Influence of Media Violence

¶ … Media Violence

Blaming Social Violence on the Media

Violence in the media has statistically increased in the last decade, yet incidences of societal violence have not risen along with it. This contradicts the claim by many that violence in television shows, the movies, video games, and music has greatly contributed to the depravity of those exposed to such violence, including children. While increased exposure to the media presents increased exposure to its contents, and thus subjective violence, if present, theoretical implications depicting media as the primary stimuli to the committing of criminal acts has not been objectively proven.

Prior to evaluating evidence for or against causative violence in the media, the concept of violence must first be analyzed. According to the National Television Violence Survey (NTVS), violence can be defined as the "overt depiction of a credible threat of physical force, or the actual use of such force intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings." Professor W. James Potter, who is well written on the subject of violence in the media, has noted a "profound difference between what the public considers violent and how scientist conceptualize violence." He provides the example of cartoons that depict, what scientists consider, the highest level of violence in the media. However, the public does not maintain the same perception. The significance of this observation is that the varied definitions of media violence bewteen the public and scientists make it difficult to determine accurate effects of violence in the media.

Brandon Centerwall, a prominent opponent to violence in the media, responded to contested opinion by restating that his theory should have been based on a two-factor model, considering sources of violence-causing factors outside of the media. He conceded that economic conditions are the predominant factor affecting murder rates. As he stated, "It goes up in bad times and when times are good it goes down.'" He correlated the effects of television with economic conditions by explaining that violence in the media eventually saturates societal influence, reaching a steady-state affect on murder rates, thus becoming negligible in the face of fluctuating economic conditions. Also, famed criminologist James Q. Wilson responds to the issue by commenting, "No doubt violence on television and in the movies heightens aggression among some people some of the time, but we have virtually no evidence that it affects the serious crime rate.'" Thus, crime rates incorporate other factors, especially economic conditions, which have a significant and nearly wholly accountable effect on violence in society.

Richard B. Felson's paper on "Mass Media Effects on Violent Behavior" outlines three points. He first states that media violence, in laboratory conditions, has an equal effect on antisocial behavior as it does on aggressive behavior. Second, contrary to general view regarding punishment in the media, he determines that the media is the most likely avenue to display punishment following violence. His final point is that criminals have a versatile tendency toward violent as well as non-violent acts. He concludes that, "exposure to television violence probably does have a small effect on violent behavior for some viewers," as a result of the media exposing them to forms of violent behavior they might not have already been considered. Thus, the multiple factors influencing criminal activity make it difficult to accurately determine the impact of the media as a mode for propagating crime.