Media and Child Violence

Feliz Ramirez

COM 2000

30, April 2012

Media and Child Violence

It was a beautiful spring Friday in Brooklyn, NY. I had just finished my classes and received a phone call from Elise, the stepmother of two kids that I often babysit. She asked me if I was able to pick up the kids from school in Brooklyn Heights and spend a couple of hours with them at the school’s playground. I thought, “okay, this should be fun; I get to spend some time outside with the kids.” As soon as I picked up Barr and Elika they ran to the playground and began playing with their friends. I sat on a bench next to the jungle gyms and began observing.

A group of boys and girls around the age of twelve were playing together near a basketball court. “What the F*** was that?” “Hey, you’re a F*****.”  I could not believe my ears. Nearby, there were toddlers and young children with their mothers who could hear this as easily as I could. One of the 12-year old boys wanted to hang on the basketball rim so he grabbed a large trashcan, dumped out all the trash onto the floor and flipped it over to stand on. “Who does this kid think he is?” I thought to myself. It seemed like he was the leader of all his other friends. He was cussing the most, and he was acting the most inappropriate. When I was his age, I did not remember my friends or myself acting as immature and aggressive as he was. I could not decide if I was over-analyzing the situation, or if I was really witnessing a major issue of child/teen violence. According to studies from the University of Virginia, the number of bullying reports increased significantly in 2005 compared to the numbers from preceding years. In 2008, US computer and video game sales increased from 2.6 billion dollars in 1996 to 7.0 billion dollars in 2005 and the most popular genre of video games are action games (Pro Con). Where do kids learn about video games? The media. The media is a major influence in child/teen development and most children and teenagers have infinite access to it.

Before going deeper into media and it’s toll on children we must first understand the way children work. As we all know, we learn our essentials at a very young age. Sigmund Freud, an Austrian neurologist, founded a psychosexual development theory. According to Freud, early experiences around the age of five play a large role in development; it is when your personality is mostly established. There are stages in the development process that must be completed successfully to result in a healthy personality. If a fixation on a certain stage occurs, the child becomes dependant on that stage and will develop with that dependency. For example, “a person who is fixated at the oral stage may be over-dependent on others and may seek oral stimulation through smoking, drinking, or eating,” (Cherry). Child susceptibility is the very reason why media can be so unhealthy.  The American Academy of Pediatrics says that children at or under the age of 2 should not be watching television (Health Beat). In America, the average 3-4 year old watches television 4 hours per day. Parentstv.org posts, “Children younger than 8 "cannot uniformly discriminate between real life and fantasy/entertainment” (Parents TV). Children learn that it is okay to use violence to solve problems, which is why estimates show that 30% of youth in grade 6-10 are involved in bullying, and 33% of high school students where in at least one physical fight within a 12 month period (Teen Help).

“It seems today that all you see is violence in movies and sex on TV…” Do these lyrics sound familiar? Yes, it is true that much of the media is consumed by violence and material that is not suitable for children. Media has become a very dangerous place for young minds to focus on. According to the American Psychiatric Association, by the age of 18, a U.S. youth will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence, and kids with higher exposure to television were almost twice as likely to have sex than kids with lower exposure (Parents TV). Family Guy is one show that can be observed under a very indecent light. The creator, Seth MacFarlane, says, “We aren’t actively looking to be shocking. We’re just looking to see if it’s funny.” Family Guy just wants to be funny. But the “funny” jokes all have something to do with sex, racism, assault, bullying, hazing, stealing, killing, and many other negative actions. Young children cannot tell the difference between reality and fabrication, so cartoons on television are real to these children. If cartoons are acting in violence, children will understand that violence is accepted.

Even live events broadcasted on television have been guilty of explicit material. During 2004 Super Bowl, an estimated 6.6 million kids (ages 2-11) were watching at about the time that Justin Timberlake ripped off a piece of Jackson's bodice, exposing her right breast to the nationwide audience. Another 7.3 million teens 12-17 were tuned in at that time as well (Parents TV). The most popular broadcast-network television show is Desperate Housewives. Aside from the revealing wardrobes given to the wives, the kids that are involved in the show are ages 9-12. Kids watching this show and seeing other kids that are the same age can understand that this show is acceptable and “real.” It is as if there is no escape to the violence and sex on television.

There are many parents who believe that broadcast television should be monitored more strictly. 75% of the 1,505 adults polled from March 17-21 would like to see tighter enforcement of government rules on broadcast content, particularly when children are most likely to be watching TV. 60% want broadcast TV’s indecency standards extended to cable TV, and 69% want higher fines for media companies. Not only that, but in a Time Magazine Poll, 53 percent of respondents said that they think the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows depicting sex and violence (Parents TV). Concerned parents are also controlling how long kids are watching television and what channels they are watching.

Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy the shows on television. I am guilty of watching Family Guy on occasion and I would not be American if I did not watch the Super Bowl. But for the sake of children, media needs to be monitored. If the FCC chooses to allow shows of violence and sex, then as adults, we should be aware of what children are watching. Like Sigmund Freud explained, children need to be guided at a young age in order to become fully able and developed. If media violence continues to manipulate children that violence is a real way to solve issues, then the violence rate will increase. Personally, it breaks my heart to see young children using foul language or bullying another child. Let’s work to protect their minds from “real” television so that we can see a brighter future for them and for their children.

Works Cited

Cherry, Kendra. "Child Development Theories." About Psychology. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/childdevtheory.htm>

Cherry, Kendra. "Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development." About Psychology. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/psychosexualdev.htm>

. "Facts and TV Statistics." Parents Television Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp>.

. "Family Life." Healthy Children. N.p., 01/05/2012. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/Media/Pages/Pulling-the-Plug-on-TV-Violence.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR: No local token&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR: No local token>.

. "Family Life Video." Health Children. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/Media/Pages/Media-Violence.asp&xgt;.

. “Health Effects of Excessive TV Watching by Childern.” LimiTV. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://www.limitv.org/health.htm>.

. "22 Charts & Graphs on Video Games & Youth Violence ." Pro Con. N.p., 02/18/2010. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://videogames.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003627>.

. “Teen Violence Statistics.” Teen Help. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-violence/teen-violence-statistics.html>.

Other Links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4jlk3nrtNQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqxLl9gU9GI&feature=related

http://www.fcc.gov/

National Public Radio

When I was in middle school my dad used to drive the kids and me to school every morning. I remember I was always so bored when he turned the music off to listen to his news radio station. “This is NOT cool,” I would think to myself. I remember that I was so embarrassed about listening to this station that every time we got to school I would lower the volume or open and close the car doors super quickly so my friends wouldn’t hear. Around the sixth or seventh grade I picked up that what my dad was listening to was NPR (National Public Radio) News. Still, this station was not cool and I could barely stand to listen to these dreary voices.

When I entered into high school and became more susceptible to current events, I was able to understand that my father was listening to an independent public radio station with reliable sources and trusted content. Today, I use NPR, just like my father, because I believe that I am receiving truthful information and hear news from the real “public.”

NPR is a highly recognized multimedia news organization and radio program producer. There are 17 domestic bureaus and 17 foreign bureaus in areas such as Kabul, Beijing, New York, and California. With 26.4 million viewers per week, NPR is the number one provider of public radio content and programming (npr.org).

Generally, NPR supplies in depth, quality news. They show no advertisements, only credits going out to organizations that fund them. Their main goal is public service. I believe this is very important because the public feel a sense of security that they are not being forced or encouraged to say or speak a certain way. 

NPR allows a sense of credibility because it is a source that the people can feel they are being heard. NPR’s Jeffrey A. Dvorkin writes, “With the word "public" right there in the name, listeners feels they are entitled to hear their point of view on the radio,” (Dvorkin, npr.org).

NPR’s success has shown that it is a trusted news source.  NPR has won hundreds of awards. To name a few, awards from: the White House News Photographers Association, Overseas Press Club of America, DuPont- Columbia University, Webby, Alfred I, and George Foster Peabody (npr.org).

NPR is legally, a privately funded, non-profit organization that receives the majority of their money from their stations and their listeners. But they admit that they are not a government broadcaster and, “just because you feel you pay for NPR, doesn't mean it will, or should, reinforce your ideas at all times,” (Dvorkin, npr.org).

I believe NPR is a more reliable news source than other mainstream sources because it does not have the pressures of government funding or conglomerate ownerships.. they don’t have to cater to anybody and I like that I can sense an attempt to keep their news balanced for the people. 

I am now appreciative of my father's refusal to change the radio station to a more appealing tune because then I wouldn't know NPR the way I do now. 

Media is Dangerous

After reading Mark Edmundson’s article all that I could think about was… WARNING: television, video games, Iphones, Ipads, and all other electronic devices that allow you to fantasize are DANGEROUS and may result in DOMINATION of your personal thoughts and dreams.

I am convinced. McLuhan’s theories about “media numbness” and “medium is the message” prove so true. Every time I watch a movie, I fantasize about being in it. Every time I play a song on my Ipod, I drown myself in this whole new world that only belongs to me and it is MY movie. I understand, now, that I think this way simply because media has driven me to think this way. I do not want to end up having the same fantasies and thoughts as everyone else. I want to have my own thoughts and dreams and now I am starting to feel like my dreams might be the dreams TV and movies have implanted in my brain.

Of course, I am not going to minimize the amount of satisfaction I get when I watch the media, but I believe I am going to have a more cautious view of what is believable and what is not.

When I listened to the narrative I felt plenty more cautious with the ideas and images I form. I watch the media for entertainment, but still, I empathize with the stories that are made to be “real.” Sometimes I even catch myself thinking, “I wish that was me,” or, “I want to be her so I can do things differently.” After listening to the new plot with Astrid and Leo being forced to like each other, I thought it was sick and annoying. If I were Astrid, I would feel like a toy with no voice. And that is exactly what reality television is.

I used to watch the Bachelor with my mom and sisters. We would get so involved with which girls we adored and which we hated and who was going to win and how charming the man is and how sweet some girls were… But what we were really watching were fake relationships and fake, romantic love scenes. Everything was fake.  I know these shows are too dramatic or too good to be true at times, but we imagined it to be true and that was the fun in watching it.

 Now, every time I watch a reality show I am going to feel sorry for the characters who do not have a mind and who are being forced to say things they do not really mean. And when I watch a movie or play a video game, I am going to remember that this is not reality and I need to stop believing that special effects and fabrications stay on the screen.

The Influence of Stereotypes

When I look at someone it is automatic that some bit of judgment is involved in my thinking. Honestly, there is no way for me not to assume ideas before meeting or getting to know someone. I do not necessarily consume this judgment into my final decision of accepting or not accepting the person, but I definitely put a person into a group beforehand. That’s just how I think and I do not know why. In the writing, “Stereotypes,” Dyer explains that “images of” people, places, etc. surround us. We are unable to avoid representing or stereotyping something or someone because that is simply how we form understanding.

One thought that I found very interesting in Dyer’s writing was, “I accept that one apprehends reality only through representations of reality, through texts, discourse, images; there is no such thing as unmediated access to reality. But because one can see reality only through representation, it does not follow that one does not see reality at all,” (Dyer, 2). So do we see reality or not? I believe that the reality is always blocked by representation. I can explain exactly what I do when I meet someone for the first time: I notice how they dress, the way they look, the way they speak, their thoughts. And I form an idea based on representation. This, to me, does seem like I’m losing reality. But at the same time, I accept my ideas as reality. It seems a bit confusing to me to understand the whole concept, but I do understand that perception based off of “images” that have already been created can influence my way of thought.

According to Dyer, the stereotypes of power are, “men, whites, heterosexuals, and the able-bodied,” and these are considered to be the norm (Dyer, 3). Without these titles, they have no power and therefore, are just like anyone else. I am aware that women had little to no power in the past because of their stereotype, but I do not feel that women are limited in this life. Yes, we are still stereotyped as inferior to men (mainly from physical aspects), but I do believe that women are at a high power and very influential.

Another important idea: “It is notoriously difficult to draw the line between harm-free drinking and harmful drinking. But stereotypes can,” (Dyer, 6). It is interesting because stereotypes easily show opposition between an alcoholic and someone who drinks a lot and that is the only way you can tell the difference. The same goes for homosexuals and heterosexuals and the similar feelings and emotions they have. Stereotypes are a very powerful tool that is very influential.

We're Losing Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality- the understanding that whether you are an average citizen or a large conglomerate, you have the equal accessibility of Internet speed and webpage access. We (average citizens) are against it. Major internet providers (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T) are for it.

This understanding, however, could see changes in the future due to major service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. these companies “want a tiered internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don’t, you’ll be in the slow lane” (savetheinternet.com).  Net neutrality means that Internet service providers “may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online.” If net neutrality is abused, it means we are facing a great deal of discrimination and problems that many average citizens will not agree with.

In the recent documentary, Barbershop Punk, the potential loss of net neutrality is addressed to us along with one man’s issue with Comcast. Robb Tobolski, seen in Barbershop Punk, “found that Comcast, his Internet service provider, was interfering with his peer-to-peer sharing of public-domain material.” The Federal Communications Commission eventually gave a ruling against Comcast (Webster, 2010).”

We are not necessarily at net neutrality any longer. Now, we are at semi-net neutrality. New York Times writes, “They ban any outright blocking and any “unreasonable discrimination” of Web sites or applications by fixed-line broadband providers, but they afford more wiggle room to wireless providers like AT&T and Verizon.”

This example shows that we are slowly reaching less and less of net neutrality. The question is, how much further is this “discrimination” going to go? And, when is this process (if it does occur) going to happen? What can we do as an “average citizen” to stop the absence of net neutrality from taking place?

It seems that the further we get into the world of the Internet, the further we are becoming controlled and manipulated. There is no such thing as being protected online, because every time we enter in our personal information, it is being shared and sold to many other major companies (Madison, 2012). The only way to stay fully protected is to not upload that information in the first place. With the fear of putting information on the Internet plus the fear of losing the freedom of net neutrality, the Internet is sounding more and more like an unfriendly place.

I am hoping that the loss of net neutrality does not occur and that we are able to continue using the internet freely; however, the more and more I read into this topic the more I fear that our freedom days are over. If these major corporations get hold of all of our access to the Internet, who knows what is coming next. I hope that the people come together and are loud enough to prevent this from happening.

http://www.techi.com/2012/03/the-latest-reality-of-online-safety-were-all-being-watched/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/movies/barbershop-punk-on-net-neutrality-review.html?ref=netneutrality

http://barbershoppunk.com/ 

What is the media doing to us?

What is the media doing to us? In Bartow’s article, “Behind TV Analysis, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” we hear about another instance where the American people are being “brainwashed” by our government. George Carlin, an American stand-up comedian, speaks about our government in one of his acts and says, “The government doesn’t want critical thinking, that doesn’t help them. They own the biggest media companies; they control all the media and information; they spend billions of dollars lobbying. They want people who are just smart enough to work machines and file paper work but dumb enough to passively accept shitty jobs. IT’S A BIG CLUB AND YOU AIN’T IN IT,” (Youtube). While watching this clip and others that I researched, I feel that the government does not care even a little bit about the people.

According to the reading, the government has been controlling analysts’ (retired military officers) words and ideas through media so that Americans are only receiving information controlled by government.. To get a further understanding of the Pentagon military analyst program that ran from 2002-2008, Wikipedia explains that, “the goal of the operation is to spread the administration’s talking point on Iraq by briefing retired commanders for network and cable television appearance,” (Wikepedia). The biggest media corporations such as Fox News, NBC, and CNN broadcasted many analysts who spoke about the war in Iraq and how we, as Americans, should support the war.  Bartow writes, “Members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.” And a quote from staff member, Mr. Krueger, says, “You could see they were talking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over,” (Barstow, 2008).

I found a cartoon that represents the government’s control over analysts, media, and us. Barstow writes in a later article, “Another military analyst, the report said, told investigators that the outreach program’s intent ‘was to move everyone’s mouth on TV as a sock puppet,’” (Barstow, 2011).

http://www.cipe.org/cartoon/images/winners/democracy2.jpg

In Barstow’s 2011 article, “Pentagon Finds No Fault in Ties to TV Analysts,” he explains that an inquiry was done on the Pentagon in order to detect any wrongdoing with the program, but the inquiry showed that there was none (Barstow, 2011).

The more I read and understand the concept of these analysts and the government’s motives, the more I feel that they do not care for us one bit. In my eyes, (with support of multiple sources) they see us as puppets, and think they can easily pull our strings to agree with any information they give us. I am not into politics and do not read much into it, but I do feel that this is truly what the government is like, they do not care only for themselves and they are gaining more control of us little by little.

While reading the articles about the analysts, I wondered what must have been going through their heads about being told exactly what to say. It’s a shame that they submitted themselves to what seems like a “wrongdoing” and I wonder if they felt that they had an obligation to do so being that they were working for the Department of Defense.

Citations

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_program

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

http://www.cipe.org/cartoon/images/winners/democracy2.jpg

BROADCASTING/GOVERNMENT IN MEDIA

“A Face in the Crowd”: a very interesting movie. I was able to see the growing success of one man and his ability to influence large communities of people into following his interests and beliefs. Seeing this happen from an outsider’s point of view, I looked at all the people who were literally obsessed with this guy and I even laughed at some of the crazy things people would do just to be like him. The funny thing is that Lonesome was a hopeless prisoner in a small southern town. Although he did time in prison, he ran into someone who was able to change his life around through broadcasting.  This young lady found Lonesome a name and a career that boosted him to fame. Of course, Lonesome would not have been as popular without his ecstatic personality and humor. But he was also an attractive man and charmed many women into following him. The more popular Lonesome became, the more corporations wanted to work with him. Many tried to get him to sell their products, which was a smart idea being that everyone was tuning in specifically to watch Lonesome. It was exciting to see how one small local broadcasting station and a mass group of people were able to change a useless prisoner’s life into a luxurious one.

“Our Democracy is in Danger of Being Paralyzed”: Bill Moyers brings up many appealing points about media in our world today. Moyer is arguing that our media is basically a monopoly and the government is working with media as one to regulate what information is being exposed to the people and what information is remaining behind the scenes. This is a very unprofessional way of running a democracy because, “democracy can’t exist without an informed public” (Moyers). And if we are not given “truth” then how can we call ourselves a democracy? Moyers is right, not very many young people care much about voting, and “only % 13 of young people cast ballots in the last presidential election.” For me, voting isn’t important because I do not feel like I can make a difference in our society, and I believe that is how many of us young people feel. I would like to go back to the earlier times when journalism was more independent and not manipulated or corrupted by the mighty-media-government boss. Moyers makes it seem like there is not as much truth in writing as there used to be and the government is controlling every little thing about media and what comes out of it. I am a little convinced by this reading that government’s hands are too much in the media and journalism should be how Moyers said it used to be.