| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
TODDLER 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
 Topic: Society, Violence, And The Media
Posted: October 29 2010 at 01:29 |
A recent quote I read went something like this: TV is an interactive learning experience played out on 27-inch screens that's turning the world into a replica of hell itself-where violence is viewed, then meted out in dizzying displays of brutality and unfocused rage upon the stranger.
I feel personally that it's all about harming the innocent. When I first started teaching music to special-Ed students, I had a rude awakening. Many of the kids I taught were obsessed with the Columbine shootings. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were role models or even icons I should say to these kids. The idea of committing mass murder and turning the gun on yourself became a trend. A fad.
The display of evil laughter and appreciation for Charles Carl Roberts IV shooting ten Amish girls and again, turning the gun on himself. A real hero? I was hearing conversations between customers and students in the store regarding how they thought it was cool to invade the Amish. I got the impression they must have thought that an act of violence would anger the Amish. But in return for their tragic loss, the Amish set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. Letting go of grudges is deep rooted in Amish culture. This is something that the act of violence cannot penetrate. This time the cool idea of shooting a group of people and doing yourself in didn't work. Violence will never affect a private community as it does with the innocent stranger. At least of all not in the same way.
Mass murderers have become celebrities like the serial killers of the past. People reenact ridiculous things they view on TV. It's become a circus just like those cornball Stadium Rock concerts of the 70's.Seung-Hui Cho killing 32 people caused the post-modern jungle to flourish even more. So my question is ..
Does society perpetuate the violence it sees in the media? or does the media perpetuate the violence it sees in society?
What is your gut feeling? Dismiss my rant and express how YOU really feel. What are your personal viewpoints?
Edited by TODDLER - October 29 2010 at 01:30
|
 |
Gamemako
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 01:32 |
|
Symptom or cause?
|
Hail Eris!
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 02:36 |
 TODDLER wrote:
A recent quote I read went something like this: TV is an interactive learning experience played out on 27-inch screens that's turning the world into a replica of hell itself-where violence is viewed, then meted out in dizzying displays of brutality and unfocused rage upon the stranger.
I feel personally that it's all about harming the innocent. When I first started teaching music to special-Ed students, I had a rude awakening. Many of the kids I taught were obsessed with the Columbine shootings. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were role models or even icons I should say to these kids. The idea of committing mass murder and turning the gun on yourself became a trend. A fad.
The display of evil laughter and appreciation for Charles Carl Roberts IV shooting ten Amish girls and again, turning the gun on himself. A real hero? I was hearing conversations between customers and students in the store regarding how they thought it was cool to invade the Amish. I got the impression they must have thought that an act of violence would anger the Amish. But in return for their tragic loss, the Amish set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. Letting go of grudges is deep rooted in Amish culture. This is something that the act of violence cannot penetrate. This time the cool idea of shooting a group of people and doing yourself in didn't work. Violence will never affect a private community as it does with the innocent stranger. At least of all not in the same way.
Mass murderers have become celebrities like the serial killers of the past. People reenact ridiculous things they view on TV. It's become a circus just like those cornball Stadium Rock concerts of the 70's.Seung-Hui Cho killing 32 people caused the post-modern jungle to flourish even more. So my question is ..
Does society perpetuate the violence it sees in the media? or does the media perpetuate the violence it sees in society?
What is your gut feeling? Dismiss my rant and express how YOU really feel. What are your personal viewpoints? |
I think the fact that your special ed students idolize mass murderers says more about them and their psychological problems than it does our culture. I have always been skeptical of the claim that media depictions of violence cause violence. In my view, either you're unhinged or you're not. An unhinged person may use a video game as an excuse for shooting up a mall, but ultimately he would have done it anyway because he's nuts. A sane person will never shoot up a mall no matter how many video games he plays.
Edited by thellama73 - October 29 2010 at 02:36
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 02:42 |
|
I played violent video games, a lot. Going back to since I was 13/14? Of course there are people I know that have done the same thing back even farther.
I am fine.
I know many, many others who can say the same.
Same with movies/the media.
If something is not right, then sure...maybe any of these things can warp your mind/influence you but in this case there is clearly something not normal occurring.
I guess the best way to put it:
If you are honestly being influenced by video games/movies/the media there are some deeper issues.
Edited by JJLehto - October 29 2010 at 02:43
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:04 |
|
I think that the media like (mainy) TV plays a much greater role in generating violent potential than any video game, mostly because in news and similar reports it's treated in a magnified, out of proportion way. Almost as if it's the norm and not the exception.
Seeing that TV is a known instrument of consumer influence, it would surprise me if those responsible didn't realise the exact resultant extent of what is being unleashed.
If you can calculate the response to ad campaigns, you can calculate the result of non-advertising content. Go figure.
It's quite worrying to live in a society where the Jack the Ripper murders can be considered kid's stuff, compared to any street corner gang antics.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:22 |
|
In order to say that modern media causes violence, you need to argue that these violent phenomena did not occur, or at least were far less common, in the past. You can't.
Edited by Textbook - October 29 2010 at 03:22
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:33 |
|
You recon? That's not the impression I have.
I go back quite a long way and I don't remember not being able to walk any streets at night.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:35 |
It wasn't that it didn't happen, it was that it wasn't reported in the media.
Well, alright there has been the wide spread of guns and narcotics that have assisted the committing of violent crimes which may have not happened in the past, but that's not something you can pin on the media.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:36 |
npjnpj wrote:
You recon? That's not the impression I have.
I go back quite a long way and I don't remember not being able to walk any streets at night.
|
I walk the streets at night all the time and have never had any problem. Maybe it's just Germans who are influenced by movie violence. 
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:39 |
npjnpj wrote:
You recon? That's not the impression I have.
I go back quite a long way and I don't remember not being able to walk any streets at night.
|
Is it really that bad? And if so it's not like every street everywhere is dangerous (let alone impossible) to walk at night. I would all the time, and hell I've done it in major cities even.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:45 |
|
Oy, I'm not German, I just live here at the moment.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:55 |
Yeah I've been right into those allegedly NASTY places in New York and Chicago, places white men "don't go", the gangsta rap heartland and had no problem at all. I was even making it with black women (which white Americans advised me beforehand was a death sentence) and I didn't get any sh*t. It's in their heads and not based on real experience.
However I will say I did find places in LA that really are no-go zones. Don't go to Watts or Compton, they're as bad as you've heard. Has nothing to do with media, all to do with socio-economic forces. The idiots there who will draw guns on you for being white or wearing the wrong colour clothes do certainly not do it because they saw it on TV. They do it because it's a behavioural norm in that area.
Edited by Textbook - October 29 2010 at 04:00
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 03:57 |
|
And I'm fairly certain that the media plays a large role in that behaviour norm, of course in conjunction with socio economic forces. Fills a void.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 04:00 |
|
I'm pretty sure that if the TV stopped broadcasting in Watts, they'd still be poor, still hustling for a living, still having gang wars over turf, and still using drugs as a form of escapism. It's seriously not the media. It is the socio-economic context.
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 04:12 |
|
I dont think the media purpetuates violence. There have always been people who go 'section 8' and run amok, killing innocent people. If someone is of that mindset they will eventually do something terrible anyway.
I don't like the way the media reports certain incidents, and would agree that it has, for them become a bit of a circus, but their reportage is not a cause of violence imo.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 08:29 |
TODDLER wrote:
A recent quote I read went something like this: TV is an interactive learning experience played out on 27-inch screens that's turning the world into a replica of hell itself-where violence is viewed, then meted out in dizzying displays of brutality and unfocused rage upon the stranger.
I feel personally that it's all about harming the innocent. When I first started teaching music to special-Ed students, I had a rude awakening. Many of the kids I taught were obsessed with the Columbine shootings. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were role models or even icons I should say to these kids. The idea of committing mass murder and turning the gun on yourself became a trend. A fad.
The display of evil laughter and appreciation for Charles Carl Roberts IV shooting ten Amish girls and again, turning the gun on himself. A real hero? I was hearing conversations between customers and students in the store regarding how they thought it was cool to invade the Amish. I got the impression they must have thought that an act of violence would anger the Amish. But in return for their tragic loss, the Amish set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. Letting go of grudges is deep rooted in Amish culture. This is something that the act of violence cannot penetrate. This time the cool idea of shooting a group of people and doing yourself in didn't work. Violence will never affect a private community as it does with the innocent stranger. At least of all not in the same way.
Mass murderers have become celebrities like the serial killers of the past. People reenact ridiculous things they view on TV. It's become a circus just like those cornball Stadium Rock concerts of the 70's.Seung-Hui Cho killing 32 people caused the post-modern jungle to flourish even more. So my question is ..
Does society perpetuate the violence it sees in the media? or does the media perpetuate the violence it sees in society?
What is your gut feeling? Dismiss my rant and express how YOU really feel. What are your personal viewpoints? |
The violent crime rate in America has been steadily decreasing since '91. We're at nearly '77 levels. If tv glorification of violence is such a strong variable in determining violence in the populace, wouldn't we expect to see an increase?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 08:43 |
JJLehto wrote:
I played violent video games, a lot. Going back to since I was 13/14? Of course there are people I know that have done the same thing back even farther.
I am fine.
|
There's no tangible evidence to that, how can we know that's real 
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 09:02 |
So in otherwords, it is questionable when pointing the finger at the modern day media when considering the source that commits the crimes?.... and that being crimes committed by candidates for psychiatric treatment? What about all the extensive news coverage for these characters? Natalie Holloway's killer was presented on Monday morning news as a suspect, Tuesday morning as a suspect but, with newly added details, Wednesday you see new witnesses eager to testify, Thursday ....a repeat and the report is re-shuffled with new odds and ends and by Friday, he looks like a talk show host or a movie star being transfered from a police wagon to a cell while handcuffed. The ridiculous amount of camera work and seperate photo shots of the guy presents him as a Brad Pitt.
I sometimes don't think it is so much what these criminals do that attracts the youth as it is in the way they are being presented. I know when I was a kid, the Manson murders was weekly coverage but, tell me then why does it seem different? What is the news doing differently? what exactly? Why would kids get the impression that they could become a celebrity through murder if the killers were not presented that way? It's completely stupied but, dangerous as hell. It's like, these kids have issues to begin with and take the representation of criminals like a role playing game. Maybe if not so much emphasis were put on the crimes themselves and the hungary news report, people in general would dismiss it.
The same with stalkers., There have always been stalkers and women today are so scared out of their minds that they accuse men ........innocent men who might merely compliment a lady's looks as opossed to being a red neck flirting perverted slimball, are reported to the police and accused of being stalkers by women and it has more to do with how the flippin' news media has scared the hell out of women who view it every morning with coffee before going to their office jobs! I remember one of my friends got into a bit of trouble that way. I tried to defend him and the police officer turned and said....."Your friend needs to be aware of the fact that you just can't approach women today. Regardless of how well mannered you are, you see, we get these complaints everyday about guys who are innocent and just being naturally attracted to women. I asked him if he thought it was the news media that was influential to women causing them to over-react to that extreme and he looked at me and said...."Of course" "If the news would pipe down on this type of coverage, then we wouldn't be called out 3 or 4 times a week". What's up with that? Don't you think this might be the same kind of news media influence that takes hold of younger people and the promotion of violence? but in this case it controls the attitudes of women in every age group? I wonder just how much it really influences people in society? That percentage? It's pretty lame when you have 2 police officers telling your friend that women over-react with the stalker thing and they don't want to see innocent guys getting into trouble. For example.....A guy who might merely compliments the female by telling her she looks pretty. Like in my friend's case.....she started the conversation by saying.....God! I'm gaining weight and I'm so depressed. Next thing you know she's calling the police and making up lies about my friend. She watches too much media news and goes the distance.
Edited by TODDLER - October 29 2010 at 13:34
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 13:14 |
thellama73 wrote:
TODDLER wrote:
A recent quote I read went something like this: TV is an interactive learning experience played out on 27-inch screens that's turning the world into a replica of hell itself-where violence is viewed, then meted out in dizzying displays of brutality and unfocused rage upon the stranger.
I feel personally that it's all about harming the innocent. When I first started teaching music to special-Ed students, I had a rude awakening. Many of the kids I taught were obsessed with the Columbine shootings. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were role models or even icons I should say to these kids. The idea of committing mass murder and turning the gun on yourself became a trend. A fad.
The display of evil laughter and appreciation for Charles Carl Roberts IV shooting ten Amish girls and again, turning the gun on himself. A real hero? I was hearing conversations between customers and students in the store regarding how they thought it was cool to invade the Amish. I got the impression they must have thought that an act of violence would anger the Amish. But in return for their tragic loss, the Amish set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter. Letting go of grudges is deep rooted in Amish culture. This is something that the act of violence cannot penetrate. This time the cool idea of shooting a group of people and doing yourself in didn't work. Violence will never affect a private community as it does with the innocent stranger. At least of all not in the same way.
Mass murderers have become celebrities like the serial killers of the past. People reenact ridiculous things they view on TV. It's become a circus just like those cornball Stadium Rock concerts of the 70's.Seung-Hui Cho killing 32 people caused the post-modern jungle to flourish even more. So my question is ..
Does society perpetuate the violence it sees in the media? or does the media perpetuate the violence it sees in society?
What is your gut feeling? Dismiss my rant and express how YOU really feel. What are your personal viewpoints? |
I think the fact that your special ed students idolize mass murderers says more about them and their psychological problems than it does our culture. I have always been skeptical of the claim that media depictions of violence cause violence. In my view, either you're unhinged or you're not. An unhinged person may use a video game as an excuse for shooting up a mall, but ultimately he would have done it anyway because he's nuts. A sane person will never shoot up a mall no matter how many video games he plays.
|
There is no doubt that I agree with half of this. What I want you to consider first is the percentage of people who have severe psychological problems and compared to the ones who promote violence in their attitude and breath yet bring harm to no one. Have you researched documented cases? Do you ever feel due to the evidence of these terror acts, that the vast levels it has progressed to in America is questionable? Or do you really think that they are all insane people? There are loads of x-gang members of every kind in prison today. They have in the past stated their personal regrets. They may have a child which they are only allowed to visit with once a month? They can't wait for release so a new life can begin for them. They have often stated in the past how stupied they feel. How could I have even joined a gang? They are back to square one and are praying to start their life over.
They are good people. They just made a stupied mistake that's all. The percentage of kids that go through this experience is even higher than the ones who commit murder. This particular classification of individuals, (I think), are infuenced by the promotion of violence in the media. These kids are way off base from the James Dallas Egbert III types. Many of them are offended by parents who apply ruled TV viewing. Many of these kids depend on the media and haven't a clue as to why they should develop a mind processing system of their own instead. They process media information from news reports, journalists who present a bad image of parents, etc...and this is what they strongly believe in. It seems like a fact to me that's staring us in the face. It has been proven and it's evident to all. With media, it seems like life is one big lie and as said,...... asked many times before, how long can a lie go before it's too late to tell the truth? For some vital reason you do not count these facts or reality as weight but, I'm quite interested in hearing why you have your mind made up to not. Why would you feel that the media has absolutely no influence on minds and mentalities of the youth?
Edited by TODDLER - October 29 2010 at 13:17
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: October 29 2010 at 17:22 |
|
I don't believe that gang membership is caused by media either. The idea that kids watch West Side Story and then go "Ooh, I'm going to join a gang now" is absurd. People join gangs for the same reason people have always joined gangs: they're poor and desperate and there is a lot of social pressure and fear that they might get hurt if they don't have the protection of said gang. This is a different category of people from the psychopath mass murderer who shoots up schools.
I do not believe that violence has gotten worse since the advent of television. There are a lot more people now, so you see a lot more crimes, but as a percentage I would be willing to bet that it has either remained constant or even gone down. Remember organized crime in the twenties? Was that the result of newspapers glorifying gangsters?
There was a concern a few decades back of kids seeing things like Superman on TV and trying to jump off houses thinnking they could fly. There was a lot of huffing and puffing about the dangers, but it didn't happen. I think one kid did it once and he was severely mentally disabled, if I remember correctly. I just don't think people give kids enough credit. They are not the sheep you think they are. Far more crime is caused by bad parenting than by TV shows. We should be focusing on that. There were some recent studies done showing that children in single parent families were extremely more likely to commit violent crimes. Let's be upset about that and let me qatch my Quentin Tarantino movies in peace.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Society, Violence, And The Media
