The Effects Of Violence In Tel Essay
, Research Paper
The Effects of Violence in Television and Movies
& # 8220 ; Violence on telecasting and in the films is damaging to kids & # 8221 ;
( Levine ) Well, that merely about says it all, huh? Or does it? One thing is for
certain, the nexus between adolescent force and the plans on telecasting
is at that place, the lone thing to debate is how strong is that nexus? Many people
feel there is a immense job with the force on telecasting and in the
films in today & # 8217 ; s society, doing all kinds of societal pandemonium, such as school
shots, slaughters, and merely about anything else you can thing of. On the
other manus, many people feel less strongly about the subject. They feel that
force on telecasting and in the films is a job, but non as large a
job as most others make it out to be. But wait, there & # 8217 ; s more. There is
one last group ; the targeted demographic.
Only $13.90 / page
The people who really watch the
shows everyday. They, of class, couldn & # 8217 ; t care less about what they watch.
These people can sit through anything fundamentally. If you do care, you & # 8217 ; re in one
of the other aforesaid groups. So, we have three groups, all with
changing sentiments and thoughts. Surprisingly, force on web telecasting has
been worsening steadily over the past three old ages, harmonizing to a study
released in January by the Center for Communication Policy at the
University of California at Los Angeles ( Moret ) . Besides, public perceptual experience,
mostly the consequence of media accent, is that about half of all violent offense
is committed by juveniles ; when in fact, it & # 8217 ; s merely 19 % ( Moret ) . Yes, that & # 8217 ; s
still a batch, but while many people think that the juvenile offense rate has gone
up dramatically, it has ever stayed at around 20 % for more than one
hundred old ages ( Moret ) . After a terrifying spike get downing in the 80s, the
slaying rate among immature people declined 31 % between 1993 and 1996,
harmonizing to the National Center for Juvenile Justice ( Marks ) . We & # 8217 ; vitamin Ds like to
believe this is acquiring better, but we truly can & # 8217 ; Ts know for certain.
So, we have three groups, all with really different sentiments. We & # 8217 ; ll get down with the most concerned, the 1s who think that all violent telecasting and films are dreadfully immoral and should be banned. This group believes that any plan with force is unsuitable for sing by the younger demographic, that it will impact them in the long tally. Statistics show, that yes, it does impact younger kids. Impressionism starts when a kid is really immature ( Elias ) , so it would do sense that they feel that immature kids should non watch violent plans. It would look, and once more surveies show,
that the older one gets, the less likely you are to be influenced by a film or telecasting plan, because older people evidently know it & # 8217 ; s incorrect to ache person. This peculiar group understands that, and I applaud them for it. They feel a solution to this really serious job is to merely non allow kids watch it ( Levine ) . That is, a blocking system, like the V-chip. Besides, they are competing for a more tight ticker at film theatres, doing certain that kids do non even have a opportunity to see R rated films, non even if their parents say they can.The 2nd group feels that the issue at manus is non every bit serious as the first group. They believe that yes, force influenced by kids is a job, but non life endangering. Many surveies of telecasting related force have determined that adolescent kids are non every bit waxy as the younger group aforementioned, and the effects are less, but they are still at that place. For illustration, one survey showed that striplings have more aggressive feelings when they watch violent films, but & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; .people may walk out of a film such as Natural Born Killer experiencing aggressive, but unless they keep play backing the film, or other angry ideas associated with the film in their head, they are disposed to be back to normal in a few proceedingss & # 8221 ; ( Levine ) . So, it doesn & # 8217 ; t last unless you dwell on it. The job, they feel, is that people do be given to brood on & # 8220 ; cool & # 8221 ; things. Besides, this group feels there is a job
with the evaluation system on telecasting plan evaluations. At first, it was merely PG, Television 14, MA, and a few others. Now they have added L for linguistic communication, V for force, and S for a sexual subject. This is all good and good, but group # 2 feels it & # 8217 ; s excessively complicated, that people hate complicated things, and that the more complicated the evaluations system is, the less people will seek to calculate it out ( Grossman ) . While this group is non as edgy about telecasting related force, they ba
sically want the same things as the first group, like a blocking system, closer parental ticker, and tighter security at the films. Now, there’s one last group, the targeted demographic. The people that sit around all twenty-four hours and make nil but ticker telecasting. They feel at that place isn’t a truly large job to be dealt with. They don’t want their telecasting shows to be taken off because they’re “too violent” or “influential” . While they can’t deny all the facts out at that place, they don’t feel the job of telecasting related force is truly every bit large as some people make it out to be. They believe that yes, kids should non see plans rated for mature audiences, but they should non be wholly shut away from the universe of telecasting. They believe the lone solution is for parents to supervise what their childs ticker, and watch it with them, and they shouldn’t leave them entirely with the telecasting ( Elias ) .
Yes, there is a job with force influenced by telecasting, but it truly isn & # 8217 ; t every bit grave as most of the people think. As was explained before, force among kids has been at the point it is today for one hundred old ages. One hundred old ages. Television wasn & # 8217 ; t even around for about 50 of those old ages. In a recent survey, Mark Singer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland said this of the consequences: & # 8220 ; Witnessing or being the mark of force & # 8211 ; at place, in the vicinity or at school & # 8211 ; in the past twelvemonth correlated strongly with a kid acting violently toward others. The No. 2 factor was a deficiency of parental monitoring. Television was the least influential of the three & # 8221 ; ( Pitofay ) This proves both of our points right there: Kids Don & # 8217 ; t acquire all of their aggressiveness from telecasting. A batch of it is from existent life experiences. It comes from what their parents do at place, and it doesn & # 8217 ; t assist when a kid is populating in an opprobrious family ( Lamb ) . Television, every bit good as films, should be more tightly guarded, with parental supervising. Basically the same as groups # 1 and # 2. Besides, if person is so waxy that they would put on the line their ain life, non person else & # 8217 ; s, by copying a film, those people have something mentally incorrect with them. As an illustration, a quotation mark from Sing Violence by Madeline Levine Ph.D. : & # 8220 ; The largest and most dismaying illustration of film imitation is that of 26 people who shot
themselves while playing out the heroic poem Russian roulette scene from the 1978 Vietnam war epic The Deer Hunter & # 8221 ; ( Levine ) Why would you put on the line your ain life, merely because you saw it in a film? One can merely reason that they do so, have a mental upset, and are sick in the caput. This is a job that needs to be dealt with. The solution is simple: parents need to be with their childs, whenever they watch a telecasting show, whenever they see a film ( up to a certain age ) . They need to speak about what is on Television, why they shouldn & # 8217 ; t watch such plans. My positions on a solution for this job coincides with all of the groups aforementioned, more or less.
In decision, the job at manus, the effects of force intelevision and films, is a instead big one. We may hold somewhat different positions on this subject, but at that place & # 8217 ; s one thing about everyone seems to hold on: there needs to be a much better monitoring system. Parents must take charge
of their kids, and the kids must obey. They don & # 8217 ; t need to cognize about
all the awful things in this universe, at least until they are ready. They don & # 8217 ; T
demand to see the flooring things on telecasting, and in the films. Childs
today have enough to worry approximately in the existent universe, much less what goes on
in the fantasy universe that is the telecasting.
& # 8220 ; Children & # 8217 ; s Television & # 8221 ; Grolier Encyclopedia. Grolier Online 9 Feb. 2000
Elias, Marilyn. & # 8220 ; Kids repetition Violence seen in life, non on Television & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; USA Today 25 June, 1999. SIRS Knowledge Source. 3 Feb. 2000.
Grosman, David and Gloria DeGaetaro. Stop learning out childs to kill. New York: Crown Publishing Group, 1999
Jeter, Jon and Alexandra Marks and Jeffery Stanger. Issues and Constroversies on file. 1999, Various, 49-56
Lamb, Gregory M. & # 8220 ; Block all that Television sex and force & # 8221 ; . Christian Science Monitor. Proquest Direct. 9 Feb. 2000.
Levin, Charles. & # 8220 ; Why must this go on? & # 8221 ; . CNN Daily News 19 Jan. 2000.
Levine, Madeline Ph.D. Sing Violence. New York: Doubleday, 1996
Marks, Alexandra. & # 8220 ; Few marks that media force is slaking & # 8221 ; . Christian Science Monitor. 23 Sept. 1999 Sirs Knowledge Source 19 Jan. 2000
Moret, Jim. & # 8220 ; Harmful force pervades TV & # 8221 ; CNN Daily News.19 Jan. 2000
Pitofay, Robert. & # 8220 ; The influence of violent amusement stuff on childs & # 8221 ; Federal Trade Comission. 25 June, 1999. SIRS Knowledge Source. 3 Feb. 2000.