Media entertainment violence and social effects

Mayhem

The ancient Romans had the gory gladiator ring; we modern Americans have slasher films and violent video games. The nature of the content has changed little; the manners of distribution have. From the gladiators of ancient Rome to Mortal Kombat, violent entertainment has captivated human minds and eyes since the dawn of civilization. Interest in and consumption of violent entertainment is natural and instinctual and cannot be suppressed effectively. Attempts to create a violence-free utopia have all but failed; censorship almost never works to truly curb the presence of violence in forms of entertainment, whether real-life or celluloid. However, we ignore the threat of media violence at our peril, for we live in a remarkably violent society. In her book Mayhem, author Sissela Bok addresses concerns over modern media violence, including film, television, Internet, and video games. Bok notes that media violence presents a peculiar paradox within our culture: we are compelled to preserve "free speech" on the basis of the preciousness of the First Amendment at the same time as we are deeply concerned about the proliferation of bloody images, especially those aimed directly at children and impressionable youth. In Mayhem, Bok illustrates how many civil libertarians and proponents of unfettered entertainment mistakenly invoke the First Amendment to block any reasonable dialogue regarding the very real problems of media violence. Instead, Bok proposes a balanced approach based on education, awareness, personal responsibility, and consensus. Furthermore, Bok notes that the United States stands to learn a lot from the programs and policies created by other democratic nations like Canada and Norway, who have encouraged media literacy and frank, open discussions about media violence, without resorting to unnecessary forms of governmental censorship. Steering her audience away from closed-mindedness and extremes, the author notes that past attempts at government control over the arts have been tenuous; however, reasonable restrictions, new technologies, media literacy programs, and parental responsibility can take the place of either heavy-handed governmental control or an unbridled media market.

One of the reasons why the United States is locked in a near stalemate over the media violence issue is because we value strongly our First Amendment Rights. The freedom of expression guaranteed by the American constitution prevents the government from prohibiting politically threatening material and allows for a rich and diverse cultural fabric. The First Amendment can and should guarantee that anyone can express an opinion or a belief, so long as that opinion or belief does not directly harm others. Moreover, the First Amendment guarantees that the media can be self-regulated; that the government cannot determine the public's appetites. Bok points out the very important distinction between private and federal content regulation: "The First Amendment concerns restriction of speech by government, not by citizens," (96). Moreover, many Americans are prepared to permit some form of media censorship, so long as that censorship is reasonable, limited in scope, and specific. Censorship is a thorny topic, and probably poses the primary obstacle to encouraging genuine consensus and change regarding media violence. Americans want to limit their children's exposure to too much violence while at the same time limiting the powers of the federal government to dictate what we can and cannot watch.

Both points are valid and reasonable; as Bok notes, fear of censorship and fear of media violence are equally as warranted (95). However, Bok points out, "Even democracies with strong protections for political and religious freedom, such as Canada, Sweden, and Holland, have statutes limiting violent pornography and hate speech," (93). In the United States, the First Amendment permits much of what would be barred in those countries to be displayed here. Therefore, the United States might be able to learn something from the more tempered approach to media violence proposed by other nations. Invoking the First Amendment can sometimes come in the way of discovering solutions, according to the author. Bok states, "Too often, the First Amendment is wheeled out as a cannon from which to launch preemptive strikes against anyone challenging the levels of media violence," (96).

Bok's treatment of the censorship issue is thorough and reasonable. She admits that a society that is too restrictive with its media leads to problems. Most poignant of the examples she gives is the gebusi tribe of New Guinea. The Gebusi prohibit even the most minute expressions of anger or aggression but nevertheless has an outrageously high homicide rate: far higher than the United States. The United States should not risk sacrificing its civil liberties; not only is the First Amendment precious but it to violate the First Amendment might make no difference in creating a less violent world anyway. Instead, as Bok advocates, the United States needs to strike a balance between governmental censorship and unbridled consumer spending on violent media. Striking this balance is no easy task, but opting out and running away are poor ways of responding. In a nation priding itself on its participatory politics, participation in the dialogue is the only means to reach a reasonable consensus and workable solution to the very real problem of media violence.

According to Bok, the four most significant potential effects of media violence include fearfulness, progressive desensitization, increased appetite for more frequent and more violent programming, and higher levels of aggression in general. Therefore, media violence can be posed as a significant public health issue. Media violence has been increasingly aimed at young children, more so than it ever has in human history. As Bok notes, "Our worldwide distribution systems, piping programs into hundreds of millions of homes at all hours, go beyond anything the Romans, adept as they were at engineering feats, could have imagined," (24). Children are being programmed by clever marketing executives and media moguls, to buy violent video games. Granted, these games are fun to play and children do like them. Attraction toward violence is instinctual in the human being. Just as children were invited to the gladiator rings to witness the spectacle, they cannot be shielded from violence entirely. In fact, shielding is akin to censorship: it doesn't work and it can be insidious.

There are other solutions to censorship and shielding; Bok presents alternative solutions deftly in Mayhem. Among the alternatives to government censorship include lifestyle choices and changes; requisite parental responsibility regarding their children's intake of violent media; new technologies that permit voluntary controls and limitations on exposure to violence; industry-based initiatives and regulations such as ratings and voluntary improvements to content; and strong media literacy programs. In a diverse culture such as ours, we need to entertain each of these potential solutions and apply any or all of them whenever necessary.

Lifestyle choices and changes range from banning television from the house entirely to shunning cable or satellite television to refusing to take the whole family to a violent film. Through their lifestyle choices, parents can choose what types of media their children are exposed to. Concurrent with lifestyle choices and changes is the concept of parental responsibility. Ironically, while Americans rally against any hint of censorship, Americans simultaneously expect the government to protect them against the consequences of media violence. Few parents are willing to take control over the content and caliber of the media their children are exposed to; few parents are willing to step aside from the pack and say "no" to their sons' and daughters' pleas for the latest killing spree video game. While they lambaste the entertainment industry for providing such "filth," they blame someone else for their children's voracious appetites for violence. A similar analogy can be witnessed regarding food choices. Many American parents willingly stuff their children full of junk food and then decry their kids' weight problems. In conjunction with the lack of exercise that comes from watching too much television and viewing too many hypnotic video games, eating habits are also a major public health problem. Because of the content of video games and television, media violence is a public health issue, but one that private individuals need to take responsibility for. No one feels sympathy for the man who sues McDonald's for getting fat; likewise, we cannot aim all our weapons directly at the entertainment industry, which is like all of us, concerned mostly with making money.

Parental responsibility is a major issue in the media violence vs. censorship debate. One of the ways that parents can act in a responsible fashion and alter the character of our society is to take advantage of new technologies such as the V-Chip. The V-chip permits a high degree of private control over publicly-broadcasted media. It is a good compromise in the fight between censorship and the media. With the V-Chip and other forms of voluntary control mechanisms, the media distributors still pump the airwaves full of whatever they choose. But just as we can select what cable channels come into our living rooms at the end of the day, we can also choose what specific shows our children can watch. The V-Chip, Internet tracking software, and other forms of technologies underscore the need for increased parental responsibility and general public responsiveness to the issue of media violence.

On the other hand, parents are not the only ones who should feel responsible for the caliber of popular entertainment. At some point, the media industry must look inward and decide what kind of role it can or will take in the society. Because the media will be concerned primarily with the bottom line, we must, however, forgive any industry that chooses consciously to air and market violent media. When that media is aimed directly at children, though, a line has been crossed. The entertainment industry can and should be self-regulated regarding the promotion of violent video games, films, and television shows. Based on the fact that media violence potentially contributes to the public health issues that Bok addresses in Mayhem: increased fearfulness in the society; increased appetite for more media violence; desensitization to violence; and increased levels of aggression, the media industry and parents alike need to shoulder some of the burden of cultural change.

One of the ways the media industry can regulate itself is through ratings systems. These ratings systems are already in place, as Bok points out. Ratings systems permit the media industry to market their wares to adults who can of their own accord watch what they will. Yet the ratings systems also allow parents to exercise their right to select what forms of entertainment their children are exposed to. With ratings systems for television, film, and video games, even web sites, both parents and the entertainment industries share in some of the responsibility for media violence.

The American education system also needs to investigate its role in media violence. Bok's chapter on media literacy indicates that when children are included in the discussion they demonstrate a mature level of understanding about how media violence affects them and their peers. Based on the observations and theories of educational professionals and psychologists, media literacy can have a huge impact on the ways children can consciously choose what to watch or play; perhaps children do not have to be the deadened consumers we imagine them to be. With media literacy programs, children are permitted to share in the responsibility that their parents and the entertainment industry also share. Through media literacy, young people can "learn not to submit passively to whatever comes along, but instead to examine offerings critically while recognizing the financial stakes of programmers and sponsors," (141). Bok notes that children who participate in media literacy rates become more self-reliant, confident, and mature. Through programs encouraging media literacy, children can learn to discern what types of entertainment might be harmful; what types of entertainment might be unnecessary; and perhaps most importantly, may also learn to distinguish between fictitious and actual violence.