Yeah, but that’s not how the issue gets addressed in the popular media. They don’t say, “Exposure to violent media can be a contributing cause in increased agression in young children.” They say, “Playing video games will make your teenager blow up his school!”
The problem with media coverage of violence in video games is that it is, a) usually divorced from discussions of violence in the media in general, and is treated as if video games present a unique danger. b) It’s treated as a direct cause of acts of horrific violence. For example, many journalists and pundits tried to create a direct link between the Columbine massacre and Klebold and Harris playing the game Doom, as if absent the video game, they’d have been honor roll students. Popular commentator on video game violence and professional douchebag Jack Thompson refers to video games as “murder simulators,” and has tried to tie MicroSoft Flight Simulator to the World Trade Center attack. And c) video games are presented as a kids-only medium, as if the primary audience for Grand Theft Auto is 6 year olds, as opposed to 18 to 35 year olds.
I agree, there is plenty of room for debate on the harmful effects of violent media on the development of children. But you won’t find that debate on the nightly news, which is the point of this pit thread.
While you’re here, I wanted to ask you a question about the studies your husband is involved in. In those studies, what constitutes a “violent video game?” Are we talking, “Blowing people’s heads off in a gigantic spray of blood and gore,” or are we talking about “Italian plumber jumping up and down on the head of an anthropomorphic mushroom?”
I’m sorry to hijack, but Biggirl: Thank you. Not only do I feel more SDMB knowledgable now, but I’ve been laughing at this thread for a good ten minutes now. In fact, I need to continue reading.
We’re talking violent=“Grand Theft Auto” and nonviolent=“Gran Turismo 4” … something like that.
You are basically a brilliant person and I respect you for making this distinction.
I completely agree with you here. The media’s reporting of these issues is beyond rationality. I’m tired of it too. I truly feel that by sensationalizing these issues and others (such as pedophilia) people miss out on the much more subtle realities and lose the ability to think critically. It’s sad.
Nope, I’m not. Intelligence is, after all, a component of brain biology. What I am saying is it’s not entirely fair to make the broad sweeping generalization that stupid people = prone to violence and smart people = not. Many of the experiments I cited used samples of people of varying intelligence levels, but the statistical significance was the same across the board. I believe you have a very good point in identifying the structure parents can give as crucial to the issue of aggressive behavior, but it’s not–entirely–as simple as that.
I didn’t actually make such a broad generalization as I asked if your studies allow me to make such a generalization. I can agree with you on the fact that intelligent people can be affected by violent media.
Now, if parents alone can not combat aggressive behavior in children then what do you propose as a solution? By parents combating aggressive behavior I mean not only with education, but also by realizing it exists and then seeking adequate help. That can mean simply taking video games away from children as a punishment for their aggression or if the problem persists, take them to professional help. Are parents alone not capable of this? Do we need the government to enforce harsher restrictions on underage video game purchasing?
I agree with the level of government control on things like crack or cocaine. I can even tolerate their regulation of alcohol and cigarettes. These problems are difficult for any normal adult to handle. Though I really don’t think they need to tighten their grip on the realm of violent media. The rating system should be enough information for parents so that they don’t buy GTA for their five year old.
Now that I’ve reread your posts, I’ve realized that you haven’t said anything about what should be done about violent media. We might even have the same solution in mind. I think I might have assumed, (OK, I did assume), that you wanted stricter governmental restrictions on violent media. I just think that parents alone can sufficiently handle this problem, therefore there is no need for the government to worry. Parents should worry, but only a little.
I think ultimately the biggest problem with journalists is that many of them are expected to write about all sorts of topics, many of which they don’t know anything about. Firearms are another much-maligned topic in journalism, probably because there is quite a bit of confusing details about how things work (ie: Calibre vs. Gauge) along with details that are somewhat dependent on a basic understanding of sciences like Physics (which seems to be lacking in some journalists).
Sometimes they come up with nonsequitor tidbits like “A twelve-gauge rifle” or describe weapons as having capabilities far outside of what the laws of physics would suggest (ie: one reporter once claimed that the .50 BMG round could penetrate the armor of front-line tanks, which hasn’t been true since 1918, before the Browning .50 cal saw any combat).
Oh, heavens no. I am vehemently anti-censorship. VEHEMENTLY. runs through the streets waving Fahrenheit 451
It ultimately is in the parents’ hands – I think I took your “stupid parents” to exclude the well-meaning and otherwise well-educated ones who don’t grasp the impact that violent media can have on small children. The best thing I know to do is to use this evidence to get people to think more critically about what they expose their children to – especially if those children are dealing with behavioral issues. The really sad thing is–and I think what you are getting at–the kind of parents most likely to be ineffective in this regard are the neglectful, narcissistic, or overtly abusive ones. Your average well-meaning parent might not understand the relationship between their kids’ behavior and violent media, but would likely address behavioral and psychosocial issues on at least some level. I just want to get this idea–that there is a real scientific basis behind this opinion–into the mainstream. You can’t stop stupid people from being stupid, but there are generally lots of people who are willing to fight their ignorance and become more effective parents.
Does that make any sense?
On a personal level, I am a little disturbed by the way violence permeates entertainment in U.S. culture, and the way in which many people openly celebrate it. Other studies (I think there is at least one I cited) are investigating the fact that narcissism is on the rise, especially among college-age kids, and wondering how it may be linked to aggressive behavior. I realize this is getting a little political, but I wonder how much the extreme fixation on violence in our culture relates to what I perceive to be cultural narcissism and xenophobia in U.S. culture as a whole. In other words, I think it’s possible that violence in the media is a symptom of a much deeper underlying issue. In this sense, it serves to confirm an already established worldview. Maybe. That’s just a theory.
Having so thoroughly denounced violent media, I feel it is necessary to admit that one of my favorite movies EVER is Kill Bill, I adore the martial arts, and I’ve been wont to say embarrassingly vitriolic things while slaying monsters on the PS2. I have limitations to what I can handle–torture scenes and historical films that deal with war and realistic horror are impossible for me (Schindler’s List? Forget it, no way. I read the book) but action movies are cake. To me, it is very much about the realism of what is being portrayed that establishes my gut-level emotional reaction to it.
It bothers me that so many people in the U.S. treat issues of sexuality as if they are mortal enemy #1 – “Won’t someone think of the children?” – but concern with violence in the media is denounced as overreacting scare-mongering bullshit. I find this problematic because sex, as I see it, can either be a really good thing, or a neutral thing, or a destructive thing, depending on the circumstances–it is conceptually neutral, a fact of life. But personally, I feel that violence is always a bad thing. So mainstream behavior and decisions in this country regarding censorship seem illogical to me.
And I might also add, I’m not a parent yet. If I had children maybe I would have a better sense of what to do about this issue. As I think I’ve mentioned before, my husband does this research on a daily basis, and it gets to him. We’re both adults, the nonviolent do-gooder sort – but aggressive behavior isn’t only limited to violence. Sometimes he looks over at me and says, “I don’t know. We watch these movies and play these games and we seem like perfectly good people – but I often wonder, would I have snapped at you 50% less often today if we hadn’t watched that film or played that game? Would I have ignored that guy who asked me for change? Would our personal relationships be stronger and more rewarding? I don’t know. These are things you can’t quantify. The more I learn about this, the more I wonder how much it affects just regular people like me and you and the way we interact with one another on a daily basis.”
I’m not really anywhere as convinced as he is, to be honest. But it’s worthy of consideration.
It really is. Do you ever wonder what everybody would talk about if we all stopped watching TV?
I have noticed that strange dichotomy in U.S. entertainment, as a mostly-outsider looking in. Here in Canada, we have more swearing and sex on our regular television, but less violence, and watching American channels, I’m amused by the sex and swearing censored within an inch of its life, but extreme violence given free reign. Being on the Dope here has really enlightened me as to how Americans feel about guns - I was very close to shocked at some of the threads about guns and killing other people (blowing home invaders back out the door being a common phrase thrown around). Children playing violent video games at an early age isn’t a big deal, but Janet Jackson exposing a breast at a Superbowl game that kids were watching was the biggest thing EVER!!! Just strange.
As for scare tactics in the media, you really do have to watch with a critical eye. I remember seeing one scare story, and at the end of it, realizing that they hadn’t said anything that WAS happening; just something that MIGHT happen. Well, I might get hit by a meteor tomorrow, but it doesn’t really count as a news story unless it’s actually based on reality, does it?
A couple of years ago, I offered to give my housekeeper our old Playstation for her kids. she was delighted. I handed her a stack of games to go with it. Sorting through them, she plucked one out and said, “I don’t think I’ll take this one.”
It was the South Park video game. “It’s not bad,” I said. "All they do is throw snowballs at turkeys>
“I’m worried about the language,” she said. Picking up another case she said, “Oh! Grand Theft Auto! Great! The kids love this one.”
This is partly true. Of course, it’s impossible to know everything about everything. But a good journalist asks enough questions in the course of interviewing and researching a story to at least get a handle on what he’s writing about.
That said, one of the issues that hasn’t been picked up on in this thread is that most reporters have time or space constraints. We’re also taught to write at roughly a sixth-grade level, because we can’t assume that our audience is all that knowledgeable about the subject, either. So, to use your example, we may not have the time or space to fully explain things like caliber or the physics behind firearms and the information we do have the time or space to cover has to be explained to an audience that probably doesn’t know that much about firearms, either. So a lot of detail just gets lost. It’s annoying to those people who are knowledgeable about firearms (or any other subject), but there you go.
As to the whole issue of media sensationalism, well, most of us live or die by ratings and/or readership. Shows like NewsHour on PBS or any of the NPR news shows, which are kind of the gold standard of broadcast journalism, don’t have to care about ratings. Their underwriters care about attaching their names to quality programming. But the ABC affiliate has to care a lot about ratings, because that’s what their ad rates are based on, and something has to pay the bills. The same is largely true of newspapers and other print journalism outlets like newsmagazines. So what you get is a bunch of hyped-up garbage to draw the audience in, some of which is unnecessary, and a lot of which is irresponsible.
olivesmarch4th, there is a whole body of communications-oriented research that seeks to explain the issue of what people (not just kids) absorb from media and how it affects their behavior. However, there are factors that cannot be controlled for, like caregiver intervention, the social condition of the family, and the child’s own personality. We know there may be a link between media usage and aggressive behavior (and I’d love to find out how these two researchers you’ve cited define “aggression”), but media usage does not entirely explain violent behavior, and anyone who makes such a claim is just as irresponsible as the media we’re all complaining about. I am not saying that you, in particular, made this claim, but I thought you should be aware of some known flaws in research in aggression.
Oh, and if most reporters could understand anything at all about physics (or math or science, for that matter), we wouldn’t have majored in journalism.
Robin, BA in Communications/Journalism, master’s candidate in Communication Studies
NO reasonable scientist would make such an absurd claim. I thought that was clear by my first point. Nobody at the Institute for Social Research or the Aggression Laboratory have made this claim. We know that smoking can cause or increase the risk for lung cancer, but nobody suggests smoking is the ONLY thing that causes lung cancer, or that it is always the primary cause–or that one who smokes is certain to get it-- to draw a rough analogy. Life is much more complicated than that.
I have no problem with journalists so much as I have a problem with the people who have strict access to the content that journalists produce. As you said, you’re required to produce content on a sixth-grade level. That’s insulting to the intelligence of everyone over 10! I don’t blame particular individuals, I blame an overarching system that respects depravity and sensationalism more than it does investigative journalism. You probably know just what I’m talking about, as someone who is no doubt dedicated to the integrity of your field. I’m trying to be rational and subtle and thinking critically here, not inflammatory to anyone in particular.
That is a fascinating topic to me. I think my husband and I are not like most people - we use television viewing as something to discuss between us, and are more likely than not to shoot the finger at most commercials we see, because they are so ridiculous (our two favourite things to say about commercials is, “Blahblahblah Product X - all the good slogans are taken” and “Product X - It’ll get you laid!”). We often watch a commercial or program, and then discuss the reasons why that was not realistic, viable, or truthful, or in what ways it was blatantly manipulative. I’m sure that we are still affected by what we watch, even as critical as we are (and I don’t doubt that we aren’t critical enough).
Tell me about it. When I write a piece for broadcast, I feel like I’m insulting my own intelligence about half the time. Then I write a good NPR-style piece and I feel better about myself. Actually, I no longer want to work in commercial broadcasting because it is so limiting. Explaining the latest row house fire to someone on his way to work just doesn’t do it for me, y’know?
Ultimately, these dramatic, sensationalist news stories make the audience feel powerless and fearful on the one hand, then present solutions for “balance” to make it feel empowered because it then can feel that it can make a difference. The problem presented may just be the latest moral panic, but as long as people feel like something’s being done about it, they feel better about things.
You may be interested in the work of David Altheide, who has done research on the transmission of fear in the mass media. I have read some of his work, and it’s eye-opening.
