless future office workers, none of that. Little Timmy went to work and shot everyone to death in cold blood because Call of Duty 4 warped his mind. Yes, that's it.

Or maybe it was Manson again.

[3pleT]

just one more thing: violence in video games is not to blame, it's video games themselves. the very existence of video games as advanced as they are today is to blame for most of the social problems that have appeared in the past few years. and if you deny it you're either an addict or don't really know much.

[Eris]

Never mind the fact that the root of the problem lies in society itself, its beliefs, culture, mannerisms, etc. They don't seem to be this rabid in other places, Netherlands, or France, or other European countries.

I suspect the problem in the US (and to some lesser extent the UK) is the rampant cult-of-military. Everything seems to be modeled after the military (which in Europe is mostly considered a necessary evil, and not something to be worshiped). Where continental Europe might have constables, the US has police officers. President of the United States is a military office. It seems ubiquitous in American culture and media. I haven't been to the country, yet I can list more American military ranks and war heroes than Swedish (or even European) ones.

I can't help but think that idolizing an organization whose main goal seems to be to recruit you as a killer might make people more violent. Don't get me wrong, the military is necessary, but I question the rationale of making it the heart and core of a country.

[Diocletian]

Depends on the content. If they make it look cool, people will follow. If they were to put a famous rapper to show that murder look cool & will get you "all the honeys" then yes people will follow. People will do whatever it takes to boost their ego. You can argue this, but it will be to boost your ego, not because I'm wrong.

[Capernicus]

i think it does. after my brother plays violent video games, he becomes much more hostile and is always looking for a fight. when he doesn't play them, he's much easier to approach.

Edit: But, only with video games. Books and Comic Books? If that was true, then I would be a very violent person.

Then your brother's intelligence level must be minimal at best. It would then be apparent that he cannot distinguish between was is reality and what is not (ie a video game).

I think seeing violence done doesn't do it so much as actively participating in it (such as with video games), but even still you'd have to be pretty dense tio be affected.

[Ridana]

Depends on the content. If they make it look cool, people will follow. If they were to put a famous rapper to show that murder look cool & will get you "all the honeys" then yes people will follow. People will do whatever it takes to boost their ego. You can argue this, but it will be to boost your ego, not because I'm wrong.

I'm going to assume that you made this comment tongue-in-cheek, because if you didn't, not only are you giving your own ego a good stroke job but you are also showing a healthy dose of your own prejudice.

Would you consider your comment anything other than laughable with the following substitutions:

... If they were to put a famous country singer to show that murder look cool & will get you "all the trailer chicks" then yes people will follow...

... If they were to put a famous gospel singer to show that murder look cool & will get you "all the catholic school girls" then yes people will follow...

... If they were to put a famous children's show mascot to show that murder look cool & will get you "all the soccer moms" then yes people will follow...

To jump immediately to "rappers" as a cause of violence only indicates a bias in favor of the same weak logic that those claiming causality between media violence and real life violence have been making for well over 100 years.

If you would rather focus on the influence of "fame", then you would either have to seriously consider the "alternate universe" scenarios above equally as reasonable as you do your original "rappers" hypothesis, OR more logically, consider the possibility that people become famous because we as consumers allow them to become famous, because we watch their movies/tv shows, buy their CDs, video games, books, clothing lines, jewelry, home decor, perfumes, etc. etc. etc.

And why would we do that if we are so innately averse to those products? We wouldn't. We watch violent movies and tv, participate in or watch violent sporting events, play violent video games, read violent literature, because some part of our psyche enjoys it.

The media in all its devious sinister forms, is big business, and any number of marketing firms, reps, or college majors could explain to you in detail how they spend millions upon millions of dollars a year trying to figure out what we (the consumers of media) like, like more, like to see more of, and dislike. They certainly don't do this because they are able to change our tastes and desires like turning on a lightswitch.

Honestly, could you seriously say that if the "big bad media" played enough commercials they could get you (I'm assuming "you" to be a standard human within acceptable chemical balance parameters and with only a standard deviance worth of sexual fetishism) to think that a hamburger is sexier than (your choice of: Angelina Jolie/Halle Berry/Eva Mendes/or your current significant other)?

The ultimate flaw in your postulation is your premise: "If they (1) make it look cool (2), people will follow (3)."
1) In all reality, there is no "they", there is only "us", only sometimes some of "us" get paid to pay attention to what "we" want and will pay "our" money for.
2) "They" don't get to pick what is "cool". Aside from the hamburger/starlet statement above, "they" could try to tell "us" that "disco is making a comeback", but if "we" don't accept it, then disco remains buried in the 70s where it belongs.
3) People follow all kinds of stupid nonsense, and it doesn't take the mainstream media to do it. Just because you can show that the media exists and that stupid nonsense exists, doesn't mean you've proven that the media causes stupid nonsense. Personally, I favor the argument that stupid nonsense causes the media (see: Britney Spears).

[Kazuma Kuwabara]

It must depend on the person, but for me, absolutely not. I haven't gotten into a fight since what..6th grade.. and I was not the aggressor. I grew up on Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan when I was around 7, started playing Metal Gear Solid at 8, also watched wrestling at that age, but I didn't act any of these things.

I understood that Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan movies were just movies, and that the people in them were all actually friends. I understood that Metal Gear Solid was just a game, and it actually kind of showed me what war and gun violence is like, making me want to steer clear of it. If kids can watch Ren & Stimpy, Spongebob Squarepants, Invader Zim, Bugs Bunny and Tom & Jerry, they can watch a kung fu movie or play a violent game without growing up to be sadistic killers. I did.

[drm0ney]

In my opinion they don't. From personal experience I've played "violent" videogames sense I was like 8, I'm not some wacko running around thinking everyone is the enemy and needs to be killed.
If someone can't tell the difference between fake (people you see on tv/games/read in books etc.) and the reality, than that person has the issue.
Tv, movies, games, they've all become a part of our lives. And why? Because we like it.

[OmegaAlpha]

Violence in the media is a clever scapegoat for many of societies ills.
In my opinion it's not the responsibility of anyone except the parent/adult individual to decide what is watched/listened to.

That being said we have no concrete studies that link violence in video games, music, tv, etc to violence in real life. (None that are not countered by other studies that show a nil effect)

This whole issue should not be about if it does that(make people more violent) anyway. Even if you could prove that violence in the media causes violence in real life I'd still be for them being just as regulated (not more) than they are now. It's a matter of freedom of expression, free speech and freedom of choice.
It's about personal responsibility.
It's not the governments' job to play nanny.

[Diocletian]

I'm going to assume that you made this comment tongue-in-cheek, because if you didn't, not only are you giving your own ego a good stroke job but you are also showing a healthy dose of your own prejudice.

Would you consider your comment anything other than laughable with the following substitutions:







To jump immediately to "rappers" as a cause of violence only indicates a bias in favor of the same weak logic that those claiming causality between media violence and real life violence have been making for well over 100 years.

If you would rather focus on the influence of "fame", then you would either have to seriously consider the "alternate universe" scenarios above equally as reasonable as you do your original "rappers" hypothesis, OR more logically, consider the possibility that people become famous because we as consumers allow them to become famous, because we watch their movies/tv shows, buy their CDs, video games, books, clothing lines, jewelry, home decor, perfumes, etc. etc. etc.

And why would we do that if we are so innately averse to those products? We wouldn't. We watch violent movies and tv, participate in or watch violent sporting events, play violent video games, read violent literature, because some part of our psyche enjoys it.

The media in all its devious sinister forms, is big business, and any number of marketing firms, reps, or college majors could explain to you in detail how they spend millions upon millions of dollars a year trying to figure out what we (the consumers of media) like, like more, like to see more of, and dislike. They certainly don't do this because they are able to change our tastes and desires like turning on a lightswitch.

Honestly, could you seriously say that if the "big bad media" played enough commercials they could get you (I'm assuming "you" to be a standard human within acceptable chemical balance parameters and with only a standard deviance worth of sexual fetishism) to think that a hamburger is sexier than (your choice of: Angelina Jolie/Halle Berry/Eva Mendes/or your current significant other)?

The ultimate flaw in your postulation is your premise: "If they (1) make it look cool (2), people will follow (3)."
1) In all reality, there is no "they", there is only "us", only sometimes some of "us" get paid to pay attention to what "we" want and will pay "our" money for.
2) "They" don't get to pick what is "cool". Aside from the hamburger/starlet statement above, "they" could try to tell "us" that "disco is making a comeback", but if "we" don't accept it, then disco remains buried in the 70s where it belongs.
3) People follow all kinds of stupid nonsense, and it doesn't take the mainstream media to do it. Just because you can show that the media exists and that stupid nonsense exists, doesn't mean you've proven that the media causes stupid nonsense. Personally, I favor the argument that stupid nonsense causes the media (see: Britney Spears).

[You can argue this, but it will be to boost your ego, not because I'm wrong.

I've heard rap & have been a fan of it for a long period of time. Now, I pay attention to the lyrics. I you don't find "I'm going to kill your family for a joint" there is indeed something wrong. Most rappers ARE violent, you don't hear George Strait singing about tmoking a joint w/ his friends.

1) It is they. I'm not involved therefore there is no us.

2) Not true. You will follow if they're the majority leaving you the minority. You don't want to be the odd duck out, since no one would want to play w/ you in the park. Remember you never grow out the fads regardless of who you are. A president wears a suit to a conference because 1) It's professional & 2) Everyone else has one

3)Agreed.

P.S. don't make posts tldr. I get sleepy & have a VERY short attention span.

[Capernicus]

Ridana, that seems to be a lot of wasted effort (though I have no opinion on whether you're right or wrong). Are you trying to start a flame war? Wouldn't surprise me since I assume you listen to a lot of rap music.

 

Oh look, I made a joke! Take it as such.

[Ridana]

I've heard rap & have been a fan of it for a long period of time. Now, I pay attention to the lyrics. I you don't find "I'm going to kill your family for a joint" there is indeed something wrong.

I don't believe I have ever heard a singular instance of, "I'm going to kill your family for a joint". Possible exception being Insane Clown Posse, but they rap about killing people for pretty much any reason imaginable or no reason at all. However their lyrics are quite obviously fictitious, as some of what they propose would be physically impossible.

Most rappers ARE violent, you don't hear George Strait singing about tmoking a joint w/ his friends.

I'll abstain from the long discussion about sweeping generalizations, especially ones obviously not grounded in facts (if you feel like dredging up the statistics on the percentage of rappers with violent criminal histories then go ahead and we'll take it up again).

You do seem to have missed the point of the "alternate universe" argument. The point was not whether or not they DO sing about violence. The point was that by your prior reasoning IF they DID then their audience would be powerless to refrain from committing violence themselves.
When the Dixie Chicks criticized President George Bush all those years ago, their fans (many suddenly ex-fans) clearly weren't swayed to their way of thinking. Rather, since the media outlet (the band) no longer conformed to their consumers' expectations the consumers quit consuming the media products.
As far as George Strait goes, you are 100% correct. I don't hear him singing about smoking joints with his friends (btw, what exactly does marijuana use have to do with violence), I don't hear him singing about anything at all, I wouldn't even be able to pick out his voice in a song, because I don't follow country music... which again was one of my points.
The media doesn't force me to listen to anything. They offer what they offer, and I choose what media I'm going to consume. I CHOOSE to listen to some rap music, I CHOOSE not to listen to any country music. I also choose what movies I watch, I choose what t.v. shows I watch, I choose what books I read. I make these choices based on my preferences, so does everyone else.

1) It is they. I'm not involved therefore there is no us.

You've already claimed to have listened to rap music at some point, you've also indicated some familiarity with country music, it's reasonable to assume you are at "animeforum.com" because you are to some degree an anime fan, I'd wager you watch television, it's likely you've purchased and played video games, I'm fairly certain you purchase and wear clothing, and unless you have a nice farm or are some manner of alien capable of sustaining yourself on air you probably have bought food at some point.

If you have at any point made a choice and spent your money then you are involved... welcome to the club.

2) Not true. You will follow if they're the majority leaving you the minority. You don't want to be the odd duck out, since no one would want to play w/ you in the park. Remember you never grow out the fads regardless of who you are. A president wears a suit to a conference because 1) It's professional & 2) Everyone else has one

sentence by sentence:

Yes, it is true (see the disco argument: it still hasn't made that comeback).

I am in plenty of minorities, and if you are an anime fan then you and every other anime fan in this forum is part of at least one minority. We obviously didn't need the majority to tell us to like anime, because the majority either doesn't like it or is unaware of it.

I don't care what type of duck I am. Also, the other ducks I believe you are referring to have a tendency to exclude more than just 1 duck from their games in the park. If I'm so inclined, I can start a pick-up game with the other excluded ducks.

I am unsure what "grow out the fads" means, so no comment.

Depends on which type of "president" you are talking about. As far as "presidents of the United States" go, yes, they certainly have a tendency to dress as expected. However, wardrobe choice is only one of many choices that they make in a day, and there are certainly well-documented cases of american presidents making choices that were against society's expectations, mores, and even laws. They are human beings like the rest of us, and have just as much ability to make decisions (including bad decisions) as the rest of us. As far as other "presidents" go, there are plenty of company presidents that have been well-known for their decision NOT to conform to the business-suit standard. Additionally, "professional" dress used to mean a top hat, waistcoat, stockings with garters, gloves, and a nice pocketwatch, and that was what "everyone else" had. Someone made a choice not to continue following that standard, at that point they were an individual, others decided they liked what that person was doing and the new style became the choice of the minority, only after the trend continued did it become the new majority, become the new definition of "professional dress", and become what "everyone else" had. Trendsetters are just the first people to CHOOSE to be part of a minority rather than continuing to conform to the majority.

Ridana, that seems to be a lot of wasted effort

Probably would be, if I actually figured I could change someone's mind. But let's face it, I don't have mind-control powers like THE MEDIA!

Look, I make jokes too!

[TheAsterisk!]

I suspect the problem in the US (and to some lesser extent the UK) is the rampant cult-of-military. Everything seems to be modeled after the military (which in Europe is mostly considered a necessary evil, and not something to be worshiped). Where continental Europe might have constables, the US has police officers. President of the United States is a military office. It seems ubiquitous in American culture and media. I haven't been to the country, yet I can list more American military ranks and war heroes than Swedish (or even European) ones.
I can't help but think that idolizing an organization whose main goal seems to be to recruit you as a killer might make people more violent. Don't get me wrong, the military is necessary, but I question the rationale of making it the heart and core of a country.

The US military shames most others, and since we're doing less and less well besides air raids, many simpletons love to love the military. This much is true. Your note on the miltary organization is also correct, but very much incomplete.

Back at the end of the nineteenth century and into the early to mid twentieth century, socialism and derivatives were seen as the future. This was true everywhere, not just in some lunatics' fantasies. The two big types of socialism to actually gain a hold were communism as in the Soviet Union and fascism, wich is more or less adulterated socialism. The same large scale economic policies are implemented, but the feel is different. Communism attempts to unite the world based on a specific class, laborers. Fascism, instead, aims to unite the world based on a single people. This is why you see more specific eugenics efforts wth fascism than communism. There are, of course, subsets of fascism, but all follow this general idea.
I know, I seem lost, but this is relevant, strangely.
In the US, outright fascism and/or communism were not able to flourish as in Europe. Large chunks of Europe went from monarchies and empires straight into fascism, and Russia went from a monarch to communism. The switch from one authoritarian government to another wasn't too hard to wrap minds around.
In the US, though, a classically liberal (not C-SPAN's D, more like "Do whatever you want! Go wild!") government would have made an abrupt transition to an authoritarian form of government all but impossibe without a large coup d' etat. But the ideas of fascism and communism were still very popular. More on this in a moment.
(I'll get there... eventually.)
Now, under socialism governments, it is taken as a truth that a call to action (usually a popular crisis or crises of some sort) and military organization ar the best way to organize masses. This is where the militaristic influence comes from.
Since the US couldn't quite manage true communism or fascism, we instead got generic socialism-lite, with some communist and some fascist sprinkles added. Your history textbooks probably refer to it as Progressivism, always with a capital P, for some reason. The very name stems from this idea that a strong-arm government can force progress best, contrary to the classically liberal ideas (excluding the 3/5 clause and others) the nation was founded on.
One can trace nearly all militaristic thought (outside of the actual military, of course) to this period.
Ever since Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, the US has steadily become more covered in socialism-lite, but Europe has been doing the same for slightly longer. As of late, the last stretch of the Cold War sees to have made most Europeans disown the military, but it's pretty recent. We in the US, though, weren't so close to the USSR that the we got scared, and we do have a pretty decent military. The techno-geeks especially love ours.

I'll also point out that the President of the United States of America is a civilian that commands military authority.
The other reason the US typically throws violence around is because of our very foundation. The Declaration of Independence promotes secession and/or rebellion, and we have a very long history of aimless riots.

On the final note, I will say that violent media doesn't make you violent unless you're already screwed up in the head. First, I can't honestly believe that people are becoming more violent. I think stupidity is just more scoially acceptable. Secondly, aren't Tom & Jerry cartoons more violent than most TV made today? Besides, who's going to strafe someone because they saw Top Gun? Where will you get the F-14? If you are inspired by Tom & Jerry, though, you can easily find a hammer, a iron, an ironing board, some lightbulbs, a shovel, a rake, a large and aggreesive dog, and matches in your own house and do some damage to that annoying younger sibling.
Additionally, think of it as Darwin at work, just beneath the surface. If some idiot sees fit to light himself on fire, we're all better off without him.

[MomijiTMO]

What you see in the media is nothing compared to what you can find at sites like Humoron, YNC etc. The stuff that people do to others is beyond what I call rationality. I'm glad that stuff is kept on the internet. Now I obviously watch this stuff yet am in no way a violent person. Looking at the comments you get about 90% saying moronic things like "yes they got owned", "hahahaha suffer" etc. Some like myself will be sympathetic [where it's earned] and in stupid people getting hurt will be shocked that the event could even happen.

No I don't think it makes people more violent, it may even make them less inclined to do an act they saw the aftermath of.

[Diocletian]

You've already claimed to have listened to rap music at some point, you've also indicated some familiarity with country music, it's reasonable to assume you are at "animeforum.com" because you are to some degree an anime fan, I'd wager you watch television, it's likely you've purchased and played video games, I'm fairly certain you purchase and wear clothing, and unless you have a nice farm or are some manner of alien capable of sustaining yourself on air you probably have bought food at some point.

Since this one stood out I'll discuss this one. Please make posts smaller, my attention span is very small.

That however is not a thing the media tells me to do. The don't tell me I have to buy clothes & food. They tell me what kinds to wear & eat. The reason there would be no us is because I am not involved. I'm just buying what appeals to me, not what they told me too. I will occasionally buy the shoe because it looks nice, but otherwise I'm not willing to be "decked out" like the guy promoting it.

(Marijuana & drug use has alot to do with violence or else we wouldn't have Nuestra Familia or La Eme now would we?)

[dawnbreaks]

Alright, this has been one of the many controversial topics that are discussed a lot.
However I feel that there are yet again a lot of people who still believe that the violence in media is causing people in general to become either more violent or more aggressive in their behavior.

What is your opinion?

Does the violence in movies, television, TV shows, video games, books, comic books and etc cause people to become more violent?

Everything having to do with TV is one of the major influences on youths and their behavior in society.....for example take wrestling for example..there was a incident by which a kid in the U.S killed his little sister by doing what he saw the guys wrestling doing...TV is only for the strong at heart and mature audiences only...u know people with sense...

[dawnbreaks]

Since this one stood out I'll discuss this one. Please make posts smaller, my attention span is very small.

That however is not a thing the media tells me to do. The don't tell me I have to buy clothes & food. They tell me what kinds to wear & eat. The reason there would be no us is because I am not involved. I'm just buying what appeals to me, not what they told me too. I will occasionally buy the shoe because it looks nice, but otherwise I'm not willing to be "decked out" like the guy promoting it.

(Marijuana & drug use has alot to do with violence or else we wouldn't have Nuestra Familia or La Eme now would we?)

sad to say you do have a strong point there!!!!!