Final essay

Does exposure to violence through media provoke aggressive behaviour and crime? This has been a question that has been raised and debated for the past 50 years. Throughout this essay I will be looking real life crime cases and the different media reports and reviews. I shall research into the facts, surveys and experiments that have been undertaken in a search to find an answer to this question. Then finally conclude this essay with my own opinion that has been developed and informed from my exploration an findings.

On the 20th April 1999 in Littleton Colorado the very famous Columbine Massacre occurred. Two teenage boys; Eric Harris aged eighteen and Dylan Klebold aged seventeen went on a premeditated shooting spree at their High School. Resulting in the deaths of 12 students and one teacher. Then an additional 21 people were injured and in the end turned the guns on themselves and committed suicide. It has been said that they were influenced by their taste in music. Particularly the artist Marilyn Manson was claimed to have been at blame.

The assumption was made mainly due to the long black trench coat and make up that they were wearing. There is no question about it that Marilyn Manson's music is to be considered dark and somewhat aggressive however at no point does his music encourage any acts of violence, especially to the extremes of the Columbine massacre.

"Responsible journalists have reported with less publicity that Harris and Klebold were not Marilyn Manson fans – that they even disliked my music.

Even if they were fans, that gives them no excuse, nor does it mean that music is to blame." (1) Manson, M. (1999). In addition when looking into this further I discovered that the reasoning for Harris and Klebold's choice of clothing was in fact down to more of a practicality that they could hide their arsenal of semiautomatic handguns, shotguns and explosives underneath the long trench coats.

Therefore, Marilyn Manson was not at blame for this horrendous crime. I think that the public and media just wanted to find some sort of black and white

reasoning for this tragedy and used Manson as an easy target to pigeonhole the awful event on.

There is a hypothesis that there is a strong correlation between watching violence on television and crime. The television was introduced into the United States and Canada in the 1950s. Following from this between the 1960s to the 1990s there was seen to be a dramatic increase in violent crime in both countries. People with no informed opinion pounced onto the idea that it was due entirely to the impact of having television in their lives and made the immediate connection. “...if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United states, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults�

(Centerwall, 1992)" (2)Freedman, JL (2002). This was said by Brandon Centerwall who is a psychiatrist and epidemiologist who feels strongly that television is the sole reason why there is this increase in crime. Yes, there is no arguing that the rate of violent crime did increase significantly when the television was brought to the United States and Canada. However, I believe that it is simply a coincidence that the violent crime rate rose at the same time as the introduction of television. If you look at other changes within society that coincided, you will see that that there was a number of vast changes that occurred. Such as: the divorce rates had more than doubled, the use of illegal drugs rose and the divide between the rich and the poor grew further.

All of these important social changes would have had an important role to play in making an impact on a person. Also, to amplify my point further; the Television was also brought out in France, Germany, Japan and Italy at around the same time as the United States and Canada yet there was no increase in the crime rates in any of these other countries.

Furthermore concluding that it was a coincidence that television has this effect on the United States and Canada. Plus there is no current evidence that young people are overall more

aggressive now than they were before the introduction to television.

There has been many studies to try and prove whether television violence causes crimes or not.

One study that had been undertaken tried to compare communities with and without television and if it did have an impact or not. When the United States new licences for television stations were frozen for three whole years they decided to take advantage of this opportunity to run their study.

They were able to clearly see the difference to whether the presence or absence of television makes a person more aggressive and more likely to commit crimes. Some would say 3 years was a long enough period of time to gauge a true representation; on the other hand people would argue that this isn't a long enough period of time and feel its more of a change in generation and society. Personally, I do not think that you can blame exposure to violence within television or the media in general for violent crimes. I think that there is so much more to the case than that and that there are so many other variables that could in pact a person into doing such crimes. There has been many experiments and studies trying to figure out whether there is any correlation between violence and media. But it has proven very difficult if not impossible to actually be able to pinpoint a definite answer.

In addition I would argue that there was violence and aggression way before technologies and media.

If you look back into biblical times “The day that Cain bashed his brother Abel's brains in, the only motivation he needed was his own human disposition to violence. Whether you interpret the Bible as literature or as the final word of whatever God may be, Christianity has given us an image of death and sexuality that we have based our culture around� (3) Manson, M. (1999). I think that this amplifies the fact that it is just in human nature and that some people just have it in their personality traits to act upon the aggression they feel.

The negative effect of violence in the media.

Though I do not believe that the media is the sole cause of aggression and violence I do feel that the media can push some people into committing crimes.

For instance a person that has a prejudice might be more easily agitated by certain news coverage and when combined with the aggressive personality traits might have the tendency to act upon their beliefs. In addition, nowadays we have the whole world at our disposal and are exposed to an unlimited array of violence that can raise the question whether people become more desensitized.

However, there are people that can speak from experience that they have felt that television has made an impact on their lives. "Television did have an effect on me right from the beginning. In the first grade, I was a member of a four-kid gang that went around imitating TV Westerns. We'd disrupt class to play out scenes, picking up chairs and hitting people over the head with them - except, unlike on TV, he chairs didn't break, the kids did.

Finally, the teacher called my parents and said, "Obviously he's being influenced by these shows, and if he’s to continue in this class, you've got to agree not to let him watch television anymore."

So from the first to second grade there was a dark period during which I didn't watch TV at all. And I calmed down and the gang broke up." Brandon Tartikoff, former president of the National Broadcasting Company. (4) DeGaetano, G. Grossman, D. (1999). This I find quite interesting, as I don't think you can ignore the fact that for some people it has had an effect. No two people are the same. Some people can be quite passive and not take seriously what is happening on the television; but some people especially within children can take on board a lot of what is happening on television.

"Through ages 3 and 4 years, many children are unable to distinguish fact from fantasy in television programs and remain unable to do so despite adult coaching. In the minds of such young children, television is a source of entirely factual information regarding how the world works.

Naturally, as they get older, they come to know

better, but the earliest and deepest impressions were laid down when the child saw television as a factual source of information about a world outside their homes where violence is a daily commonplace and the commission of violence is generally powerful, exciting, charismatic, and efficacious.

Serious violence is most likely to erupt at moments of severe stress-and it is precisely at such moments that adolescents and adults are most likely to revert to their earliest, most visceral sense of what violence is and what its role is in society.

Much of this sense will have come from television."

I think that you cannot dispute that there are lots of young children in the world that do watch on screen violence and continue to live a normal healthy life and grow up to be non aggressive/violent adults. However, for many reasons there are some children that can't and this is where TV violence can be quite dangerous.

Quite a recent more modern form of media that has been thought of as a large impact in violent behaviour is the new technologies of gaming. Gaming has changed drastically in the last few years and has become one of the most popular forms of entertainment within youths today. People are exposed and take part in the act of injuring and killing others and in return are rewarded for it.

Because of new technologies games have become a lot more life like and leaves less to the imagination; simulations are less fake, which therefore is making them more effective. "The interactive quality, the intensity of the violence, the physiological reactions, all serve to connect the player's feelings of exhilaration and accomplishment directly to the violent images."

(5)(Page 68, Stop Teaching Our kids To Kill) By giving people these feelings it will make the player want to continue and get hooked and connecting violence as being a good positive feeling. Another reason people get so latched onto video gaming is to get this feeling of escapism; to a place where the player is completely in control in their own constructed reality. Earlier I spoke about the Columbine Massacre and it was said that

the two teenage boys were in fact avid gamer and particularly obsessed with the game called Doom.

They practiced playing on this game for hundreds of hours and became very good at it. You can see from the killing spree that they went on around their school had very similar traits to their cyber world in Doom and resembled a similar scenario to the game. Moreover, Eric Harris in fact re-programmed his Doom game so that it emulated his neighbourhood including all the houses of the people that he despised. In the game they would move from room to room in the houses and try and kill as many people that they pass along the way. And like most children their response to the killings were just laughed off.

Another example of a popular violent game is Manhunt, which is a survival horror game. When they game came out it caused a lot of controversy due to its level of graphic violence and in fact got banned in several countries. The game is built up over 20 levels that you need to pass. In order for the player to pass onto the next level they have to kill gang members that are known as 'hunters'. They are given the options to choose from a variety of different weapons, such as: crow bars, baseball bats and an array of bladed items. As you go through the game the higher and higher you progress through the levels the more violent and graphic it becomes. The level of controversy about the game rose when it was linked with the death of 14-yearold Stefan Pakeerah killed by his 17-year-old friend Warren Leblanc in Leicestershire, England.

Warren's friends said that he was obsessed with the game and apparently the way he committed the murder is how the game is set out. However, according to Leicester Crown Court ‘the murder was not a re-enactment of the game but the result of gang culture.’ (6) Glendinning, L. (2004). The defendant owed money to a gang and the victim owed him money. Therefore, it was most likely the fear and desperation that resulted in this tragedy.

However, violence in the media can have a positive influence on people. When violence is portrayed to

be punished, deeply regretted, not seen to be unjustifiable and generally in a negative light it is more likely to be less imitated. This is often displayed through the news where you can see the distraught and struggle it can cause and makes people want to put a stop to violence. In addition, in most if not all horror films whatever or whoever is causing the violence is the one that gets punished and comes out loosing. Which reinforces that violence is wrong.

There is the desensitization hypothesis that too much exposure to media violence can cause people to become impassive and callous to violence. Therefore meaning for people that for someone that doesn’t see violence in the media will presumably be disturbed and upset at seeing an act of violence.

And then on the other hand someone that tends to continuously watch murders and acts of violence on the television are supposedly not shocked and quite unimpressed by such seeing such things. I came across this video of a group of old people playing on the very popular and well known violent video game Grand Theft Auto; known as GTA for 30 minutes.

This was all their first time; the only information they received was information on the basic controllers. Thus, they are not desensitized and seeing the game with fresh eyes. I found from the video it was more down to the different personalities of the person. Some really enjoyed the violence and attacking people. And some were really reluctant to see the enjoyment out of the game. ‘I had fun with the violence, cause it’s just a game’ (7) said by Catherine one of the women from the video. This statement sums up that by any sane person they can still enjoy the game without feeling any reason to act upon what they’ve just been playing on. Some said that it felt like a bit of a release to play on the game; which I think might be the case for a lot of people. I think that playing on the game is a place of escapism for people and enjoy being in this other world. But I

don’t think there’s anyone that cannot differentiate from the game to the real world. I find the video quite humorous to watch a group of older people trying to play on GTA and seeing their reactions. In fact I believe that it could be quite sarcastic when in reflection to this essay as it emphasizes the ridiculousness of blaming the media for acts of murder. As you would not raise any suspicions if an old person enjoyed listening to heavy metal, playing on aggressive games or watching violent films.

From my own first hand personal point of view, I enjoy listening to metal music and watching horror movies and throughout my life been exposed to violence in the media. This does not mean that it has triggered any emotions to act upon what I have seen and want to emulate these scenarios. I believe that for people to inflict violence upon others it is more deep-rooted and psychological and would be caused by numerous factors. Everything in your everyday life even the smallest details would have some sort of impression on your life. Therefore, yes the media would play some part by agitating and pushing a person with the tendencies that they would have developed in their personality. People can have control over their visual entertainment.

It doesn't have to control them. It is natural that in times of tragedy that defies an explanation people want to attach a simple reason or inspiration for such acts of violence. But I don’t think that the answer can be as simple as its the fault of a band, game or film.

(1) Manson, M. (1999). Columbine: Whose Fault Is It? . Available: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/columbinewhose-fault-is-it-19990624. Last accessed 2nd Feb 2015.

(2) Freedman, JL (2002). Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggresion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. 4.

(3) Manson, M. (1999). Columbine: Whose Fault Is It? . Available: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/columbinewhose-fault-is-it-19990624. Last accessed 2nd Feb 2015.

(4) DeGaetano, G. Grossman, D. (1999). Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill. New York: Crown Publishers. 23.

(5) DeGaetano, G. Grossman, D. (1999). Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill. New York: Crown Publishers. 68..

(6) Glendinning, L. (2004). Gang culture blamed as 'Manhunt' killer is sentenced to life. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/sep/04/ukcrime.g ames. Last accessed 4th March 2015.

(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHoOrFdgYR8 Books: DeGaetano, G. Grossman, D. (1999). Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill. New York: Crown Publishers.

• Freedman, JL (2002). Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggresion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

• Rowell Huesmann, L. Ern, Leonard D. (1986).

Television and the Aggressive Child: A CrossNational Comparison. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Sorlin, P (1994). Mass Media. London: Routledge.

•