Violence in the Media
"Violence in the media has a negative effect on society"
For- There are many tv series and films shown in the media including violence which could be seen as influencing society to commit horrific acts compared to what they see in the media. For example, the James Bulger case where two children ages 10-11 had taken a 2 year old child (James) from a shopping centre and took him to a train track and beginning to throw rocks and bricks at him whilst he was on the track and went on to kill him. Whilst this case was taken to court, the young children admitted they were influenced to commit these acts due to a video game they had recently played just days before. This convinced many people of the court and society to believe media has a big impact on how people behave.
However, I do believe some cases may be influenced by the media but some will have no link to the media at all as everybody is individual.
Against- Many people need a reason as to why particular people of society decide to commit acts such as those they see in the media. They think media is the most obvious as to pass the blame due to the violent, graphic things that are shown. The film producer Quentin Taranito believes media is certainly not to blame as he believes if it was to blame, the same figure of people would commit crimes as they do in America as America has the highest crime rate. Especially gun related crime. It is led to believe society itself is to blame for acts committed as a very high amount of those people who have committed such horrific crimes, have things psychologically wrong with them without even knowing it so they pass the blame onto what is shown in the media.
In my opinion, regulation in film, video games, etc, are not effective as you are able to view that specific content anywhere. For example, if a film in the cinema is rated an 18 and you cannot watch it because you are underage and aren't allowed in the cinema to view that specific film, you are able to download films which may be over your age limit without identification. This can also be done for video games. Also, you are able to buy films cheap on your tv box, (eg. virgin media, sky) without identification to make sure you are the correct age to see that film. I believe regulation is a guid-line to who can/ should view things in the media. For example, if a film/ video game is rated at a 15, this allows the parents of the children who are underage to have a rough idea of what is expected from tat articular film/ video game. Also, i believe censorship is useful for things such as the newspaper and what is shown on tv as children could be watching tv and that particular programme may have swearing in it but by denying this at particular times, this stops children from viewing this content. However, i believe they should have censorship for the internet which they do not. This would then prevent people from seeing things they shouldn't.
There are three different ways the audience respond to media products, these responses being dominant, negotiated and oppositional. Someone with a dominant response would go out and commit acts they have seen in a films. For example, the Hunderford massacre was a series of random shooting committed by a man (Michael Ryan) who had presented himself to loo like Rambo from the film 'Rambo' and shot 16 people before killing himself. This is a dominant response as he was influenced by a film he had seen in the media and had gone out and actually committed a crime similar to what happens in the film as Rambo is known to be a very violent, graphic film. Also, someone could have a negotiated response, For example, this could be if society saw something in the media which was violent and they did something similar in a real life situation (e.g. self defence) but they have not purposely gone out to harm someone. Furthermore, people in society may have an oppositional response as they would not act upon something they have seen in the media and it would not have an effect on them at all.
For- There are many tv series and films shown in the media including violence which could be seen as influencing society to commit horrific acts compared to what they see in the media. For example, the James Bulger case where two children ages 10-11 had taken a 2 year old child (James) from a shopping centre and took him to a train track and beginning to throw rocks and bricks at him whilst he was on the track and went on to kill him. Whilst this case was taken to court, the young children admitted they were influenced to commit these acts due to a video game they had recently played just days before. This convinced many people of the court and society to believe media has a big impact on how people behave.
However, I do believe some cases may be influenced by the media but some will have no link to the media at all as everybody is individual.
Against- Many people need a reason as to why particular people of society decide to commit acts such as those they see in the media. They think media is the most obvious as to pass the blame due to the violent, graphic things that are shown. The film producer Quentin Taranito believes media is certainly not to blame as he believes if it was to blame, the same figure of people would commit crimes as they do in America as America has the highest crime rate. Especially gun related crime. It is led to believe society itself is to blame for acts committed as a very high amount of those people who have committed such horrific crimes, have things psychologically wrong with them without even knowing it so they pass the blame onto what is shown in the media.
In my opinion, regulation in film, video games, etc, are not effective as you are able to view that specific content anywhere. For example, if a film in the cinema is rated an 18 and you cannot watch it because you are underage and aren't allowed in the cinema to view that specific film, you are able to download films which may be over your age limit without identification. This can also be done for video games. Also, you are able to buy films cheap on your tv box, (eg. virgin media, sky) without identification to make sure you are the correct age to see that film. I believe regulation is a guid-line to who can/ should view things in the media. For example, if a film/ video game is rated at a 15, this allows the parents of the children who are underage to have a rough idea of what is expected from tat articular film/ video game. Also, i believe censorship is useful for things such as the newspaper and what is shown on tv as children could be watching tv and that particular programme may have swearing in it but by denying this at particular times, this stops children from viewing this content. However, i believe they should have censorship for the internet which they do not. This would then prevent people from seeing things they shouldn't.
There are three different ways the audience respond to media products, these responses being dominant, negotiated and oppositional. Someone with a dominant response would go out and commit acts they have seen in a films. For example, the Hunderford massacre was a series of random shooting committed by a man (Michael Ryan) who had presented himself to loo like Rambo from the film 'Rambo' and shot 16 people before killing himself. This is a dominant response as he was influenced by a film he had seen in the media and had gone out and actually committed a crime similar to what happens in the film as Rambo is known to be a very violent, graphic film. Also, someone could have a negotiated response, For example, this could be if society saw something in the media which was violent and they did something similar in a real life situation (e.g. self defence) but they have not purposely gone out to harm someone. Furthermore, people in society may have an oppositional response as they would not act upon something they have seen in the media and it would not have an effect on them at all.
Comments
Post a Comment