The sound of violence
"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?"
Dick Cavett, Mocking the TV-violence debate
That got me thinking: does violence on television, video games and cinema influence people to commit violent crimes?
Now, while courting controversy isn't a problem for me, this is a massively subjective and highly contentious area for the weary traveller to go wandering into.
I think that there are just too many parties involved here, all with their own agenda who would otherwise hope to obfuscate the arguments for and against with towering walls of statistics and case studies et cetera.
So, given that I've now got some smart people darkening the door of my 'Blog, I will leave this article deliberately open-ended in the hope that you guys will bring the arguments and I'll bring the beer and sit and watch you all fight in a big heap.
Points will be awarded for evidence supporting your claims .. oh, and creative use of derisory and dismissive asides, withering sarcasm and just general conceit and smugness.
Points will be deducted for biting, hitting below the belt, playing the race card, bringing gender issues into the mix, excessive use of expletives and spitting.
People, don't let me down...
posted by Wayne Smallman at Wednesday, February 09, 2005
8 Comments:
So, it looks like Lucretia has set out her stall.
Any challengers?
Anyone disagree with that?
I'll be popping back in shortly with my take on things...
It's a generational thing.
Using the John Wayne films as examples, you have a clearly polarized view of good & bad.
In these films, the good guy is glamourized and the bad guy is demonized.
At this time, the kids -- my dad among them -- usually had a good upbringing and their lives were grounded in good family values.
Fast-forward forty years, now we have anti-heros who blur the distinction between good & bad. Plus, you have the bad guy winning. While this is arguably as reflection of society, there's no doubting the influence of media.
There is such a thing as media saturation and media desensitization. We live in a time where mass media brings images of savage horror and violence straight into your living room .. and that's just the news.
So now you have an entire generation of people who hark from families of varying family values. Hopefully, in most cases good, while clearly in others, not so good.
Look at it this way, if media didn't influence people, the advertisers would have abandoned it years ago...
And therein lies the dilemma for the governments of this world: how much can we trust to parental guidance and how much to censorship?
Right now, I'd say the balance is out of kilter.
Yes, I like to see shit getting fragg'd, but I don't take that idea out into the streets with me.
And I'd hope no one else in here would, either .. with the obvious exception of Lucretia, bless her little cotton sox!
But in saying the balance is out, so what's the solution? Censor television?
What's the point?
You either piss people off in droves. So, you up the watershed and only show nasty stuff after eleven at night.
But wait! People have VCR's and DVD writers, so you're no further forward.
Not unlike the strange box that Pandora found in her grasp, once opened, all the ills of the world spilled forth.
Once opened, those ills could not be put back in.
And from cinema, and then the television, and there after video games came the internet:
"The internet is a reflection of our society,.. If we do not like what we see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix society."
~ Vint Cerf
There isn't any quick fix to this problem. It's just a part of what we are...
I believe that all people are fundamentally violent. We're territorial hunter-gatherers at heart and it doesn't take much to remind us of that.
So I guess this goes back to the life reflecting art or art reflecting life debate... there was violence way before there was multi media so I'm inclined to think it's not really responsible as such. As far as I'm aware though, the occasional incidents of copycat violence aren't statistically significant in the grand scheme of things.
Violence on television and in other forms of media doesn't influence people to act violently. That's just crazy! I watch loads of action films and play violent shoot-em-up video games for hours a day and I am not a violent person at all.
It's simply an argument created by folks who want to eliminate all the fun from our lives, and that makes me so mad that I want to go out and shoot these people. Or at least beat them.
Thanks for posting, Zuzula.
"... There was violence way before there was multi media so I'm inclined to think it's not really responsible as such."
And I agree entirely.
It's more an issue of the instant access to this kind of thing that's the issue, these days.
Whereas in the days of our parents, other than some satirical radio show or saucy comic strip in a tabloid, there wasn't much to really write home about...
"Violence on television and in other forms of media doesn't influence people to act violently. That's just crazy!"
There's a whole raft of psychological studies out there that offer evidence that says otherwise.
Like I've said before, if media didn't influence people, then advertising is an enormous waste of time and money.
The point to remember is that not all people are susceptible to the influence of media.
In saying that, I suspect we're all susceptible, but it's the degree to which you're likely to act out what you see that's the differentiating factor...
The "I'll report this!!!", or any form of meddling, censoring or moderation to what you're supposed to 'experience', is pure Nazi-ism. Whoever believes that _that_ is how things should be run, is better off being used as firewood, or something in that order..
Parenting is the sane replacement to the crap I mentioned above; if you're a kid, (and thereby legally in the 'custody' of your 'rents;) well.. -then what you should do, and whatnot, is either controlled by them, or whoever they shift the responsibility on to (playschool, school, babysitter, relatives, etc.)
..Being a parent _includes_ providing a capable watchperson for one's kids, whenever they themselves are temporatily unable to "be there". I'm not saying 24/7, ofcourse, but
enough to "indoctrinate" a sane relationship to "how things are done", and demystifying the difference between "reality/fiction"..
Medium (i.e. TV, vidgames, _things_) _cannot_ be the teacher here; you must be tought the _key elements_ before you are sent out on your own.. Your parents should only get their "certified parent" -diploma, if the above criteriums are met.
..Then when you're old enough, "the law"(tm) becomes the outer bounds. And you won't have any problems when that time comes, _if_ you're pre-supplied with a sane relationship with how things work..
If you're an outsider to coping with "The World" when on your own, then your new parents are either Jail, Mental Institution, or Graveyard; simple as that.. --But, then your "parents" could be the ones to blame for not having been parental enough.
--
Yeah, the pre-defined deficiencies /limits one could be born with, are also a parent's responsibility (or anyone appointed). If you're "blasted" from the start, then your susceptibility should be evaluated by people from "the real world", and further moderation /overseement should be based on that, for as long as deemed needed..
--
Post a Comment
<< Home