Hey guys. I’m writing about chapter 18 in McQuail, which discusses different theories on how media consumption affects viewers.
The cultivation theory, proposed by Gerbner, states that consuming media, such as films, television, and music proposes an idea of reality for the viewer that may be different than actual reality, “substituting its (distorted) message about reality for personal experience and other means of knowing about the world” (McQuail 497). Basically, what this means is that Gerbner, and believers in the cultivation theory, believe that, over time, exposure to the media changes and forms a perception of reality that is different from actual reality.
The question is whether or not film violence has a lasting impression on viewers, enough so to make them perceive violence as acceptable. Does film violence and violence in the media in general cause people to act differently than they would had they not consumed that media, and other media like it? Does media consumption over time lead to changes in a viewer’s perception of reality?
Different media sources are constantly being blamed for violent acts. For example, I found this article that discusses 50 Cent’s movie “Get Rich or Die Tryin’.” Linked below, it talks about all the violent acts that have happened, such as riots and deaths, which are somehow being linked to the film. Check out the article:
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-05/11-14-05/a01lo354.htm
I personally do not believe that seeing a single film is going to contribute to someone’s feelings of rage that prompt him/her to commit a violent act. There have to be more contributing factors. Perhaps over time there may be a correlation between violent acts and consumption of film violence, but I find it hard to believe that the media is the only influence involved. Someone said in class the other day that people would rather blame anyone than themselves, and I think that is the best way to put it—people would always rather blame the media before they look at other possible contributing factors. I also think that people who are going to see films with absurd amounts of violence, such as R-rated films, should be old enough to realize that it is just a movie. Of course, all of my opinions could stem from the fact that I am educated, so I am skeptical and I realize that a film is just a film.
What do you guys think about the cultivation theory? Do you think that 50 Cent’s movie was responsible for the riots and other violent acts? Do you think violent films foster violence in real life?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Personally, I hate when people blame the media for violence in society. But I do understand why it could happen. Like Kristin said, we are all educated and are not really affected by violence in films because we understand that it is not a true depiction of reality. But there are a lot of uneducated people out there (and some crazy people) that do see violence in films as being real. So how do we separate films from reality? Like everyone else who has been pondering media effects for years, I don't have an answer for that. But I think that a lot of these issues steam from parents. If parents don't teach their kids about reality and fiction in media, it just makes it easier for people to blame the media for horrific events such as Virgina Tech. Instead of people complaining about violence in the media, they need to take the time out to realize that film is an art form and in art, things are exaggerated and often fictional. I totally agree that people should not see certain films, listen to certain music and watch certain TV shows until they are mature enough to understand the difference between real life and entertainment and the only people who we can count on to teach these important lessons are parents, grandparents and elders in general. So do your job..otherwise this cycle will never end!
-Carissa Alfino
I agree with Carissa in the fact that parents all too often point the finger at the Media to blame where lack of parenting causes their children to commit awful offenses to society. Perfect example from the article that Kristin provided."Another mother, who brought her infant and two young children to the film, also refused to give her name." There's a reason these mother's aren't giving their names. They don't want to be blamed when their children are making headlines 10 years later because they hold up a convenience store. It makes no sense why a Mother would take her young children to this movie. This movie is rated "R", there's a reason why movies have ratings people! If you want to see the movie, get a babysitter. If your 5 year old wants to see the movie, say "NO" and take them to Chicken Run instead. It's that simple. I'm not saying that this is a bad movie. I'm sure it's very interesting and action packed for the right audience, who understands that it's a movie and knows enough not to emulate 50 Cent's actions. It's meant for a crowd that can extract themselves from reality and watch the movie, but once they're back in society they know how to control the urge to stab someone in the stomach and sell cocaine for a living. I agree with Kristin when she says that a single viewing of a film isn't going to inspire you to go out and become a drug dealer. There has to be other contributing factors to criminal behavior. That's where the parent's turn a blind eye to their own actions and blame 50 Cent. 50 Cent didn't take your children to the movie, you did! I was intrigued by the article when it asked, "Why not blame Al Pacino or Bruce Willis?" They make action packed, violent movies also. That's a great point. I don't think you should show your children those movies either. However, I think 50 Cent keeps that persona going even off screen. When you watch someone like Al Pacino or Bruce Willis off screen, they aren't as intimidating since they have the blood washed off and the gun out of their hands. 50 Cent always has that intimidation factor in his music videos, even when he's on the red carpet he's got a gangster hat and a fur coat on, he doesn't wear your typical black tie suit. He always has that
"gangsta" persona about him.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we can't blame the media for crimes in society. Some movies are violent, but they're meant for a specific audience. They're doing what they can to keep children out of these movies by having a rating system. It's the parents job to draw the line.
The media being blamed for acts of individual violence has always perplexed. Being a “child of media” myself, as well as consuming all different sorts of content as a child, I believe one of my first rated R movies I saw was “True Lies” around the ages of 7-9. Just because I viewed this movie, doesn’t mean I consequently I may married a secret government operative and would someday be caught up in some terrorist plot. There are several mitigating circumstances that make a “violent” person. I believe that violence has a lot do with an individual’s socialization process as well as mental dispositions. As shown by the array of mental disabilities that are defined, committed, and used as defense in criminal trials, the evidence shown in these cases display that some people have some sort of mental imbalance that makes them more prone to violence.
The socialization process is the more tricky part of my reasons for violence. People are more often than not first socialized by their family, then by their community, then by the schools they attend. In my opinion, people are most affected by a person to person relationship than by a person to media relationship. So any amount of these socialization factors will have a larger affect along with any sort of affect the media may have on their actions. According to page 494 of McQuail, “the media is a learning process whereby we all learn how to behave in certain situations and the expectations which go with a given role or status in society.” For instance: a child who was always an outsider from the rest of the children in elementary school and thusly bullied from adolescence to his/her teenage years. Neglected a home, he/she was never one to emote his/her feelings. He/she always bottled things up and consequently was done being a target. One day while watching a particularly violent movie, like “The Matrix,” he/she decides to take action and actually bring a gun to school and seek revenge. So the flow goes from A. Neglect at home B. Bullied at school C. influence from media. The question is how come millions of people can see this movie and not shoot up their school? This person had circumstantial and mental mitigating factors that lead to their actions, and not influence of Keanu Reeves. Going back to McQuail quote, “The Matrix” can teach a person to treat violence with violence, but if he/she is not taught by another socializing unit, like a family, that violence begets violence is not the answer then it is not a media problem. Movies for the most part is an “entertainment” medium, it is not a teaching one.
This topic for me is confusing because I feel strongly that the movies and the media use violence as a way of expression and for entertainment. However, it’s unclear to me the real effects that it has on society. Movies generally are a form of escape, a way to enter a fantasy world for a couple of hours and be entertained. I think for the majority of society that is all a movie does. The adults who see violent movies that are usually rated “R”, are old enough to be unaffected by the violent images that are portrayed. This is because they have established values, and know the difference between right and wrong. Personally when I see violent movies, after I feel even more negatively to violence. It makes me see how horrible violence is, and reinforces my values that hurting other people is wrong. I think for many people this is true too. After seeing someone in pain due to violence in a movie, like “Saw” or “Get Rich or Die Tryin’”, you don’t want to go out and do the same thing; it’s actually disgusting and scary to think that something like that could ever happen. However, I think the issue lays in when children are exposed to violent images in movies.
Children are constantly changing their attitudes and behaviors as they grow up because they are constantly being exposed to different stimuli. I think that kids do something until they are told that it is wrong, and if a kid has violent tendencies when they see those behaviors reinforced in the movies it shows that it’s okay. On page 465, McQuail talks about the different types of media effects, one of them being reinforcement: “In the case of the individual, reinforcement is a probable consequence of selective and persistent attention on the part of the receiver that is congruent with his or her existing views.” I think that if violent images are reinforced to bullies and struggling kids, it’s just going to make violence normalized to them, and create violent adults. However, I don’t think it’s the media that needs to change because these images are not meant for children. I think that parents need to be more involved in what they are letting their child be exposed to, and take responsibility in monitoring the media.
The media is inescapable and therefore makes itself avaliable to be everyone's scapegoat. Like the posted comments, it's the parents job to educate, but what about the kids who don't have parents? Who do we start pointing the figure at then? We live in a society where NO ONE takes responsibility for their own actions. So if no parents are in fact there to help, then that role then falls onto relatives, the community, guardians, mentors, teachers, advisors, coaches-READ:everyone. We need to make it aware for those that are too young or uneducated to understand that media can be a great source of entertainment and nothing else at times, as in the case of a movie such as 50 Cent's "Get Rich or Die Tryin'."
When reading the article, it seemed as though the writer was trying to stretch their arugement, by writing, "A huge brawl broke out Friday night at the Providence Place Mall food court; it involved more than 100 people. Police said it was started by a large group of teens on their way to see the movie. Six people were arrested, and the theater canceled five late-night showings Saturday.
A 30-year-old man, who had just seen the movie, was shot and killed at a movie theater concession stand in Pennsylvania." Take out that those two incidents happened at at movie theather, and they are typical, albeit horrible, crimes that take place all across America on any given day of the week for any reason. That brawl could have been started for any reason, not simply just because these kids decided to go see 50 Cent in a movie. I agree with Kristin in that I do not think movies have a lasting effect on people once they leave the theater and go back to their "real life." There's a level of escapism and distraction that people realize they are getting themsevles into when they step into a movie theater.
What I really think the big problem to grapple with is the chicken and the egg idea when it comes to media. Horrible, bad, destructive, violent events happen in our society and that does not makes us any different than any other culture in the world. But the media feeds off of it because they know it's what WE, the consumer are going to watch- and I'm talking about something as violent as watching the news. How many parents don't let them watch blatantly violent t.v shows but leave the news on while making dinner or just as background noise? You can't avoid the media all the time, and guess what- at times we, the average citizen is to blame for making it a more violent place without the help of a movie or sound stage. So stop blaming ENTERTAINERS like 50 Cent- if you do not want to watch something like that, then you have the opportunity not to. Go turn on some Hannah Montana and see how screwed up your kids perception of the world can get through her.
I think the bottom line is to make sure people who are avid consumers of the media are either avid consumers of all types of media- (oh hey books, magazines, newspapers)and get involved in more than just media- your kids, (Be it students, coaching, community oriented,) the political scene, your job, i.e your own life so you know how to balance a life concentrated in media.
The media is inescapable and therefore makes itself avaliable to be everyone's scapegoat. Like the posted comments, it's the parents job to educate, but what about the kids who don't have parents? Who do we start pointing the figure at then? We live in a society where NO ONE takes responsibility for their own actions. So if no parents are in fact there to help, then that role then falls onto relatives, the community, guardians, mentors, teachers, advisors, coaches-READ:everyone. We need to make it aware for those that are too young or uneducated to understand that media can be a great source of entertainment and nothing else at times, as in the case of a movie such as 50 Cent's "Get Rich or Die Tryin'."
When reading the article, it seemed as though the writer was trying to stretch their arugement, by writing, "A huge brawl broke out Friday night at the Providence Place Mall food court; it involved more than 100 people. Police said it was started by a large group of teens on their way to see the movie. Six people were arrested, and the theater canceled five late-night showings Saturday.
A 30-year-old man, who had just seen the movie, was shot and killed at a movie theater concession stand in Pennsylvania." Take out that those two incidents happened at at movie theather, and they are typical, albeit horrible, crimes that take place all across America on any given day of the week for any reason. That brawl could have been started for any reason, not simply just because these kids decided to go see 50 Cent in a movie. I agree with Kristin in that I do not think movies have a lasting effect on people once they leave the theater and go back to their "real life." There's a level of escapism and distraction that people realize they are getting themsevles into when they step into a movie theater.
What I really think the big problem to grapple with is the chicken and the egg idea when it comes to media. Horrible, bad, destructive, violent events happen in our society and that does not makes us any different than any other culture in the world. But the media feeds off of it because they know it's what WE, the consumer are going to watch- and I'm talking about something as violent as watching the news. How many parents don't let them watch blatantly violent t.v shows but leave the news on while making dinner or just as background noise? You can't avoid the media all the time, and guess what- at times we, the average citizen is to blame for making it a more violent place without the help of a movie or sound stage. So stop blaming ENTERTAINERS like 50 Cent- if you do not want to watch something like that, then you have the opportunity not to. Go turn on some Hannah Montana and see how screwed up your kids perception of the world can get through her.
I think the bottom line is to make sure people who are avid consumers of the media are either avid consumers of all types of media- (oh hey books, magazines, newspapers)and get involved in more than just media- your kids, (Be it students, coaching, community oriented,) the political scene, your job, i.e your own life so you know how to balance a life concentrated in media.
Although I cant say I think it is OK to completely blame the media for violence in society, it is impossible to say it doesnt play a significant role. Chapter 18 brings up many good points about the relationship between the media and the rising violent tendencies in our society. One important thing to recognize is that the rise of crime, violence, and overall agression in society grew considerably with the growth of mass media throughout the 20th Century. I don't think this is coinsidential. It is a known fact that there is a ton of violence in the media, specifically in films, videogames, music, and some television. Like the cultivation theory suggests, the violence protrayed in much of our media can be detrimental to a persons sense of reality, especially a child's. The media industry must be aware of the effect that violent media can have on children because we do have a rating system for movies, television, videogames, etc. Here's where the parents come in, that is if they are good parents who aren't oblivious and apathetic when it comes to the content of the media that their child is consuming. I personally wasn't allowed to watch scary violent and sexual movies as a kid, but many of my friends were. None of them are violent psychopaths shooting up schools, however i think that consuming violent media as a young child does effect your sense of reality at a time when you're most impressionable. My opinion is that the people who are socially and mentally disturbed who do commit violent acts have more wrong with them than the consumption of violent media, however putting it out there in the films, in videogames or in songs is encouraging their sick thoughts and allowing them to see them as realistic. Thinking back to The War of The Worlds in 1938, society went as far to believe martians were invading the country which led to panic. Think of how technology and media have evolved since then into much more realistic and believable portrayals. When you portray such extreme violence in the media that is such a dominant aspect of our society, it is going to have a negative effect on the minds of those consuming it.
Post a Comment