Article Summaries

Seth Comara

‘Violent Video Games: The Effects on Youth, and Public Policy Implications’ is an article written by Douglas A. Gentile and Craig A. Anderson published in a book titled “Handbook of Children, Culture, and Violence” in 2006. In the article, the authors begin by introducing the presence of research pertaining to the effects of witnessing violence on a child’s outcome. They claim that based on this knowledge, parents avoid introducing violence around their children, and yet they ignore its presence in movies, TV shows, and video games. The authors question this parental action comparing violence in the media to violence in the child’s personal life, and stating that research shows media violence leads to aggressive behavior immediately, and/or in a long term context. The authors finish in an almost sarcastic manner, offering that “Somehow, this message has failed to be delivered successfully to the average American parent.” (Gentile, 2006). The author concedes that not much research has been done on the effects of video games in contrast to the effects of television, but suggests that the effects are equally strong.

‘Weinstein, Tarantino and the standoff over movie violence’ is an article written by Andrew O'Hehir for Salon Magazine in February 2014. The author begins the article by referring to an interview with Harvey Weinstein and his pledge to “back away from making ultraviolent movies.” The author then reveals some positive and negative attributes that describe Weinstein and his career decisions. The author insists that despite his flaws, Weinstein’s comments in the interview should not be dismissed. The author assumes that Weinstein has begun to question whether he was the cause of the popularity of extreme violence, and then subsequently disregarded the thought by stating that violent movies would have earned their fame with or without him. The author continues to presume, suggesting that Weinstein understands the cultural effect this will have, and that many Studio heads and producers share his concerns. The author claims that with current events such as crime rates and mass shootings, that the presence of extreme violent films is unhealthy. O’Hehir describes a new show proposed by Weinstein called ‘The Senator’s Wife’ that will supposedly take on the National Rifle Association, as well as the controversy that is to come based upon Weinstein’s previous profits made off violent, gun lobbying movies. Despite this rather bias article the author wraps up by professing that despite all the research no one is sure of the effects of media violence.

          ‘Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?’ is an article written by Marilyn Manson for Rolling Stone magazine in June of 1999. In a cynical fashion Manson critiques popular events in the Christian bible where violence was exhibited in a time without the presence of violence represented in the media. Manson then takes issue with the introduction of criminals in magazine covers, giving criminals fame and notoriety, claiming “…the media…have turned criminals into folk heroes.” Manson drops examples of violence in humanity taking jabs at the media coverage of the atomic bomb and the Kennedy assassination, and takes on the claim that “Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised.” Manson finds society guilty for the acts of the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, implying that the media has turned humans ignorant to death and violence as if it were merely another TV program. Manson explains, that humans refuse to believe the presence of violence is complicated, so they create scapegoats, such as himself, to blame and make everything simpler. Manson demands the excuses for several other public murders, drawing his point that violence doesn’t have an excuse, whether or not it’s the “right” thing (War) and that murderers should be held responsible for their own actions, not their so called “inspirations”. Manson gives examples for several instances when his work had been interpreted as violent and harmful, even when he offered simple explanations, merely because of how he looked. In the end Manson defends that his work has never been about inspiring violence, merely revealing what was already there in society.