Media Violence

In, Weinstein, Tarantino and the standoff over movie violence Andrew O’Hehir commends Harvey Weinstein for breaking a virtual code of silence in Hollywood about violence in movies.  As a former promoter of violent movies, Weinstein, seemingly gives penance, vowing to not promote or produce ultra violent films in an interview on CNN.   O’Hehir commends him for sparking national conversation on the subject, but his article takes an alternative viewpoint to traditional argument.  O’Hehir outlines the old arguments that A) violence in media corrupts young people, and B) violence in media has been around since the beginning of literature.  Rather, he gives his insight about the “pervasive nature” of violence in a wide array of media, while pointing out the actual decline of violent crime in the US.  While the correlation between a prevalence of violent acts and the media that portrays it is not seen by O’Hehir, he does suggest that hyper-violent scenarios depicted in popular media may fuel “spectacular violent acts by a handful of disturbed individuals”.  In closing, Andrew O’Hehir applauds Weinstein for sparking commentary about the subject, where he feels that President Obama dropped the ball in the wake of yet another mass shooting tragedy.

Violent Video Games: The Effects on Youth, and Public Policy Implications, gives an overview of the debate about video game content and the effects on consumers.  From the time that violence has appeared in videogames, opposition has mounted, shaping policy and gaming culture.  An example of this was the creation of the ratings system implemented as a response to public outcry due to children having ready access to violent video games.  Also explored is the correlation between acts of violence, marked as severe aggression, and children who play violent video games.  At best, the evidence outlined supports that while a wide array of factors are at play, playing violent video games is a small part of a pattern that shows elevated risk in perpetrating a violent act, rather than being the sole cause.  This article later explores the coined “pillars of responsibility”, a system of accountability that highlights the need for the retail industry, video game makers, and parents to work cohesively to ensure that children are not exposed to content that is inappropriate for them.

Columbine: Whose Fault Is It? Marilyn Manson defends himself in this article, speaking about the hypocrisy perpetuated by media commentators.  In the wake of the Columbine massacre journalists and religious institutions pointed fingers, searching and singling out scapegoats.  Manson comments on the Christian bibles’ imagery of death and sex, as well as media portrayals of graphic images from the Columbine massacre and other violent attacks.  He ascertains, violence and despair are prevalent at all levels of society, to single out a lone man, or an art form as the cause of such acts of violence is hypocrisy.  In short, Americas’ tolerance of violence, whether it be war, gun ownership, or sensational journalism surrounding violent attacks is a collective fault, Manson feels.  Manson also says, “man fears chaos, it was unthinkable that these kids (Columbine attackers) did not have a black and white reason for their actions.”  Manson closes, saying he chose not to defend himself in the media frenzy as those perpetrating it were doing so in a manner that was self-serving, picking a fight against scapegoats in order to propel their cause.