De-Bunking the Myth that Media Violence Creates Violence

Growing up in the 1980's, one of the most popular cartoons of the time was Tom & Jerry. It was a cartoon about a cat and a mouse that were continually at war with each other. At the time, it was the most violent cartoon ever made, but no one ever claimed that because someone watched Tom & Jerry, that they went out and shot someone. However, in today's society, a lot of people want to find some reason as to why there is a lot of violence among children and the media are always quick to be blamed. How much of an impact does media have on violence among our children? That is something that has been debated for a long time. There is yet to be a consensus on this issue among experts. Numerous parental groups and others claim that violence in the media causes children to be violent. Hollywood and other media groups are quick to defend themselves by claiming there is little to no evidence that supports that theory. So in today's paper, we will examine the aspect of violence in the media. We will look at the two positions, that the media causes violence, and that it has no effect on violence. By looking at the various positions of each side, we can then determine to what effect violence in the media has on violence in children.

Violence in the media and its affect on children has become a popular item of discussion over the past few years. Everyone from parental groups to politicians has jumped on the bandwagon to attack the media. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who ran as Vice-President Al Gore's running mate for the presidency in 2000, was one of those politicians. Mike Murray (2000) of the Kansas City Star noted that it was Sen. Lieberman who attacked sex and violence in the media as the ruination of our youth. The Senator is preparing legislation that would allow the Federal Trade Commission to sanction marketers of adult-rated content to kids. Politicians are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who are attacking the media.

Over the past few years, there have been numerous problems with school shootings, and other aspects of violence among our children. When the Columbine school shooting in April of 1999 happened, people could not understand what went wrong. How could someone from a white suburban school kill their classmates? People needed to find a reason for their actions, and many people tried to blame the media. It seemed like an easy thing to do. Someone has to be at fault for these killings right? It has to be the portrayal of violence in the media. This is the message that a lot of groups have been taking. While the last few sentences do sound a little cynical, there are numerous people, and studies that back up that theory.

Tom Farmer (2001) of the Boston Herald argues that, "American children are being bombarded with gratuitous violence in films and television-even during so-called 'daytime television'-leaving them terrified and at risk of abnormal development." Mr. Farmer's article refers to a stabbing of a child by an 11-year-old boy after watching the movie "Valentine." Prosecutors are focusing more on an argument that occurred between the two boys before the stabbing than the movie. However, some people believe that violence in movies such as "Valentine" can have an effect on children. Dr. Jacqueline Olds, a child psychiatrist at McLean Hospital says that 11-year-olds have trouble grasping what is acceptable in society before they are desensitized by the violence. "Any 11-year-old has trouble understanding the ramifications of their actions," she said. This is just one incident that has occurred over the past 10 years that groups are concerned about. However, it does give us a good example of possibly what happens when children are exposed to violence in movies or anywhere else.

Video games are another area where people and groups are concerned about the effect of violence on children. Video games have advance quite a bit over the past twenty years. In the 1980's, there was the Atari system, which had games such as pong. This game had a ball that would go back and forth, not much violence. Today however, there are realistic shooting games where kids can take control of a character, and go around shooting various "creatures" or people. Some games even have blood splattering across the screen when they shoot something. These are the type of games that parents and others are concerned with (Albiniak, 2000). While these games are now forced to have a "rating system," many children still get access to these games. These types of video games were attacked after the Columbine shooting occurred. However, the experts still could not agree on weather or not those games had some influence into the shootings.

Cartoons are another area of concern for parents. While the introduction talked about Tom & Jerry, other cartoons have emerged lately that have more violence in them. Many people believe that cartoon violence is acceptable, and for the most part, as a society we don't see anything wrong with it. However, LeAnn Smith (2000) of the Kansas City Star says that it is amazing that we don't question the possible effects that these cartoons have on our children. She stated that violence in children might even start by watching Daffy Duck's bill getting spun around his face after Elmer Fudd shoots him. While some people may find this impossible, she stands by her statement. Overall, Ms. Smith thinks that violence in the media has had a major effect on children. She states,

Research has proven that media violence has the following effects: increased aggressiveness and appetite for more violence; increased fearfulness and a lack of trust; and increased desensitization to violence and the victims of violence (Smith, 2000).

While Ms. Smith talks about how violence affects the media, she even comes to the conclusion that we don't know what causes someone to behave violently. However, other groups disagree. They believe that it is the violence in the media that is causing all of the problems in our society concerning violence in our children. According to four major public health groups, violent entertainment encourages kids to be violent (Albiniak, 2000). These groups are the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. These groups claim that the effects of violence in the media are both measurable and long lasting. Congress it taking notice to these groups as well. Numerous Senator's and Congressman have called on the entertainment industry to adopt a "code of conduct" to help regulate violence (Albiniak, 2000). Congress does this in many ways, but recently they have held hearings on aspects of the entertainment industry. When congress held hearings on the merger of America Online and Time Warner, the question of violence in the media came up (Grebb, 2000). While some politicians were satisfied with the answers given by executives of the entertainment industry, others continued to push the topic.

While many of these groups and politicians continue to attack the entertainment industry for the violence that is portrayed, some groups have come up with some ways to reduce violence, or at least reduce the amount that children see and can be affected by. The American Academy of Pediatrics has provided some guidelines for parents concerning their children. Their biggest point is to limit the child's media use to no more than two hours a day, and to monitor that use (Farmer, 2001). Senator Joseph Lieberman is preparing legislation that would sanction marketers of adult-rated content to children, which some groups claim, the entertainment industry of doing.

The V-Chip has also gotten lots of attention lately. The V-Chip has been mandatory in television sets since Jan. 1, 2000. Even though parents have access to this item, it is rarely used (Razek, 2000). Studies have shown that only half of American parents who have V-chips in their TV's actually use them. So another solution to solving the violence in the media problem is to use the V-chips. Sounds simple, and it could help stop a lot of the violence that children see on television.

While both of the solutions presented above sound simple, it does require one thing that all groups agree on is the most important: parental involvement. If parents are actively involved in watching their children, many of the problems can be avoided (Surfas, 2000). If a parent is around to observe what their children watch, listen to, and play, they can help monitor how much violence they see. While many groups haven't yet agreed on how much media violence affects children, they have agreed that parents are key to stopping any possible damage that might be done (Weber, 2000).

So far in this paper, we have looked at the aspect of media violence and it's affect on children. While many groups have claimed there is a direct link between media violence and violence in children, there are many people who believe there is no relationship between the two. In the next few pages, we will look at those groups, and their argument on why media violence has no effect on our children.

The entertainment industry always seems to be on the defensive. Whenever there is a school shooting, a violent act among children, or some political campaigning going on, the media is a prime target for discussion. Many people need someone, or something to blame, and the media seems like a good place to start. There is always some type of killing or violent act in the entertainment industry, so it has to affect children. Of course, there is not a lot of evidence to support this theory. While the government continues to try to blame the media for violence, it has found that there is no link between the two (Rotunda, 2000). After the Columbine High School shooting, President Clinton ordered the Federal Trade Commission to study if Hollywood was responsible. The FTC's conclusion was interesting. Any causal connection between the entertainment industry and violence in America is insignificant. Researchers are in general agreement that media violence only explains a relatively small amount of youthful violent behavior (Rotunda, 2000). So even though politicians have continuously attacked the entertainment industry, when the government researched it, there was no evidence found.

Not only has the FTC gotten involved in this mess, but the U.S. Surgeon General has also gotten involved. In a report released by the U.S. Surgeon General, it said, "The report found strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can increase children's aggressive behavior in the short term (Albiniak, 2001)." While this seems like more ammo for parental groups attacking the entertainment industry, the report went on to actually give Hollywood some breathing room. The report went on to say that

It was extremely difficult to distinguish between the relatively small long-term effects of exposure to media violence and those of other influences.

This was a very in-depth study done by the Surgeon General on violence, and the entertainment industry was quite happy with the results. The Motion Picture Association of America applauded the report, saying,

Anyone engaging in the debate over youth violence should pay great attention to the comprehensive work of the Surgeon General and the rather illumination findings within.

So while the government was hoping to find some type of evidence against the entertainment industry, it actually backfired against them. While the two reports by the government were being done, the media was taking a beating over whether or not media violence did have an effect on children (Albiniak, 2001). However, now that the reports have come out, the media has some qualified sources to back up their claim that there is little to no effect of violence on our children.

While the government studies would seem to be enough for a lot of people involved in the media industry, it is still not enough for some. Richard Rhodes, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning author, has done hours of research and writing on this subject (Broadcasting, 2001). His article "The Media Violence Myth" takes on the general consensus that the media is to blame for all of our societal problems, including violence in our children. Rhodes challenges previous studies that were done on the effect of violence on children. The study that was done that helped push the "V-chip" through congress as a mandatory item in new televisions was one of the studies that Rhodes challenges. He points out that the study must be discarded since it was based on a sample size of three! Yes, that is not a misprint (Broadcasting, 2001). Many people in the entertainment industry have read and studied Rhodes article, using it as a defense when people or groups start attacking them.

What is interesting about this entire debate is that America has gone down this road before. In the late 1940's and 1950's, society was trying to find some reason for its problems. The solution was to blame the entertainment industry (Rotunda, 2000). There was a Senate subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency that held hearings on how the entertainment industry was destroying our children. The committee claimed that comic books were responsible for corrupting the youth, causing crime. The committee claimed that the comic book Superman was a fascist. I don't think too many people would consider Christopher Reeve a fascist. So our government and our society have been down this path before.

So does media violence have an effect on our society? The answer is at best a minimal short-term effect. While many groups will continue to place blame in the entertainment industry, the executives and employees of Hollywood can take solace in the fact that there is little evidence to back up their theories. There is obviously something wrong in our society. We continue to see children shooting other children, and more and more violence in our movies. So there has to be something going on doesn't there? Maybe the entertainment industry is just reflecting our society, or society is reflecting the entertainment industry. Of course, that is another debate for another day. However, for this paper, we have looked at the arguments for and against the impact of violence in the media. Most people will agree that there is some small short-term effect. However, any relation to long-term violence is minimal at best.

So what should be done about violence in the media? Even if you don't believe the argument that violence in the media doesn't cause any problems with our children, you need to take matters into your own hands. Watch what your children are watching. Monitor the games that they are playing and the movies that they are watching. If parents don't like what their kids are seeing, then they need to take control and responsibility of their children. Once parents do this, maybe we people won't have to have this discussion anymore.

Reference:

Albiniak, Paige (2001, January 22). Oh, it's really not so bad; Hollywood is relieved; Surgeon General report sees short-term harm, unclear long-term effects of media violence on kids. Broadcasting and Cable, online, 10

Albiniak, Paige (2000, July 31). Violent media, violent kids? Broadcasting and Cable, online, 14

Editors (2001, February 12). Committed to the First Amendment. Broadcasting and Cable, online, 58

Farmer, Tom (2001, February 6). Out of control; Child stabbing puts focus on violent movies. The Boston Herald, online, 1

Grebb, Michael (2000, October 9). Violent Controversy; Media violence is a hot topic again-and it isn't going away. Cablevision, online, 36

Murray, Mike (2000, October 24). It's time to re-examine public morality. The Kansas City Star, online, B6

Razek, Rula (2000, December 17). Mon to TV: Delete all sex and violence. USA Weekend, online, 22

Rotunda, Ronald D. (2000, October 30). Should states sue the entertainment industy as they did big tobacco?; No: Government knows that there is virtually no link between Hollywood's products and youth violence. News World Communications, Inc., online, 41

Smith, LeAnn (2000, November 30). Cartoon violence is no laughing matter. The Kansas City Star, online, B6

Surfas, Mark (2000, October 26). Family tech; Game strategy for parents: use ratings, be involved; oversight is best way to avoid violent games. Los Angeles Times, online, 8

Weber, Jonathan (2000, October 16). What the Kids Really Need. Industry Standard Communications Inc., online, 1-2