MOVE ASIDE gun control, take a back seat parental guidance, and enter Hollywood. Media violence is now the trendy scapegoat for the overly ambitious crime sprees of adolescents these days. With the recent appearance of eight Hollywood executives before Congress and both political parties vying to wage a "war" against popular media portraying violence, it seems as if we've moved into a new phase of stupidity.
I hesitate to use such a word because years of scientific research have made a valiant effort to prove that there is a positive correlation between the amount of violence in the media and the actual violence in real life. It was just an effort nonetheless.
These studies, far from being conclusive, attempt to propose a short- term solution to a long-term problem and try to demystify a very complicated issue. The actual farce, however, comes in our attempt to blame "pop culture" for our problems with violence without realizing that we are the reason such a culture exists. The ever growing expression that restricting media violence will work is like saying putting Microsoft out of business will solve the problem of drug addiction; both are pointless and almost impossible.
First, the notion of "pop culture" exists because, believe it or not, it is popular. A few clips of American mainstream entertainment include such movie titles as "Pyscho" and "Terminator." If the idea of endless, blood wrenching killings or pre-apocalyptic robo-wars doesn't stir up some nerves in your neighborhood 8-year-old, add a few primetime homicides on major networks and you've got yourself the perfect package.
The punch line of this wave of Hollywood and cable violence lies in the fact that although we complain incessantly about it, we also buy into that same media culture. The movie titles mentioned were some of the biggest profit inducing movies ever. Television shows portraying "senseless violence" are only kept on the air because the ratings keep them there. We try to boycott our own pop culture, and then we realize we are a part of it.
When, for example, vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman talks about humbling Hollywood into "shame," he seems to miss the yawn Hollywood throws back at him. In addition to being the fourth biggest contributor of donations to the Democratic Party, Hollywood knows that it will continue to make violent movies as long as there's an audience for it.
Most movies are not made on the whims of producers, but on the belief that the general population will pay $7.50 to go watch it. If the American public is excited to pay over $150 million to go watch Arnold Schwarznegger use every machine gun known to man, then there's obviously no possible way to stop media violence, at least no peaceful means.
Next comes the ever so popular question, "Does mainstream entertainment really contribute to making the viewer turn to violence?" This is where years of scientific research has attempted to prove that the media mainly is responsible for the behaviors of its viewers.
The hard evidence, however, simplifies a very complex issue. It ignores such issues as parental neglect, upbringing, socio-economic environment and the general decisions we all have to make as adolescents and places the blame primarily on a small group of indifferent entrepreneurs.
It also poses the comical example that John Doe, the innocent and na
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 3 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 4 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 4 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
