What Next?

I hope that I have proven that violence is a very real issue in the media today and that exposure to this violence can be detrimental to its audience. In fact, as I asserted in a previous post, there is a convincing theory that the viewers of violent content are primed to be violent themselves. This is a very scary notion.

As a follower of Christ, it is my belief that it is important to:

“Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” Proverbs 4:23

I think this biblical wisdom can be applied to the situation in the media today: we need to be aware of the impact that violent media can affect our own behavior and the behavior of those around us. This knowledge should lead us therefore to “guard” against the repercussions of being exposed to violent material.

I don’t know that we can drastically change the media today, especially because much of the material we view daily online comes from “average Joe’s” on their home computers. I don’t think that an excessive amount of government censorship is necessary either. However, I think that becoming aware yourself and making others aware will make the biggest impact. People should choose to regulate the types of media they negotiate in their day-to-day lives based on their own belief system. It is my hope that what you have learned from this series of blog posts will help you to decide what kind of action you need to take in your own life in order to protect yourself from the harmful effects of exposure to violence in the media. 

Politics as a Platform for Anger

My example in my March 15^th post of Sarah Palin’s use of vitriolic rhetoric and the potential repercussions that the propaganda spurred is just one example of the “violent anger in modern American political discourse” (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=202836) that is apparent in the media today. It would be unfair to hold Sarah Palin to a higher standard than the rest of her peers in the political arena who consistently use hateful, violent or inappropriate tactics in their campaigns.

Dr. Jim Taylor from the Huffington Post puts the current situation in American media this way:

Gone are the days of passionate though reasoned discourse and respectful disagreement. Where the focus was on the common good, practical solutions, and where differences could be worked out and compromises reached. Welcome to the mixed martial arts cage matches of our modern political culture in which, on television, radio, the Web, and in the once hallowed halls of government, it is no-holds-barred and anything goes. Where the focus is on self-interest, ideology, and demonization of those with whom we disagree. And where the tone is angry, mean-spirited, dogmatic, insulting, and profoundly disrespectful. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/is-the-anger-in-american_b_592844.html)

Dr. Taylor pinpoints the fact that really “anything goes” in today’s media. I think that this can be attributed to the fact that unlike in the olden days (i.e. the days before the Internet aka the Stone Ages), now every “average Joe” has an instant platform from which to speak his mind.  The location for political discussion has changed completely. Almost all of the 2008 presidential candidates were members of Facebook and MySpace, and they regularly uploaded campaign videos onto YouTube. (pg. 434 Media Now). These locations all allow for anyone to comment and there is little amount of regulation for the content of the pages and videos.

In the following video, opinion leaders on both sides of the political spectrum admit that the violent climate of much of today’s political media is inappropriate and that something needs to change.

One quote from the clip that I find especially insightful is this one: “[violent rhetoric] may be constitutionally permissible, but it shouldn’t be acceptable rhetoric.” There are standards above and beyond simply the Constitution that the media should hold to if we want the climate to change… But can we reasonably expect this to happen? This would mean that individuals (since much of today’s online media is posted with just a click from someone’s personal computer) would each have to hold themselves or be held to some standard. So can a change be made? If so, how do you think we are to accomplish this change?

Primed for Violence

More than simply the power of suggestion as in the Sarah Palin example from my last post, blatantly violent material saturates the media today.

-By the time the average child in America is eighteen years old, they will have witnessed 200,000 acts of violence and 16,000 murders through television and other media.

-Despite falling crime rates across North America, disturbing images of violent crime continue to dominate news broadcasting.

-Two-thirds of Hollywood films released in 2001 were rated “R”.

-Most of the top-selling video games in 2005 (89%) contained violent content, almost half of which was of a serious nature.

-The level of violence during Saturday morning cartoons is higher than the level of violence during prime time. There are 3-5 violent acts per hour in prime time, versus 20-25 acts per hour on Saturday morning.

-Nearly 75 percent of violent scenes on television feature no immediate punishment for the violence.

(These statistics were retrieved from http://www.jacksonkatz.com/PDF/ChildrenMedia.pdf)

I don’t think that people can reasonably expect society not to be impacted by the violence that they see and experience (in virtual reality video games, for example) through the media on a daily basis. One theory used for the way in which violent content affects its viewers is called “priming.”

Priming theory states that media images stimulate related thoughts in the minds of audience members. (Pg 417 Media Now). The textbook explains that:

            Seeing the Roadrunner cartoon character bash the hapless coyote with a hammer makes us more likely to bash our little brother after the show, or so the theory goes. Incidental cues may unleash the aggression. The next time we see a hammer and little brother is standing near—look out! Children may store “scripts” about   how to respond with violence that they learn from the media in long-term memory and then act out those scripts when a real-world event triggers that memory… Previously learned violent behavior may be triggered by thoughts, emotions, or psychological states provoked by media exposure. (pg. 417 Media Now)

Could Jared Lee Loughner have been “primed” throughout his life by violent media which contributed to his ultimate disposition toward violence? It’s certainly not something we can prove, but it is an interesting thought and something that many researchers have thought about as well. Berkowitz, van Erva, Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman were all researchers that found evidence in support of priming theory. (pg. 417 Media Now).

If priming theory is true, and I think that evidence supports its validity at least to some degree, what is the media’s responsibility when it comes to censoring violent content? 

Vitriol and the Power of Words

Vitriolic rhetoric was the buzzword in the wake of the Arizona shooting tragedy at the beginning of this year.

On January 8, 2011, twenty people were shot outside a Safeway grocery store in Casas Adobes, Arizona. Among the victims was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head during her first "Congress on Your Corner" gathering of the year. The suspect, who was identified as Jared Lee Loughner, ran into the crowd surrounding Giffords and began firing. Giffords was in critical condition at first but survived the gun shot, but six of those twenty shot in the crowd were killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords)

Before the shooting occurred, Sarah Palin had posted this photo to her Facebook page:

 (You can find this image at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345682/Sarah-Palin-hits-critics-blame-vitriolic-rhetoric-Arizona-shooting.html)

Many people were outraged by the photo, since it placed crosshairs over democrats that Palin was advising not to vote back into office, and some even claimed that Palin was partially responsible for the tragedy because this photo constituted "vitriolic rhetoric" that these critics often attributed to the extreme conservative/tea party movement. This article from the Jerusalem Post discusses these claims: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=202836

I'll let you decide whether you think the claims are true for yourself, but let's assume that they are... What media effects theory can we apply to this situation? In the "hypodermic model," also called the "bullet model," described on page 415 of Media Now, media is attributed direct power over its audiences so much so that it is capable of swaying minds with the impact likened to a speeding bullet. When we view the media as a hypodermic needle, we view it as capable of using convincing arguments, propaganda, etc. to change people's beliefs and directly influence their behaviors. 

In this clip Whoopie Goldberg says something interesting: "Your words mean something because you are on television. People are listening. Just beware of it." Whether or not the media via Sarah Palin incited action in this case (and I while I don't need to share my opinion in detail, I think it is clear that Jared Lee Loughner is ultimately responsible for his own actions), it is undoubted that the media has power. Audiences attribute authority to media sources. The media is persuasive.

Let's hear your thoughts... Was the media at all to blame for the Arizona shooting? Do you think Sarah Palin was warranted in posting the photo to her Facebook page? Is the criticism directed toward Palin unfair? What do you think?

3,2,1... Blast Off!

Hello and welcome to Communication in the 21^st Century! This blog was created for my New Communication Technologies course at Florida State University. For this assignment I was asked to contribute to the blogosphere in order to gain experience producing original content that can be seen by "the real world," the world outside of the classroom, that is!

In this series of blog posts over the course of the week I will discuss the impact media has upon its audiences socially. Our textbook for the course, Media Now, breaks down media’s influence over behavior into two categories: antisocial and prosocial behavior. Media Now defines antisocial behavior as behavior that is, “contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct.” (419) I’ll be focusing on one specific way in which the media influences society antisocially: toward violence and crime. 

Many theorists believe that the media has a direct influence over the actions of its audience. I will investigate critical theories used in media effects studies and explore an example of these theories in action from current events.

Before we begin, though, I’d like to hear what you think. What are the ways that you see the media shaping behavior? Do you think the media’s influence is positive or negative?

Looking forward to hearing from you and don’t forget to check back throughout the rest of this week!