With Oscar season quickly approaching, once again the question as to whether violence in the media has become too extreme is being asked. Though gratuitous violence isn’t a new debate within the entertainment industry, this year in particular has seen a number of very violent films, such as Blood Diamond, The Departed, Babel and Letters from Iwo Jima up for academy award nominations. And though two of the films, Letters from Iwo Jima and Blood Diamond are based on actual events, the violent contents of the films are still questioned. Has violence in films, television, or even video games become too graphic?
Undoubtedly, since the early days of television and film, the content of the television program has drastically changed. From the scheming Lucille Ball in I Love Lucy seen on the left in the classic chocolate factory episode, to M.A.S.H, these shows were broadcast in an era where television sensors had to approve each episode before it was publicly aired. Films released during this time faced the same standard's. In fact, Clark Gable'sGone with the Wind almost didn’t make the final cut, because of the “foul” language used. Needless to say, a lot has changed since those days. One need only turn on the TV to notice the difference. The popular NBC drama ER shows doctors performing surgery on patients, all of which looks as though it is completely legitimate. But the 1970’s TV show famous line, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn,” in MASH, pictured on the right, set during the Korean War never showed gruesome images of wounds or surgery.
Within the past few years the topic of gratuitous violence in the media has come to a head with such incidences like that of Janet Jackson bearing her breast, to the extraordinary violence in video games have caused parents and lawmakers to rethink broadcast standard laws. However, this is more complicated than one would think because studies based on television violence fail to conclusively agree. As the Media Awareness Network reports, "media violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation." Furthermore, looking at a comparison of crime statistics from the 1950s and today is misleading because society has evolved so much, additionally a large majority of the crimes committed in the US are drug related and popular drugs like crystal meth, weren’t available in the 50s.
A better way to look at this issue would be to explore the changes that have occurred over the last few years that may offer an explanation for this violence. According to about.com, in 1950, only one in three women held a job, compared to 1998’s figure of three in five women working outside the home. The direct implication of this data is that the lack of parental involvement in their children’s lives is to blame for increased crime misbehavior in younger generations. Take for instance the massacre at Columbine High School in April of 1999, where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold seen in their high school year book photos, plotted and carried out a shooting rampage, ultimately killing thirteen and injuring many more before taking their own lives. In the months following the tragedy, everything from movies, violent video games and heavy metal music were blamed for the incident. What ever actually triggered the boys to commit these acts will never be known. Interestingly, the boys built pipe bombs, stock piled guns and ammunition, wrote a “hit list”, and even picked out matching outfits, all from the basement of Eric Harris’s home, leading one to believe that lack of parental involvement is more to blame than the media.
It is undeniable that violence has become more prevalent in the media, but to lay all the blame on the media alone is over simplifying. It would be impossible for a child to be shielded from the realities of everyday life, but parents must take responsibility by explaining to their children what they are seeing, as well as censoring the vastly inappropriate. Seeing gruesome incidences on TV has become part of the everyday, and with parents being forced to work in order to maintain their lifestyle, no one is around to stop children from viewing inappropriate content. Precisely why networks need to adjust program to be less graphic, especially during time periods where children are more likely to be watching without parental supervision.
Undoubtedly, since the early days of television and film, the content of the television program has drastically changed. From the scheming Lucille Ball in I Love Lucy seen on the left in the classic chocolate factory episode, to M.A.S.H, these shows were broadcast in an era where television sensors had to approve each episode before it was publicly aired. Films released during this time faced the same standard's. In fact, Clark Gable'sGone with the Wind almost didn’t make the final cut, because of the “foul” language used. Needless to say, a lot has changed since those days. One need only turn on the TV to notice the difference. The popular NBC drama ER shows doctors performing surgery on patients, all of which looks as though it is completely legitimate. But the 1970’s TV show famous line, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn,” in MASH, pictured on the right, set during the Korean War never showed gruesome images of wounds or surgery.
Within the past few years the topic of gratuitous violence in the media has come to a head with such incidences like that of Janet Jackson bearing her breast, to the extraordinary violence in video games have caused parents and lawmakers to rethink broadcast standard laws. However, this is more complicated than one would think because studies based on television violence fail to conclusively agree. As the Media Awareness Network reports, "media violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation." Furthermore, looking at a comparison of crime statistics from the 1950s and today is misleading because society has evolved so much, additionally a large majority of the crimes committed in the US are drug related and popular drugs like crystal meth, weren’t available in the 50s.A better way to look at this issue would be to explore the changes that have occurred over the last few years that may offer an explanation for this violence. According to about.com, in 1950, only one in three women held a job, compared to 1998’s figure of three in five women working outside the home. The direct implication of this data is that the lack of parental involvement in their children’s lives is to blame for increased crime misbehavior in younger generations. Take for instance the massacre at Columbine High School in April of 1999, where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold seen in their high school year book photos, plotted and carried out a shooting rampage, ultimately killing thirteen and injuring many more before taking their own lives. In the months following the tragedy, everything from movies, violent video games and heavy metal music were blamed for the incident. What ever actually triggered the boys to commit these acts will never be known. Interestingly, the boys built pipe bombs, stock piled guns and ammunition, wrote a “hit list”, and even picked out matching outfits, all from the basement of Eric Harris’s home, leading one to believe that lack of parental involvement is more to blame than the media.
It is undeniable that violence has become more prevalent in the media, but to lay all the blame on the media alone is over simplifying. It would be impossible for a child to be shielded from the realities of everyday life, but parents must take responsibility by explaining to their children what they are seeing, as well as censoring the vastly inappropriate. Seeing gruesome incidences on TV has become part of the everyday, and with parents being forced to work in order to maintain their lifestyle, no one is around to stop children from viewing inappropriate content. Precisely why networks need to adjust program to be less graphic, especially during time periods where children are more likely to be watching without parental supervision.
No comments:
Post a Comment