posted 02-04-2001 10:17 PM               

Clearly, violence in some media is necessary to tell a good story – movies like Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan can hardly be blamed for using extreme violence to make a point, and even movies like Reservoir Dogs tell a pretty good story while clearly using violence as nothing more than a tool to tell that story.

Problem is, there’s a heck of a lot of stuff out there – the first thing I think of is pro wrestling – where violence is little more than a good way of showing guys getting hit over the head. And when you’ve got the occasional great movie about the Holocaust or Normandy or diamond heists afloat in a sea of guys hitting other guys with folding chairs, the more useful, meaningful violence gets lost in the shuffle, and you can’t blame the moms and the teachers and the Liebermans for not wanting to sift through it all.

posted 02-04-2001 10:18 PM               

Okay so stabbings and disembowelments in English class, good. Stabbings and disembowelments in movies directed by Mel Gibson, bad. Gotcha. I think part of the problem is that not only have movies, television, and books gotten more violent in the past century, our ability to put them into context, both for ourselves and for our children, has deteriorated. There are war movies that, while violent, certainly place said violence in the context of a war. This is not to say that war makes sense either but it certainly makes a violent act seem more serious and consequential than one on Monday Night Raw.
That is what’s really missing in today’s media with regards to violent acts: the consequences. To use the professional wrestling example, children seldom see any of the participants truly injured or incapacitated after their exploits. Hell, they need to be back for next week’s show. Ditto on most of the violent movies and television shows. Violence has become something that moves the plot along, not a consequence or factor in and of itself.

Parents aren’t blameless in this either. Sure, kids will find a way to watch certain shows if they are determined to do so, but for the first few years of their lives, they are truly at the mercy of whomever controls the remote. If you enjoy violent programs, don’t assume that your three-year-old isn’t absorbing something, too. Just because you understand that it’s all make believe doesn’t mean you shouldn’t reinforce this with your kids. Common sense says that if your child can remember who Elmo is, he or she will also remember how to punch or kick someone if they see it done enough times. Much to my own chagrin, my own three-year-old nephew can recognize most of the WWF cast by sight. I’d be lying if I said this didn’t keep me up at night.

posted 02-05-2001 03:41 PM               

quote:

---

Problem is, there’s a heck of a lot of stuff out there – the first thing I think of is pro wrestling – where violence is little more than a good way of showing guys getting hit over the head.

---

Dave, thanks for pointing out the difference bewteen causal and correlative. These two terms are extremely important in this context. Does violence in the media actually produce violent actions, or does it somehow render a person more likely to perform violent acts? Big difference. Very few studies actually prove a causal relationship. In my epidemiology class, it was presented that in all the realm of public health the only absolute causal relationship that has been substantiated was smoking causes cancer. All the other studies just showed how strong a correlation one action had with one outcome.

posted 02-10-2001 11:17 PM               

Just a quick point, people who don't think that wrestling is real are usually children who are more sensitive than we think. If you don't believe me, look back through the last few weeks (definitely after the New Year began) at a court case in Florida. A young boy (he was 11 or 12 when this happened) was mimicking moves he saw a wrestler do and killed his younger sister. By the time the case got to trial, he was 13 and tried as an adult and was convicted of murder.

The truth of the matter is no matter how much parents watch over their kids, kids will always watch stuff they shouldn't. I know I did and you probably did too. When looking at violence and sex in movies/tv it's important to remember while we're debating what this did to the current adult generation there's an entire generation growing up that's being influenced.

Sorry I was on my soapbox for too long. It's just that the case in Florida made me really upset.

posted 02-11-2001 02:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Princess:
If you don't believe me, look back through the last few weeks (definitely after the New Year began) at a court case in Florida.

---

This is the case I briefly referenced in the opener of my story. What's worth noting is that there wasn't much evidence that Lionel Tate actually was imitating wrestling moves when he beat the little girl -- he apparently had other problems, and the defense attorney tried to use wrestling as a scapegoat. The judge rejected the defense because there was no clear link. It's also worth noting that the DAs offered a plea bargain that would have resulted in the child receiving a much smaller sentence, but the boy's family and defense attorney rejected it.

(I really need to dig up some more of my reading on this case.)

posted 02-11-2001 11:45 PM               

The book is called On Killing by David Grossman. His basic thesis is that soldiers do not enter the military as vicious killers, they must be trained to kill via the use of psychologic desensitization techniques. He points out that only about 15% of soldiers in WWII were willing to fire their rifle in combat, while about 70% of those in the Vietnam War were willing to do so. He argues that one of the reasons of the increased incidence of PTSD in Vietnam Vets is that the "lessons" the military imparted were too effective, and that the guilt over what they were trained to do was crippling.

He then takes his argument to the next level by arguing that the modern media, in producing very graphic violent images and video games, has succeeded in replicating the same techniques the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing.

quote:

---

It's not like violent material didn't exist until 1950, we just have so much more of it presented to us in such a new-fangled manner.

---

He argues for restricting some of the more violent movies/video games, etc by drawing parallels with the second amendment. that is, although the second amendment prohibits infringing on the people's right to bear arms, the owning of weapons such as heavy machine guns and armor piercing rockets is prohibited. This is because the right to self defense can be adequately met without the use of these weapons, and that the potential of misuse is too great. Likewise, although the first amendment prohibits the infringment of free speech, graphically violent movies, video games, etc are contributing too much to the rise of violence in our society, and so some limited regulation of these "art forms" is necessary. It does represent a limitation of freedom of expression, but the potential benifit outweighs any cultural value imparted by these products.