Media Violence
...Egyptians entertained themselves with plays re-enacting the murder of their god Osiris -- and the spectacle, history tells us, led to a number of copycat killings. The ancient Romans were given to lethal spectator sports as well, and in 380 B.C. Saint Augustine lamented that his society was addicted to gladiator games and drunk with the fascination of bloodshed. Violence has always played a role in entertainment. But there's a growing consensus that, in recent years, something about media violence has changed. The debate over media violence has eluded definitive answers for more than three decades. At first blush, the debate is dominated by one question—whether or not media violence actually causes real-life violence. One thing is certain: the issue of media violence is not going away. Increasingly the debate is focusing on the "culture of violence," and on the normalization of aggression and lack of empathy in our society.
On the one hand some people are totally against media violence. Sissela Bok, a Ph.D. in philosophy and a fellow at the Shorenstein Barone Center for Press, Politics, and Public Policy, and Ed Donenrstein, the dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, write about the four effects of media violence: bystander effect, appetite effect, victim effect and aggressor effect. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and increased mistrust in others. Furthermore it increases desensitization to violence, resulting in calloused attitudes toward violence directed at others and a decreased likelihood to take action on behalf of the victim when violence occurs. In addition there will be an appetite for becoming involved with violence or exposing himself or herself to violence. There are proofs for the different effects. 61 percent of programs on...
View Full Essay