Violence in Media Causing Violent Behavior: Urban Myth?

[Anonymous]

I left some bits for others to go for, but what the hell, here goes;

Books of religion or politics appeal to all manner of people for various reasons, none the same as the reason for the appeal of TV. Books make people believe something is true. TV makes them think something is 'cool' so they go and do it without even good intentions.

The main criticism of Shakespeares works came from Puritans who hated just about everything. The great thing about him is that he once appealed to everybody because his characters were so rich and lifelike, although the collective intellect has shrivelled since then. Perhaps the wooden cut-outs inhabiting TV actually are realistic representations of modern Homo Insipiens?

 

[MrRING]

We have to answer all your drivel?

Not have to, but it would be nice for a full discussion rather than "lets shout out those we disagree with". I'm not trying to be angry, accusitive or even beligerent, I'm just trying to see what the facts about violence in media are.

From the previous discussion, mostly what I'm getting is just opinion and heresay, which seems to indicate to me that real life behavior influenced by television violence (or violent lyrics) is really more of a "common knowledge" kind of knee-jerk reaction people have, and I'm trying to show that similar views have been held against every media at some point in their existance, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with the media of television that makes it inherently inferior to our other media.

And it's maybe also interesting to note that the only thing that seems to get people's dander up is the idea that television might be as good a medium as any other or that good works could be made on it.

 

[Anonymous]

Television is inherently different and inferior to other media, precisely because it asks nothing of the viewer. I'm not going to say that again.

 

[MrRING]

Television is inherently different and inferior to other media, precisely because it asks nothing of the viewer. I'm not going to say that again.

And tv is different from film, (if I remember the other place this is mentioned on this thead) just because there is a bigger budget? How can the experience of viewing of a movie in a theatre be inherently different from watching a television show? Is it the way the tv signal is interlaced, or the fact that the film goes through the gate at 24 frames a second and the sound is on an optical track?

If your argument is that there is lousy tv, I agree. But you are saying that something, just by being broadcast on tv, is inferior, and I don't think that's the case.

What does music ask the listener to do that television doesn't? What hidden message is between the notes that forces a more intellectualy satysfying response in a listener than listen to a concert on television?

 

[Anonymous]

Television is inherently different and inferior to other media, precisely because it asks nothing of the viewer. I'm not going to say that again.

I forgot who said it but the quote is "Television is referred to as a medium because it's rarely well done"
Laters folks...time for me to go

 

[Anonymous]

I think Mein Kampf has weilded an influence, but theorists wouldn't blame it for people's thuggish behavior since it's a book - but they would blame a violent tv show or violent lyrics to some poor sod who shoots up his class.

Yes. and it's still banned in a lot of countries. Theorists do blame Mein Kampf and other books, like the ones Timothy McVeigh's supposed to have read, for causing just such trouble.

But, Hitler's autobiography wasn't the cause of Hitler's rise to power, it was his nasty mates. Books still get blamed, there's just a lot less being read these days.

 

[Anonymous]

And tv is different from film, (if I remember the other place this is mentioned on this thead) just because there is a bigger budget?

No, because films are mostly one-off ventures with far more effort put into them. Not once did I mention budget.
Music makes people think and feel things. That's what it's about and always has been. Music on television wasn't written for television, like a photo of the Mona Lisa can't claim to be the original; it is merely one medium being used to reproduce another. Live concerts are infinitely more fulfilling because of the atmosphere, something else which TV specialises in killing. If you can't tell the difference between seeing a film in a cinema or an orchestra in concert and watching it on TV, then there's nothing anyone can do for you; you are a lost cause.

 

[Anonymous]

We have to answer all your drivel? [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/size]
Not have to, but it would be nice for a full discussion rather than "lets shout out those we disagree with". I'm not trying to be angry, accusitive or even beligerent, I'm just trying to see what the facts about violence in media are.

From the previous discussion, mostly what I'm getting is just opinion and heresay, which seems to indicate to me that real life behavior influenced by television violence (or violent lyrics) is really more of a "common knowledge" kind of knee-jerk reaction people have, and I'm trying to show that similar views have been held against every media at some point in their existance, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with the media of television that makes it inherently inferior to our other media.

And it's maybe also interesting to note that the only thing that seems to get people's dander up is the idea that television might be as good a medium as any other or that good works could be made on it.

Yes, but your posts are being answered. you just don't seem to read them, or choose to ignore their content.

I don't deny TV is another sort of medium, capable of greatness. Like others, I'm simply saying that, for a variety of reasons the huge deluge of crap that is present day TV is sweeping away any good stuff.

As to Shakespeare, yes there was plenty as said he was a hack, no doubt. However, there were also plenty that recognised the real deal, like Ben Jonson and others. In the end his stuff just kept on going, long enough to be picked up by 'posterity.'

But, his material wasn't in every house in the land 24/7 he wasn't tempted to write too many sequels, or soaps. He had dubious patrons, but at least they weren't coke snorting accountants, lawyers and advertising execs.

Why we're arguing, I don't know. TV's dominion of the home is already almost at an end, the home computer/ entertainment system is well on its way to replacing the 'telly.' Perhaps that's one of the reasons TV, is becoming more shock and emptiness, with its reality gameshows and cheap docu-soaps?

 

[MrRING]

The reason I thought many of my points were being dropped is that some of them were - I think I would write 5 paragraphs of response, one person would answer a single sentence, then 5 people after that one would just back up the argument about the one sentence - so i thought I was making some good points along the way that were being dropped. But I'm trying to work and write at the same time (like drinking and driving: don't do it, folks), so it's certainly possible I missed a bit here and there.

I really just wanted to get at if the idea that exposure to violent media can induce real-life violence. Which surprisingly, it seems that everybody here thinks can and does happen, with every media. Just pointing out one seems just a convenience, and maybe that's what I've always hated; then again, journalism goes for the shock and the titilation every time, so it's no wonder, really.

In the interest of forum peace, maybe we can all agree to this, The Great Violence Debate Manifesto

1) All communication media are capable of greatness and crap.

2) All communication can give form to violent behavior in some people (for who knows what reasons of nature, nurture, and/or exposure).

3) Television has more inherent problems because of the way it is run; while the medium in and of itself is not inherently inferior, the way business interests and advertising concerns control broadcast companies, it is much harder to get quality works created and shown.

? ? ?

 

[Anonymous]

The reason I thought many of my points were being dropped is that some of them were - I think I would write 5 paragraphs of response, one person would answer a single sentence, then 5 people after that one would just back up the argument about the one sentence - so i thought I was making some good points along the way that were being dropped. But I'm trying to work and write at the same time (like drinking and driving: don't do it, folks), so it's certainly possible I missed a bit here and there.

I really just wanted to get at if the idea that exposure to violent media can induce real-life violence. Which surprisingly, it seems that everybody here thinks can and does happen, with every media. Just pointing out one seems just a convenience, and maybe that's what I've always hated; then again, journalism goes for the shock and the titilation every time, so it's no wonder, really.

In the interest of forum peace, maybe we can all agree to this, The Great Violence Debate Manifesto

1) All communication media are capable of greatness and crap.

2) All communication can give form to violent behavior in some people (for who knows what reasons of nature, nurture, and/or exposure).

3) Television has more inherent problems because of the way it is run; while the medium in and of itself is not inherently inferior, the way business interests and advertising concerns control broadcast companies, it is much harder to get quality works created and shown.

? ? ?

Mostly re-quoting a whole post wastes space. You seem quite happy to shower points, answering so many of them fully would take many posts and only some of your points seemed particularily relevant to the present discussion.

Not everybody thinks too much TV, or other media incites violence. I think it too much violence on TV, or other media brutalises and desensitizes people to TV, or other media violence. It also tends to make people unnecessarily timid and even fearful of the real world beyond their TV screens.

Your three numbered points seem fair enough.

 

[lopaka]

Nice post, Mr. R.I.N.G. I can pretty much agree with your Manifesto, though I tend to see it as a correlation rather than cause-and-effect. And hasten to add I see other things as having a stronger correlation, such as violence in the home.

Two of my favorite takes on this question come at it from different viewpoints. One film, one television.

Background: In 1993 a five year old boy burns down his Ohio home, killing his sister. His mother claims he got this idea from watching Beavis and Butthead playing with fire, and blames the show. (Of course it begs the question, what kind of parent lets an unsupervised 5 y.o. watch that show and have access to matches/lighter?). Big public contreversy ensues.

On a later episode of said show the boys watch a public television documentary about the life of Ben Franklin. So the next time there's an electrical storm they decide to fly a kite with a key attatched. The inevitable happens and they're fried. Lying in their hospital beds a person identifying herself as being from the Coalition for TV Decency (or somesuch) comes up to them and says "Is it true you boys were copying something you saw on television?"

Second one. The 1979ish movie Time After Time (which I liked, BTW). Basic plot is that HG Wells invents his time machine and shortly thereafter learns that one of his friends is Jack the Ripper. Jack escapes to modern day San Fransisco via the machine. Wells, who was also a utopian socialist is horrified that he has allowed this monster to be unleashed on utopia and follows him.

Scene: Wells finally catches up with Jack in a hotel room and urges him to go back instead of ruining this peacefull society. Jack picks up a remote and starts flipping channels. We see terrorists, maimed children, reports of murders, atomic explosions, etc. After ranting for a bit Jack finally looks at Herbert and says "Don't you understand? A hundred years ago I was a freak, today I'm an amatuer. It is you who do not belong."

I may be off on the details a little as I'm working from memory, but those two have always stuck with me.

 

[Anonymous]

Then There's Science Fiction

Kilgore Trout, Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s alter ego, was a science fiction writer who could only get published in pornographic magazines.

Originally from Breakfast Of Champions, by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (1973)

--> The jackets of Plague on Wheels and Now It Can Be Told both promised plenty of wide-open beavers inside. The picture on the cover of Now It Can Be Told, which was the book which would turn Dwayne Hoover into a homicidal maniac, showed a college professor being undressed by a group of naked sorority girls. A library tower could be seen through a window in the sorority house. It was daytime outside, and there was a clock in the tower. The clock looked like this: ...

The professor was stripped down to his candy-stripcd underwear shorts and his socks and garters and his mortarboard, which was a hat which looked like this: ...

There was absolutely nothing about a professor or a sorority or a university anywhere in the body of the book. The book was in the form of a long letter from the Creator of the Universe to the only creature in the Universe who had free will.

--> As for the story in Black Garterbelt magazine: Trout had no idea that it had been accepted for publication. It had been accepted years ago, apparently, for the date on the magazine was April, 1962. Trout found it by chance in a bin of tame old magazines near the front of the store. They were underpants magazines.

When he bought the magazine, the cashier supposed Trout was drunk or feeble-minded. All he was getting, the cashier thought, was pictures of women in their underpants. Their legs were apart, all right, but they had on underpants, so they were certainly no competition for the wide-open beavers on sale in the back of the store.

'I hope you enjoy it,' said the cashier to Trout. He meant that he hoped Trout would find some pictures he could masturbate to, since that was the only point of all the books and magazines.

'It's for an arts festival.' said Trout.

As for the story itself, it was entitled 'The Dancing Fool.' Like so many Trout stories, it was about a tragic failure to communicate.

Here was the plot: A flying saucer creature named Zog arrived on Earth to explain how wars could be prevented and how cancer could be cured. He brought the information from Margo, a planet where the natives conversed by means of farts and tap dancing.

Zog landed at night in Connecticut. He had no sooner touched down than he saw a house on fire. He rushed into the house, farting and tap dancing, warning the people about the terrible danger they were in. The head of the house brained Zog with a golfclub.

There's a moral there for us all, I'm sure.

 

[Anonymous]

Violence in the media causes violence/ infulances people towards violence ect.

I'd be more interested in discusing sociaties place in the culture of violence: the constent need to construct an other, representations of sex and sexuality in the media, an unfair system of weath distribution, the economic system we live under. You could go on for hours finding causes of violence to blame the media is to shoot the messanger.

 

[monster_magnet]

Hurrah!! for the Queen. - Exactly, the medium cannot be to blame for the message.

I believe TV Programmes are more of a reflection of society than a huge influencer. They are MASS media, dumbed down for mass cunsumption whether they are understood or not.

Andro: you suggest that

It [TV] also tends to make people unnecessarily timid and even fearful of the real world beyond their TV screens.

Do you have any referrences or examples of this. Its a pretty sweeping and unqualified statement. Whilst it may be a symptom of other psychological problems i doubt the majority of TV viewers would be effected in any way.

Remember though, these horrific crimes are rare, don't have nightmares.

 

[Anonymous]

If I could be botherd looking it up...

Do you have any referrences or examples of this. Its a pretty sweeping and unqualified statement. Whilst it may be a symptom of other psychological problems i doubt the majority of TV viewers would be effected in any way.

about seven years ago the head honcho of Strathclyde Police critisised just this thing.

He claimed that the over representation of assaults on the elderly was making them afraid to leave the house.

He wasn't talking about TV, he was talking about print media.


And thankyou Edward. It needed said.

 

[Anonymous]

Remember though, these horrific crimes are rare, don't have nightmares.

Which is a direct quote from Crimewatch UK and sort of answers your own post. They add that rider for a reason. CW-UK's very recreations of violence were having serious kick backs amongst the elderly, and others, and they felt the need to add that little epilogue to cover their sorry arses.

Originally posted by VQ:

about seven years ago the head honcho of Strathclyde Police critisised just this thing.

He claimed that the over representation of assaults on the elderly was making them afraid to leave the house.

He wasn't talking about TV, he was talking about print media.

Really? How interesting. I'm sure he may have based it on something.

Here's one link to:

Adbusters: Media violence threat to kids. That's a start.

I'll look up the relevant American Medical Association report on media violence, later if you like.

So, on the one hand, people can complain about the media's portrayal of minority groups, racism, sexism and etc. as being negatively influential, yet the protrayal of increasingly graphic violence on TV, as entertainment, is seen as of no importance, and having no real influence, or effect on the viewer.

Run that one past me again? Surely portrayal of the race, or sexes and gender in derogatory ways, merely for entertainment purposes, could be seen as similiarily, without lasting ill effects.

 

[monster_magnet]

The conclusion from Media violence threat to kids

The studies are conclusive. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that exposure to media violence stimulates aggression. It is time to move on and consider how best to inoculate our children against this insidious threat.

Perhaps you've been a victim of sensationalism here Andro ?

The evidence leaves no room for doubt that exposure to media violence stimulates aggression

Aggression is NOT violence. If it had been concluded that these kids went out and hammered their kittens to death then maybe i'd rethink BUT its not. And as is pointed out nearly all the children are aroused in some way by film or TV.

I wouldn't class Star Wars as a particularly violent film but the amount of kids leaving the cinema pretending they were in a light sabre battle was incredible. The imediate arousal of kids and adults from these stimulating visual images is easily prooved as for lasting damage I have my reservations.

The reason I pointed out that sign off from Crimewatch was that CW is considered a current affairs community programme i.e nearly the news. Are you suggesting that News type progs should also carry warnings or be censored to save the public feelings?

 

[monster_magnet]

some interesting stuff

• censorship won't solve the root causes of violence in society
• deciding what is "acceptable" content is necessarily a subjective exercise
• many of the plays, books and films banned in the past are considered classics today
• it's up to individuals and not governments to decide what's appropriate for themselves and their children

the most violent film in 1999 was Saving Private Ryan, a fictionalized account of the D-Day invasion of Normandy which has been critically acclaimed for its realistic portrayal of the horrors of war

 

[Anonymous]

Act of Aggression: An Unprovoked Attack. (OE Dictionary)

Perhaps you've been a victim of sensationalism here Andro ?

Aggression is NOT violence. If it had been concluded that these kids went out and hammered their kittens to death then maybe i'd rethink BUT its not. And as is pointed out nearly all the children are aroused in some way by film or TV.

The reason I pointed out that sign off from Crimewatch was that CW is considered a current affairs community programme i.e nearly the news. Are you suggesting that News type progs should also carry warnings or be censored to save the public feelings?

I'm sorry. Did I mention censorship? Please point that one out to me. I'm not responsible for the content of the Adbusters piece, I'm simply posting some links to research and studies about the effects of violence. I know there's more.

Of course, you may not believe in such research, that's entirely up to you. I just wouldn't like anyone to think I'd post saying I'd read of such research just to back up my own unsubstantiated opinion.

Personally I believe the relationship between the media's portrayal of violence and the consumer of such portrayals to be much more complicated than a simple correlation of violence on TV begets violence in society.

But then, I believe I mentioned that in earlier posts.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: some interesting stuff

• censorship won't solve the root causes of violence in society
• deciding what is "acceptable" content is necessarily a subjective exercise
• many of the plays, books and films banned in the past are considered classics today
• it's up to individuals and not governments to decide what's appropriate for themselves and their children

Really? And you'll have proof of all this ready to post, of course! :hmph:

 

[monster_magnet]

They are opinions not facts and all seem pretty reasonable to me.

Sorry if you took any offence at my suggestion that you may want censorship none was intended.

There are no doubt plenty of sources on the net where this issue is debated, some good some bad. I was merely trying to establish to what lengths you would go to 'solve' the perceived problem of the effect of violence in the mass media.

I personally don't see a problem. TV is one of many mediums for violence including Cinema, Art, Books, Comics, Sport. It's an individual choice as to whether you subject yourself to these images and as a responsible parent i shall be providing other sources of stimulation to my son.

 

[stu neville]

Sorry it's taken me a while...

I'm sorry, Edge of Darkness, Boys From The Black Stuff..... Is that the best the pro-telly lobby can do? Most of those programmes were made 20 years ago!

I chose those specifically as they are indeed from two decades ago, but still stand up to scrutiny. More recently The West Wing and Conspiracy would, I contend, fill the same niche - 24 was audacious and clever in it's execution, The Simpsons (which is the single most consistent, and satirical comedy yet to originate in the US, IMHO), brilliant British comedy such as Black Books, or The Office, or Phoenix Nights.

No, good TV is there to be found. And good TV is just as much an art form as good cinema, or good literature, or good music.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry if you took any offence at my suggestion that you may want censorship none was intended.

There are no doubt plenty of sources on the net where this issue is debated, some good some bad. I was merely trying to establish to what lengths you would go to 'solve' the perceived problem of the effect of violence in the mass media.

Two things piss me off.

People who try to re-interpret my posts without reading them.

People who make insinuations about what my posts mean without reading them.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Sorry it's taken me a while...

(G)ood TV is just as much an art form as good cinema, or good literature, or good music.

Or a pickled shark...:hmm:

 

[stu neville]

Re: Re: Sorry it's taken me a while...

Or a pickled shark...:hmm:

...OK, to qualify, Good TV is as valid a Good Art form as any other Good Art Form (which to a degree lies in the eye of the beholder, granted, but Michaelangelo's David is as far divorced from a pickled shark as Conspiracy is from Family Fortunes - same genus, different species).

There's a lot of bathwater on the box, as I've acknowledged from the start, but to single out Television in toto as garbage is to throw the proverbial baby out.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Sorry it's taken me a while...

Originally posted by stu neville
[BThere's a lot of bathwater on the box, as I've acknowledged from the start, but to single out Television in toto as garbage is to throw the proverbial baby out.

What you say is quite right, too, Stu!

Unfortunately, these days, the 'bath' is overflowing out on to the landing and down the stairs. The water is also full of 'floaters' and even the occasional pickled shark.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the baby has drowned...

 

[Yithian]

This thread is supposed to be about violence being engendered by various media through the ages.

When Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" was first performed there was a riot. I hardly imagine that was caused by a load of neds fuelled by cheap booze.

Music was played, there was immediate violence.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe they were expecting something else...? The same happened with the Magic Flute, but that might just have been because it's a hideous opera and they wanted a refund...

 

[Anonymous]

I Don't know About A Full Scale Riot:

Things may have been slightly more sedate according to this,
NPR's Performance Today: Milestones of the Millenium Site.

The audience responded to the ballet with such a din of hisses and catcalls that the performers could barely hear each other.

We're talking about a ballet audience, after all.

edit: spelling, spelling, spellling.