Violence in the media very much
contributes to more of violent behavior in children. Even the lack of media reporting the good
news debilitates a nurturing environment.
There is no doubt that youth of today are confronted with a very
different media than the one faced by their grandparents or even their parents
(Starsburger, 2009). The early years are
a crucial time for brain development.
Children need time for activities that are critical for healthy mental
and physical development. Early
formative years should be spent playing, reading, exploring nature, learning
about music and participating in sports (Mweba, 2011). There are safeguarding boundaries that exists
in the format and choices in different media, but for the most part, it’s
become less and less suitable for younger minds.
Structural violence and the media’s
fantastic mirage of politics and consumerism does mostly harm and what good it
does only treats side effects of the schism itself. Structural violence is the leading cause of
all behavioral violence. Newspapers have
become obsolete in the 21st century with the advent of alternative media. Twenty-four hour news networks do little to
even mention the Martin Luther King, Jr. or the Mahatma Gandhi personalities
who are just as active today in public life today as they were before. Despite the existence of compelling,
empirical evidence that media violence causes increased aggression in the observer
or game players, intelligent people still doubt the effects. A fundamental reason is that the outcomes of
such research have implications not only for public policy but how one views
oneself (Hughsman, 2013).
We parents are called to train up a
child in the way they should go and when they get old they will not depart from
it. With the illusion of free will also
goes its opposite, the illusion of freedom to choose our genes or our
environment we grow up in as children.
Still, there is the option of strict conservative discipline. Wholesome recreation definitely produces
smarter and more positive effects in children than war video games and movies
with violence as the main plot has on teens and kids that play or watch
them. Some parents let children as young
as four or five own an I-Pad or DSI.
This is helpful if they are strictly monitored, but it has been shown as
a parody for a zombie apocalypse with a large group of young people hanging
out, and every one of them is staring down at their device.
TV has a system by which parents can monitor what their children watch. There is a 7 level television rating scale Y (all children) - M (Mature) much like movies G (General Audiences) - NC17 (no one 17 and under admitted). Parental discretion is advised for some programs. One or more letters may be added to the basic rating to indicate that a show contains higher levels of violence, sex, adult language or suggestive dialogue (parentstv.org, n.d.). There is actually even a rating called FV for fantasy violence. This is referred to about scenes that do not look real, such as cartoons. There are adult cartoons out there like South Park or Bevis and Butthead that have been accused of warping young minds. While this may be true for MTV’s Bevis and Butthead, it is not necessarily the case with South Park which has a 10PM EST spot of Comedy Central. Although it was designed as a satirical cartoon for adults, South Park has clearly established a strong following with much younger viewers than its original audience of mainly 18- to 39-year-old males. As has been the case with The Simpsons, the language and other semiotic codes associated with South Park have entered the everyday lives of young people the world over (Nixon, 1999).
What is technology’s purpose? Is the impact of a generation of leaders
raised with Twitter and Facebook at ease being felt? Not yet.
The programs the generations passed have been offered are much less
interactive. Advertising is using more
cunning techniques to reach their target audiences. There really is not much parents can do about
the type of things their kids view on social media, but when monitored, it can
be a revelation about the young one’s personality. Is a person’s profile any glimpse into their
character? Of course so. That is why I will propose stricter labeling
of dangerous people and groups. It is
already under way with the NSA’s government surveillance and anti-terrorism
agency. Controversy surrounding media
content labeling has long occurred between industry and government officials,
parents, and researchers alike. Even though much debate has ensued, little
change to content labeling makeup has emerged (Stone, 2012).
We saw many parents at Occupy Wall
Street and Occupy Together projects, standing against structural violence,
hoping to build a greater legacy for their descendants. And therein, some examples of things these
parents may be teaching children is the act of civil disobedience. The principles of non-violent, non
cooperation are transmitted to a new generation in demonstrations, like the
recent events in Iceland, where peaceful protests brought about termination of
the corrupt government, nationalization of the public banks, liquidation of
everyone’s debts, and a new constitution (Jacobs, 2012). Civilization began. But, where was this incredible, monumental,
revolutionary event ever mentioned in the mainstream media? It hardly got reported at all.
Quentin Tarantino films are
notoriously violent. Most teens who are
allowed to watch them think they are some really cool movies. They do have sentimental stories that just so
happen to include plenty of blood and foul language. Now, the question is not how do we get
younger people to not enjoy these movies but how do we educate them about the
implications of the uncouth, detestable behavior seen in them. The media should not be a behavioral
modification therapy, but a key idea that will contribute to more
ethically-based, young persons minds are adults, who’s life purposes it is to
teach, constructing by themselves a new genre that is approved of by their
students (Barker, Petley, 2002). There
is an old saying that if the student does not do greater work than the teacher,
the teacher has failed.
There are popular media outlets,
such as Walt Disney, that are geared specifically towards providing
entertainment suitable for teens and younger crowds. Disney is especially famous for reaching ages
4-9 with legendary stories like Bambi, Beauty and the Beast, and The Little
Mermaid. Disney has their own cable
network that features animated and bright live shows. The Jonas Brothers are a rock band who wear
purity rings that represent their vow to not have sex or mess around like that
until marriage, the conservative agenda that made Disney successful in the
market. Recently, however, the Jonas
Brothers have been roasted for marketing sex to young girls with sensual
singing and dancing to their boy-girl related songs or videos. Selena Gomez, a Disney pop star, is often
seen being much more “grown up” than the innocent belle she played on the
television show starring her, “Wizards of Waverly Place.” Brittney Spears is another example of a
Disney Mouskateer who is less than an excellent role model for little girls to
aspire towards.
In conclusion, there is the notion
that media is over using the graphic, violence simulation scenes and the notion
that the media fails to represent the more benevolent matters of truth. Both notions are valid, but the second is
more causal than the first. This is due
to the modern, availability of quality, truthful media representing positive
values. Constructive entertainment has
become an oxymoron. Critics of media
biases are saying that this is simply a reflection of public consensus. “No matter how much we may try to ignore it,
human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and
among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically,
economically, and socially. This state
of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the
collective influences of the entire context of a message” (Rhetorica,
n.d.). When a generation is becoming
more liberal and more defensive of their own freedoms, safety, and identity, it
is the younger ones who will reap the consequences of negligent moderation of
media.
References
Barker,
M., & Petley, J. (Eds.). (2002). Ill effects: The media violence debate.
Routledge.
Huesmann,
L. R., Dubow, E. F., & Yang, G. (2013). Why It Is Hard To Believe That
Media Violence Causes Aggression. The Oxford Handbook of Media Psychology, 159.
Jacobs,
S. R. (April 16, 2012). The Icelandic
Revolution: Why Didn’t I Hear About It?
Retrieved from http://cac.ophony.org/2012/04/16/the-icelandic-revolution-why-didnt-i-hear-about-it/
Mweba,
A (2011). Effects of Media Violence on
Children. Pediatrics for Parents.
Sep/Oct2011, Vol. 27 Issue 9/10, p6-7. 2p.
Nixon,
H. (1999). Adults Watching Children Watch "South Park.". Journal Of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(1), 12-16.
Rhetorica
(n.d.) Media and Political Bias. Retrieved from http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm
Strasburger,
V. C. (2009). Children, adolescents, and the media. Sage.
Stone,
C. H. (2012). Effects of Content Label Type and Style on Movie Audiences’
Perceived Threat to Freedom, Desire to View, and Expectations of Media
Programming (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University).
Television
Ratings Guide (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/parentsguide/tvratings2.html
No comments:
Post a Comment