Media violence influencing children

Great Debates
1

It seems like a popular trend nowadays is to blame immoral actions on the so called influence of the media. Movies, the news, TV, certain toys, and now video games all get accused of instilling unlawful tendencies in children. What I want to specifically talk about here is violence in the media (video games, TV, and movies).

My theory is that everyone has natural and instinctual “bloodlust” that is rooted deep within our genetic makeup. Does that mean we should give in to it? Of course not. Violence in situations other than self-defense is wrong - I think we can all agree on that here. What drives me crazy is the parents and politicians that blame incidents of young people doing extremely violent things (e.g. Columbine) on movies, TV, and/or video games. They think that those types of entertainment can brainwash kids into killing each other. That, to me, seems so utterly absurd that it never ceases to amaze me when a lawsuit pops up blaming something like the show “Jackass” for causing some stupid kid’s self inflicted broken hip. I knew a mother who wouldn’t even let her kids play with Lego, because they had little lego guns for the little lego men. I also have a very vivid memory of an experience kindergarten. We were playing with blocks, and I picked up an L-shaped block and pretended it was a gun. The teacher told me to put the block down, because they didn’t allow guns in the classroom. But it wasn’t a real gun. I knew that. Everyone knew that. I was just playing. It didn’t make sense to me then, and it doesn’t now. What does that kind of sheltering accomplish, exactly?

The real world is harsh and unforgiving. Death, murder, war, and crimes are all very real. I say, instead of sheltering a child from all of it, let him get accustomed to it in small, reasonably safe, non-threatening, controlled doses. For example, let junior watch some of the tasteful WTC stories on the news. While he’s watching, explain to him how terrorism is very wrong and how those men were murdering, misguided, and evil.

Lets backtrack a little. In the beginning of this rant, I said that humans had an instinctual need to kill, and here’s my little thesis: I think that allowing children to watch violent movies and play violent video games can be good, for the following reasons:

  1. It gets the child ready to face the real world, which is unfortunately pretty ugly.

  2. Engaging in these types of entertainment allows for a release of aggression and satiates the need for violence in a virtual environment where nobody is really hurt. If a child can kill in a video game and release aggression, it lessons the chance of a sudden, horrible outburst such as a school shooting.

Of course, reason and limitations should apply. Should a nine year old play “Grand Theft Auto”? No. Can a nine year old play “Doom”? Sure. The difference? They’re both violent. The first game has you play as the “bad guy” and encourages you to do bad things to innocent people. The latter game has you play as a “good guy”, fighting for good causes (like not having Earth invaded by hellish monsters or some such). And there’s the key difference. An example for movies is “Terminator 2” and “Pulp Fiction”.

In conclusion: Sheltering is bad, the government enforced banning of violent video games to minors is bad. Parenting is good. Teach, don’t shelter. People have the need for violence. Have kids let out their violent urges in safe, virtual environments.

Comments? Oh, and I’m 21, if that makes a difference to anyone to know.

  • Mike
2

Personally, I think the cause of much youth violence is the attempted neutering of our youth. (Boys, specifically. Can’t speak for girls.)

 Boys fight. Boys play cops and robber, cowboys and indians, 'army guys', rough games of tag, dodgeball, and the like. Now, said games can actually get you suspended at some of our less-enlightened schools. Boys *always* had a pocket knife when I was growing up. You need to cut stuff, you need a knife!. Now, a pocket knife is grounds for expulsion. Fist fights are now grounds for suspension/expulsion, and probably therapy. Of course, we have the example of boys not being allowed to use the word 'gun', but that's in Canada, so there's not much to be done about that.

Boys are not being allowed to be boys anymore. They need ‘violent’ outlets. (Like the oh!-so-satisfying thwack a dodgeball made when it hit some fool you didn’t like!)

Of course, there is the whole rise in broken-homes thing, with many kids being raised by one parent (maybe the other, on weekends). That doesn’t do much to help little Johnny grow up to be a normal, healthy, adult.

3

Nice work! I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. My only reservation is this argument

Which sounds nice and commonsensical but is impossible to verify empirically. Research in this area is traditionally fraught with problems of conclusivity and always has been. Way I see it, if, after nearly a century of research, no hard evidence has been found to support the idea that the media has a directly damaging influence on children, is it not reasonable to assume there isn’t any hard evidence to be found?

4

While it may not add to your theory, Carnick, there appears to be a much stronger relationship between the parenting a child receives and an ultimately violent behavior.

HBO Undercover just showed an interview between a psychiatrist and “The Iceman” (a mob contract killer who has owned up to over 100 hits). At no point in the interview was the notion of any media influence even broached. However, a great deal was made of the fact that this murderer was subjected to random and brutal abuse by his father (and even his mother) as a kid.

While “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in this case, I detected from the way the interview was conducted that if there had been any other strong influences on this man’s apparent lack of conscience and feelings, they would have been at least asked and answered.

That said, since this was an edited interview, presented on HBO, maybe the editing excluded any references to the media.

Bottom line: I tend to agree with your assessments.

5

In my experience, the opposite probably has more effect. Too much emphasis on artificial gender roles. Boys are expected to behave this way. Girls are expected to behave that way. If you don’t behave like you’re expected to, then life becomes much harder for you, especially if everyone else sees the “correct” behavior being encouraged. For example, boys who don’t live up to the agressive sterotype, or who engage in activities that they “aren’t supposed to,” tend to be bullied much more. And what’s more, the bullies often get away with it, because they’re just “behaving like they should” or “encouraging them to behave right.” Harris and Klebold didn’t shoot up Columbine because they didn’t have violent outlets. The main motivation they had was because they were bullied for “not being right.”

I also don’t agree entirely with the single-vs-multiple parent issue, as it seems to have much less effect than other factors. Has anyone ever done studies to see if this is true?

However, I do agree that the oversensitive zero-tolerance policies do cause more harm than good.

I also agree with the OP. Violence in media seems to be a complete non-factor.

6

Today in America breaking the gender roles is tolerated now more than ever, yet deadly youth violence in schools is on the rise (no, I don’t have a cite, it’s just something I’ve picked up on). In other words, I don’t see a connection. I tend to agree more with Brutus, in that the attempted neutering of boys leads to trouble.

It’s getting worse. PE is now slowly but surely being phased out of schools. If kids can’t play cops and robbers, play violent video games, watch violent movies, or even get out their aggression with good ol’ fashioned physical activity, where is it all going to go? It’s going to be repressed, boil over, and eventually erupt in a fatal incident, either at home or at school. Look, little Johnny is using his hand to represent a gun! Quick, chop off his thumbs! Sports encourage aggression! Ban 'em all! Put up more metal detectors in schools! It just boggles my mind how some people can honestly think like this.

My parents let me watch violent movies and play video games at a (probably too) young age. I also played with GI Joe, water guns, etc. I’ve never gotten into a physical fight in my life. I get pangs of guilt when I have to feed crickets to my pet lizard.

  • Mike
7

Unfortunatly, while you’re right about breaking gender roles, you’re wrong about youth violence. Violence among youth did increase in the 80s, but it’s been on the decline for a decade now. And I do have a Cite.

On the other hand, I at least partially agree with this. Trying to sterilize growing up by removing any signs of violence tends to cause many more problems than it solves. The trick is to find the place where it’s okay to take part in such activities, without forcing kids to participate or make them outcasts if they don’t.

Well, minus the never getting into physical fights, sounds about the same as me…

8

Violence in the media is nothing new. Shakespeare certainly never pulled his punches in the Elizabethan age, an era in which “bear baiting” and watching the torture of criminals were fun for the whole family. Even further back, the Romans screamed in glee as gladiators tore each other apart.

Its only since the Victorian Era and the accompanying romantisizing of childhood do we feel we need to shelter children from violence. Just think about the changes that Grimm’s fairy tales have undergone over the years.

It’s a convenient scapegoat to blame violence on the media, but nothing so complex can be attributed to a single cause. Violence truly stems from inadequate parenting, the brutalization factor, and disenfranchisement in our society, along with many other factors. But people want simple answers, and a single, identifiable villian against which to concentrate their efforts.