Human beings are affected everyday by the media. The media is everywhere, influencing what people have for breakfast in the morning, to what people wear. The media's goal is to showcase their product in a way so, you will buy or agree what is being said. The media does this by flashing pictures across the screen that only take moments to remember inside our sub-conscious. What can happen when the message becomes more than an exciting item? What if the messages come from "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City", a game for the Playstation games console that has the player help the main character beat a man to death?Retired U.
S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman is the author of the Pulitzer-nominated book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. His most recent book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, is co-written by Gloria DeGaetano. Grossman, a former psychology professor at West Point University, teaches law enforcement officers around America, as well as the FBI, Texas Rangers and Green Berets about the psychology of killing.
He also teaches medical and mental health professions how to deal with and prevent killing. He has been a specialist witness at several murder trials, and has written a number of encyclopaedia articles on violence and antagonism.Grossman is on a mission to limit children's access to violent media, particularly computer games. He said he does not want or expect to end violence in the media, he just wants to see children denied access to the violence. "Simply enforce the rating systems," he said.
He said that a major university recently conducted a study in which researchers performed state of the art brain scans on children participating in different activities, reading a book, hearing a story, watching a violent movie and playing a violent video game."The development of the brain when you play the violent video games and the impact on the wiring of the brain when you play the violent video games is stunning. It's totally different from any other medium. Instead of being the passive receiver of human death and suffering, now you actively inflict it upon another human being.What we've got is an industry selling a product that they themselves say is for adults only.
You've got a society that wants to treat that product like you would tobacco or alcohol or guns or cars or sex." (Grossman, Internet)Grossman said the computer game industry only wants voluntary ratings, but voluntary ratings don't work. "Try any other industry that has a product that is harmful to children and put those words in their mouths and see how it sounds," he said."For five-thousand years of recorded history, we've hit each other with wooden swords, but now when I play violent video games in a virtual reality, a hyper-reality, I blow my playmate's head off with explosions and blood countless thousands of times.
Do I get in trouble? No, I get points. This is truly pathological play. Adults can do it, adults can have pornography, tobacco, alcohol, guns, sex, cars, but this is another of those products that to put in hands of children represents a stunning abuse of that child and of our responsibility to protect children." (Grossman, Internet)Grossman said his assertions are not just backed by scientific study, but by history.
Grossman said World War II soldiers were trained using bull's-eye targets and very few of those soldiers ever fired their rifles. On the other hand, as the military started using other forms of training, soldiers began using their rifles more often."We understand instinctively that if you want a human being to kill, you have to put them in a killing simulator," he said, adding that violent video games are very similar to military combat simulators.According to Grossman, the Centre for Successful Parenting in Indiana performed a study in which they took a group of Scouts who had never used a real gun.
First, they had kids demonstrate their proficiency with point-and-shoot video games. The children were then given a 9mm pistol."The ones who were experts with the point-and-shoot video games were stunningly better with the 9mm pistol the first time you put it in their hands." (Grossman, Internet)Additionally, during a second round of shooting actual weapons, the kids who were proficient with the video games improved significantly, while the others did not improve, according to Grossman.
Grossman said the military calls this "transition fire.""You learn in the trainer, and then you go to the real thing and you're a lot better because of the trainer," he said. "But after you've done your transition fire, all that simulated training immediately translates into the real thing."This information from Grossman illustrates the fact that computer simulated violence can translate into the real world.Some people find TV, movies, and computer games as an escape from the world.
Which is reasonable to an extent. The main question is how does the media affect children in today's mostly media-run world? Children today seem to dress, act, and speak more like teenagers than ever before. Little girls at the age of nine and ten talk about their boyfriends while boys are singing songs of sex and violence. The children being influenced think this is the way life is.
It is hard to imagine what they will be twenty years from now. What I understand from media violence is children are being influenced by what is shown to them.Children may pick up these behaviours and apply them in their own lives, and then later find out there is no "get out of jail free" card, as there is in "Vice City". Possibly by this children will not grow up to be as successful. They could grow up not knowing or accepting what is reality.
Their relationships could suffer because of aggressive actions. Family life wouldn't be much better either. The children affected could feel depressed or neglected. These are just some results that could happen to a child who is overly exposed to the media's negative ideas. They could very well be true or not. It is almost certain that the media does affect people and their children.
A Demonstrated Public Health Threat to Children article by L. Rowell Huesmann and Jessica Moise is useful. Inside the article there is evidence on how children are affected by media violence. Dr. Freedman, who is a researcher, performed over one hundred test studies over the last forty years on children exposed to violent film clips and their behaviour changes.
Dr. Freedman has found that children who are,"Exposed to visual violence behave more aggressively afterward both toward inanimate objects and toward other children." (Freedman cited in Huesmann and Moise, 1992)Another researcher Kaj Blomqvist exposed five and six year old children to violent and non-violent films. Afterward the children were put inside a room to play. None of the observers knew which child had been exposed to what type of films.
They found in their study that children who were exposed to violent films,"Were more likely to hit other children, scream at them, threaten them, and intentionally destroy their toys." (Blomqvist, 1994)Not only does violence affect behaviour at an early age but at an adult age also."Boys who spent most of their time viewing violent television shows at age eight were most likely to have convictions at age 30." (Blomqvist, 1994)An article mentions how, " Children can become anti-social and desire to see more violence in entertainment and real life." Children may even decide to use violence to settle their conflicts.
The New York Times reported the rise in consumption of violent fantasy toys such as G.I. Joes and toy guns, in the wake of the September the eleventh terrorist attacks. Many parents who previously wouldn't allow their children to play with guns and soldiers gave in to their children's expected desires for these toys. Toys, along with TV and movies are made to leave an impression on children.
Young children learn by seeing others act and imitating their actions. With the media giving their full attention to young children the media can sell their product more easily. The media knows that young children are most vulnerable to the effects of media violence. Children spend more time learning about life through media than in any other way. The average child spends approximately 28 hours a week watching television, which is about as much time as they spend in school.
Therefore children cannot but help to become aware of the violence they are being exposed to. Parents may argue by saying that now we have ratings to take care of what children are to see.Another issue to think about is music. Singing and music have always played a significant role in learning and the communication of culture. Children learn from the role models they see and hear. For the past forty years, some children's television has very effectively used the combination of words, music and fast-paced animation to achieve learning.
Most parents are concerned about what their young children see and hear, but as children grow older, parents pay less attention to the music and videos that hold their children's interest. A concern to many interested in the development and growth of teenagers is the negative and destructive themes of some rock and other types of music, including best-selling albums promoted by major recording companies. The following themes are prominent:* Advocating and glamorising abuse of drugs and alcohol* Pictures and explicit lyrics presenting suicide as an "alternative" or "solution"* Graphic violence* Rituals in concerts* Sex which focuses on control, sadism, masochism, incest, children devaluing women, and violence toward womenParents can help their teenagers by paying attention to their teenager's purchasing, downloading, listening and viewing patterns, and by helping them identify music that may be destructive. An open discussion without criticism may be helpful.Music is not usually a danger for a teenager whose life is happy and healthy.
But if a teenager is persistently preoccupied with music that has seriously destructive themes, and there are changes in behaviour such as isolation, depression, alcohol or other drug abuse, a psychiatric evaluation should be considered.Children have become very dependant on the music entertainment industry to give them the best music around. Some of the lyrics by artists such as Eminem and Snoop Dogg give children explicit words to sing along to. In a recent survey by the Recording Industry Association of America it was found that many parents do not know what lyrics are contained in the popular music their children listen to.There are many grievances against video rental companies such as Blockbuster for allowing under age children to rent films on their parents' card. The world is filled with sex, violence and inappropriate fare for children.
Where were the parents when their children were sitting in front of the television? It doesn't take an eighteen-certificate movie to infiltrate an otherwise peaceful living room with death and destruction. Parental supervision is lacking. While Blockbuster may occasionally err, the real error is that many parents allow their children too much independence.The absence of government regulation of children's television has made parents' job more difficult, necessitating more parental monitoring of what children see on television.
This unfortunate situation places additional, unnecessary pressure on parents. Parents are responsible for monitoring the quality and quantity of the media to which their children are exposed. Standards will make the job easier, however. In the meantime, parents can watch television and other media with their children and evaluate the shows together. Children do not interpret programs the same way adults do. Adults need to talk with children about what they observe through the media, to find out how children are interpreting what they see and to help clarify misinterpretations.
Parents can choose an approved list of media options for their children and give children choices from among permitted shows.Parents need to be aware that much of what children watch on television is not specifically intended for children. It has been estimated that only 10% of children's viewing time is spent watching children's television; the other 90% is spent watching programs designed for adults. Parents can assist children in finding alternatives to viewing adult television.
In addition, parents can use videotapes of high quality children's programming and public television when commercial alternatives are not available.As consumers, parents should recognize and use their influence with sponsors of children's programs. The chief purpose of commercial television is not to entertain or to educate but to sell products. Parents can communicate with advertisers on programs that are valuable, as well as sponsors of programs that are violent. Parents can also help their children become educated consumers and involve them in writing complaints to broadcasters and companies that use violent images in an attempt to sell toys and other products.
As taxpayers, parents can encourage their legislators to adopt policies to protect children from media violence.Media violence has been of concern to social scientists, parents, and educators for over 30 years. As media violence continues to escalate, so do concerns over the impact of such violence on the behaviour of adolescents and youth. In terms of video games, there has been an increase in the violence and brutality of the games and increasingly realistic graphics and sound that yield blood-gushing, bone-crunching special effects. Newer games are often played from a "first person shooter" perspective; players kill video characters directly rather than via another character. With the arrival of the Sony Playstation, analogue controllers and "reality vests" allow the player to feel the victim's struggle to stay alive.
During game play these analogue devices vibrate and twitch when, for example, the player's character chokes or shoots an opponent or is shot by an opponent. This stimulation enhances the sensory experience of video game play, further making it more 'real' than passive audiovisual media, such as TV.Despite recent media claims that video games may be one of the factors that contribute to youth violence, there isn't much evidence regarding the impact of violent video game play on feelings of hostility, and aggressive behaviour. Some researchers (e.
g., Anderson & Ford, 1986) have found that participants display more aggression, hostility, and anger after playing more violent video games. Irwin and Gross (1995) found a martial arts game to give higher levels of aggression among boys than an exciting (motorcycle racing) control game. Their results provide evidence for increased object, physical, and verbal aggression following violent video game play.
Ballard and Wiest (1996) examined the effect of the level of video game violence.They found that male college students displayed more hostility and greater cardiovascular reaction after playing a violent game (Mortal Kombat) than after playing a non-violent control game. They also found that players displayed significantly greater hostility and cardiovascular reactivity after playing a more violent version of Mortal Kombat (the special effect of gushing blood was added to the basic fighting game) than after playing the same game without the added special effect. This indicates that level of game violence, and not simply game violence, is important to examine.Conversely, Scott (1995) failed to find an increase in hostile or aggressive affect as an effect of level of video game violence.
However, rather than using one violent video game with increasing levels of violence, Scott (1995) employed two different video games that were assumed to represent varying degrees of violence. The loss of control in game type, graphics, and sound that was created by using more than one game to examine the effect of level of violence may have influenced the results of that study.Some parents rely on technology, restrictions or ratings to do their job. They protest film and television violence as if it were these industries' fault that their children are plopped in front of the television all day. Of course, ratings and technology do allow some parental control and would limit the need for censorship.
Parents will be able to block objectionable programmes through state of the art technology. New standards have been adopted to equip televisions and computers with the V-chip. The chip will allow viewers to block shows based on their TV ratings for sexual content and violence as well as objectionable language. A 1996 law declared that televisions sold in the United States with screens that are at least thirteen inches must eventually contain built in blocking technology.
The V-chip seems to be a good device, perhaps giving parents the help they need so they can rest a little easier.Technology doesn't always work. Kids will do what they want when no one is around and that often means beating the systems designed to keep them out. An example of this is from the United States involving a thirteen year old from New England. Her parents put a "family lock code" on MTV to prevent her from watching too much television.
She broke the code and retaliated by locking the Discovery Channel instead. While technology as well as government and industry-imposed limits may be helpful, it is no substitute for parental guidance. In fact, that is what industry officials suggest. The PG rating stands for Parental Guidance and it means just that. Unfortunately most parents take those ratings to mean yes and no but it is not a black and white issue. That is why censorship will not work either and parents must ultimately become involved.
