According to Gerard Jones, violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because children will feel rage and anger just like anyone else. He explains that children need to experience anger so that they can learn to understand and control it. Jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because it can make the child braver. Jones explains how violent media can help a child view the problems around them and help motivate them to fix it, just like a superhero would. Jones makes some good points. For example, he brings up the quote of Melanie Moore, an urban teen psychologist, who said, “Children need violent entertainment in order to explore inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, …show more content…
Using his essay to argue about the benefits of violent media is pointless, because this generation’s form of violent media has become too realistic. Video games have become too close to reality, to the point that virtual reality has now become accessible to everyone. Virtual reality adds another layer of depth to violent media, because now the violent video games are just as immersive as ever. A person can actually fire a gun in the virtual world, and it could feel like firing a gun in real life. Another reason why Jones’ essay is not completely valid is because of the differences in censorship between the 1990s and today. Violent movies and games could show whatever they’d like if their age rating is for adults. However, kids still manage to gain these titles because of their parent’s permission, and are then exposed to brutal murders, sexual abuse, and torture. A perfect example of this is the vastly popular, Grand Theft Auto: V. This game is filled with drug abuse, violent murders, torturing, sexual abuse, theft, etc. Lastly, the increase of violent school shootings or massacres has been linked to violent video games. This was not seen in Jones’ time, except in the Columbine school shooting, where both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up the Columbine High School. Both were heavily invested in violent video games, specifically a video game called, Doom (a violent video game created in the 1990’s that involves shooting …show more content…
He agrees that violent media has inspired real world events. This is not something to agree on, because it shows the blatant truth of violent media. In today’s world, kids are exposed to violent media on an hourly basis. Any parent will tell you that kids will copy anything the parent does. Why is that? It’s because children learn from their surroundings. When they are surrounded by violence, they will grow up to be violent. When they are surrounded by peace, they will grow up to be peaceful, too. This imitation in kids has been proven by Albert Bandura, a famous 1960’s psychologist. Bandura conducted an experiment that is now known as the Bobo Doll Experiment. Bandura’s goal was to see how social behaviors, such as aggression, could be gained by observing and imitating others. To sum up the experiment, Bandura had the kids watch an adult beat up a doll, while another group was shown playing with the doll. The results showed that the children in both groups imitated the adults; the kids who watched the doll get beat up repeated what they had seen, and the ones who watched the doll get played with did the same, as well. This experiment changed the way people act in front of their children, because of the chance they will imitate
It has been happened frequently in today’s society that parents and teachers try to keep children away from violent media. Children are taught that violent is not right and dangerous. In the article, “Violent Media Is Good for Kids”, Gerard Jones asserts that allowing children to violent media instead of banned it can bring great benefit to children during their growing stage. By watching violent media, children learn to overcome fear, control the rage and prove the real self from the superheroes in the story. Jones believes that violent entertainment can assistance children to fulfill emotional and development need. In my opinion, Jones develops a persuasive argument because of his strong emotions, considerable evidences and reasonable assumptions.
The adage of the adage. He uses his childhood later on in life, as a logo to support his claims. The statements made do provide evidence that he is correct in believing that a lack of violent media could deprive a young child.
...ssibly help more than harm. Experience has taught me that when a child walks in fear of expressing their feelings they bottle up all of their emotions; simply because they’re afraid of the consequences. Teaching children to appropriately use and appreciate violent media will help them build confidence, “power, and selfhood.” (Jones 287) He successfully executes the use of rhetorical methods and offers solutions to the opposing viewpoint. Jones’ consistent use logical and emotional appeal entices the reader and effectively persuades; this clearly substantiates his deserving of the top persuasiveness prize.
Gina Marchetti, in her essay "Action-Adventure as Ideology," argues that action- adventure films implicitly convey complex cultural messages regarding American values and the "white American status quo." She continues to say that all action-adventure movies have the same basic structure, including plot, theme, characterization, and iconography. As ideology, this film genre tacitly expresses social norms, values, and morals of its time. Marchetti's essay, written in 1989, applies to films such as Raiders of the Lost Ark and Rambo: First Blood II. However, action-adventure films today seem to be straying farther away from her generalizations about structure, reflecting new and different cultural norms in America. This changing ideology is depicted best in Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers (1994), which defies nearly every concept Marchetti proposes about action-adventure films; and it sets the stage for a whole new viewpoint of action in the '90's.
In “Violent Media Is Good for Kids,” Gerard Jones states that violence is good for children. Even with all the bad things people have said about the media and the effect of violence on kids, it has helped many kids reveal their feelings and their fears. In Jones article, he uses his own experience as an example of himself when he was a kid. Also, he uses his son and other kids experience as an example. Most kids use their imagination to pretend to be a protagonist they like. From reading this article it has helped me understand more that not all media violence are harmful for children. Violent media have helped kids express their feelings in a good way. With my own experience as a kid, I can relate to Jones experience. In his essay he uses diction, tone, organization and examples.
There are a lot of people who either wonder or believe that violent media is bad for people and mostly children. Not all violent media is bad. Sometimes when people have a stressful day they will play video games to let off steam. A few people like watching horror movies because of the thrill of being scared. But if you’re a kid with no friends or you are alone most of the time, you might enjoy comic books. They are filled with action and heroes. Doing any of these can give off a sense of adventure, thrill, and excitement. It doesn’t mean that you’re going to go off and start hurting people because of it. There is a lot of evidence that states the media affects viewers by encouraging violent behavior and weakening their creative ability. The question is whether the media is truly the problem, or is it the parental role that is the problem.
In today’s world there has been huge increases in violent acts being done. Kids are turning into to bullies, murders, thieves and more. This can be happening for many different reasons. One could say it is the way the children are raised, what they see going on in their neighborhoods, what they are watching on television, seeing online, or on their video games. Everyone reacts to things differently and the violent media kids see can have different effects on each of them. According to the article “Violent Media is Good for Kids” written by Gerard Jones, violent media and other forms of ‘creative violence’ help far more children than they hurt. Gerald Jones gives examples through the article on experiences that are personal to him where violent media has been helpful but he does not give enough facts to make the reader believe it helps more children than it hurts.
According to John Davidson's essay Menace to Society, "three-quarters of Americans surveyed [are] convinced that movies, television and music spur young people to violence." While public opinion is strong, the results of research are divided on the effects of media violence on the youth in this country. Davidson wrote that most experts agree that some correlation between media violence and actual violent acts exists, yet the results are contradictory and researchers quibble about how the effects are to be measured (271). Moreover, Davidson is not convinced that the media is the sole problem of violence, or even a primary problem. He points out that other factors, such as "poverty, the easy accessibility of guns, domestic abuse, [and] social instability" may have a greater impact on a child becoming violent than the influence of the media (277). Even though other forces may be stronger, media violence does have some adverse effects on the members of society. If senseless violence on television and in movies had no effect, it would not be such a hotly debated topic. What type of effects and whom they affect are the most argued aspects of the discussion.
When the reader sees this it makes them wonder if watching these violent actions does actually desensitize themselves, and even make them feel less sympathy for victims of violent crimes. These thoughts really connect with the reader, and might even persuade them to decrease the amount of violence they watch. The author cites work from a former university professor stating, "What we call entertainment is really propaganda for violence. If you manufacture guns, you don’t need to advertise, because it is done by our entertainment industry" (Point para #6). The author is trying prove that when kids watch violent movies it is just advertising things like guns and other sorts of weapons. The professor believes that violent movies are just propaganda for violence, as kids may think the movies are cool
In fairy tales, children are pushed into ovens, have their hands chopped off, are forced to sleep in coal bins, and must contend with wolves who've eaten their grandmother. In myths, rape, incest, all manner of gruesome bloodshed, child abandonment, and total debauchery are standard fare. We see more of the same in Bible stories, accentuated with dire predictions of terrors and abominations in an end of the world apocalypse that is more horrifying than the human imagination can even grasp.
What he aims to emphasise is that rock music, video games, books and movies, haven’t always existed to propagate violent acts in the way that some so vigorously claim. This solid fact is one of the reasons why it’s completely ludicrous to so adamantly bring up a link between music and violence. We should instead draw our focus to the more clearly interlinked factors - how about real violence? How about the influence of the president - who during the Columbine massacre, was busy dropping bombs on Kosovo? How about the way media, during crises like the Columbine massacre, pump out neverending reports and segments, for all (including young, impressionable viewers) to see?
In a research analysis of Media and Violence, studies show that “Although the typical effect size for exposure to violent media is relatively small ... this ‘small effect’ translates into significant consequences for society as a whole” (“Media and Violence: An Analysis of Current Research”, 2015). This states violent behaviors can come from the smallest variables, or clips from videos, which is why it is important for parents to control what their kids see, read, and watch, and limit the amount of violence exposure.
Many psychologists have studied the effect of the media on an individual’s behavior and beliefs about the world. There have been over 1000 studies which confirm the link that violence portrayed through the media can influence the level of aggression in the behavioral patterns of children and adults (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001). The observed effects include, increased aggressiveness and anti-social behavior towards others, an increased fear of becoming a victim or target of aggressive behavior, becoming less sensitive to violence and victims of violent acts, and concurrently desiring to watch more violence on television and in real-life (A.A.P. 2001). According to John Murray of Kansas State University, there are three main avenues of effects: direct effects, desensitization, and the Mean World Syndrome (Murray, 1995, p. 10). The direct effects of observing violence on television include an increase in an individual’s level of aggressive behavior, and a tendency to develop favorable attitudes and values about using violence to solve conflicts and to get one’s way. As a result of exposure to violence in the media, the audience may become desensitized to violence, pain, and suffering both on television and in the world. The individual may also come to tolerate higher levels of aggression in society, in personal behavior, or in interpersonal interactions. The third effect is known as the Mean World Syndrome, which theorizes that as a result of the amount of violence seen on television and also the context and social perspective portrayed through the media, certain individuals develop a belief that the world is a bad and dangerous place, and begin to fear violence and victimization in real life (A.A.P. 2001).
In an article written by Kevin D. Browne and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis out of Lancet, dated 2/19/2005, Volume 365 in issue 9460, on page 702 a collection of research shows short-term effects increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behavior in younger children, especially in boys. It also shows research stating that there is a very weak correlation directly between media violence and acted out aggression. This article basically states that violent media being watched by children does impression and arouse some, but does not associate strongly with violent acts. This would help explain the fact that millions of kids watch violent television shows and remain nonviolent.
Does violence on television have a negative effect on children and teenagers? The violence shown on television has a surprisingly negative effect. Television violence causes children and teenagers to become less caring, to lose their inhibitions, to become less sensitive, and also may cause violent and aggressive behavior.