Mass Media & Violence: a second look, a second essay
In the 1950s teenagers were reading comic books, but today teens are listening to rap CDs such as Fifty Cent's [sic] "In Da Club", whose lyrics routinely describe substance abuse and promiscuity. They watch TV shows and movies that rely on graphic scenes of violence as their main theme, and cyberspace has exposed them to images that their parents could not imagine. How will this exposure affect them? Should we be concerned? Can the media be blamed for Lionel Tate's violent act?
-Juvenile Delinquency: The Core, 2nd ed., Seigel & Welsh
I read this little excerpt on the first page of my Juvenile Delinquency textbook. It was written in reference to the case of Lionel Tate, an 11 year old boy who decided it would be a great idea to try out some wrestling moves he saw on TV with a 6 year old girl. The girl ended up dying. Tate was originally given a life sentence, that was changed to three years (that he already served), one year of house arrest, and ten years of probation. In addition, he had to perfrom a thousand hours of community service, recieve conseling, and wear a monitoring device (you can read more about Tate here).
tl;dr, some kid imitated the alleged violence he saw on TV. A lot of kids do that. Granted, a lot of kids don't end up murdering someone else in the process. But now I'm getting offhand a bit.
I lived in an age where the only people who brought guns to school were gang members. Rap and metal were for hardcore people only. The most violent TV show was either Jerry Springer, and the most violent movie was probably Pulp Fiction. When people still used Netscape as an internet browser.
That little girl is going to grow up to be a mass ass-rapist, due to the violence that dog just exposed to her.
Then, Columbine. At the age of 10, I understood the very reason why those boys shot up their school. I understood what it was like to be bullied, to be frustrated and angry with everyone, to want to hurt people who hurt you. But when I heard they used guns, it changed me. I realized then and there that violence was a terrible answer. It's better to ignore bullies- the best trolling tactic ever. I still use it. But it's a very important lesson in why making fun of people for their lifestyle choices can probably end up nasty.
Immediately, everyone and their mother blamed the media. Blamed Marilyn Manson. Blamed violent video games. They blamed everyone but themselves. The question shouldn't be, "what gave them the idea to do this?", rather, it should be, "where did they get the guns?" Media doesn't give people ideas, media gets its ideas from people. People already know what a gun is for.
This is your kid on rap.
To counter what the authors Seigel & Welsh are saying, "In Da Club" is tame compared to most rap and hip-hop songs. But substance abuse and promiscuity also exist in other forms of musical genres, do they not? For instance:
Promiscuity: Dinah-Moe Humm -by- Frank Zappa. Rock 'n' roll.
Substance abuse: Weed With Willie -by- Toby Keith. Country.
Also, remember this guy?
Sure, he didn't sing about doing drugs, binge drinking, or about having tons of sex, but LOOK AT THOSE HIPS they are the things that will surely destroy the youth of America! :/
Most violent TV shows are on at 10 pm or later. The reason, I assume, is because most kids aren't up at that time. If for some reason they are, then eliminate that reason. Then, the kids won't be up to watch Comedy Central or HBO. Ergo, they won't see or learn things they really shouldn't (yet).
But I'll take a chance here and make a guess. It's a good guess, and probably pretty truthful. Kids don't learn things from the media. Sure, they can hear bad words and see sexual imagery, but that doesn't mean anything. Kids learn from society. Why do toddlers sometimes repeat curse words? Because they heard mommy or daddy say them. Where do kids get access to cigarettes or beer? Because mommy or daddy has them at home. And if mommy and daddy are Puritans, then kids will learn from their peers. At the age of 11, I didn't even know of the term 'blowjob' until an equally confused friend asked me (we then asked a more "experienced" friend of ours, to whence she informed us of what a blowjob was. My reaction then is the same now: ewwww). You can learn deviances from your neighbors, from the people you meet in the street, from relatives, from teachers.
This is what happens when you let your kids watch Spongebob.
It's not violence if anthropomorphic animals are beating other anthropomorphic animals!
But now here's a new phenomena. Kids learning things from the internet. As previously stated, I grew up in an era where Netscape was the only browser. Not too many people had the internet, which was only dial-up, in their homes. More than ten years later, perish the thought! There's this threat that kids will access to MySpace, Facebook, IM services, Megaporn, 4chan, etc. As a person who spends too much time on the internet, I can understand why parents would be worried. No one wants their child to be harassed, molested, kidnapped, or killed by some creep they've been talking to online. There are ways to monitor and block particular websites; this happens in most public schools, it can also be done at a private computer at home. Another popular method is to have parents alert their children to the dangers of the internet. "Some 45-year old dude could be posing as that 14-year old girl you think you've been talking to!" For added effect, make them watch To Catch A Predator.
Yikes.
To answer the author's question, "Can the media be blamed for Lionel Tate's violent act?", my answer to this is a resounding no. The media cannot be solely blamed for any violent act. Without a doubt, there are more factors pertaining to why juveniles become violent. So why blame the media? To an extent, the media can be blamed. When parents or guardians cannot protect or appeal to the child, they turn to two other things that they will readily have available: their peers and the media. Want to shield kids from the stupidity of MTV? Then instead of protesting shitty television channels, spend time with your kids.
This is why parents don't spend time with their kids.
Upon viewing this, I felt the desire to blow something up. Look how violent wrestling has made me!
In 2002, the US Secret Service and the US Department of Education presented a report entitled, The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States, available here to read. Here are some findings of the report:
• "there is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence"
• "in several cases, individual attackers had experienced bullying and harassment that was long-standing and severe. In some of these cases the experience of being bullied seemed to have a significant impact on the attacker and appeared to have been a factor in his decision to mount an attack at the school"
• "most attackers showed some history of suicidal attempts or thoughts, or a history of feeling extreme depression or desperation"
• "most attackers had no history of prior violent or criminal behavior"
• "most attackers appeared to have difficulty coping with losses, personal failures or other difficult circumstances"
• "most attackers engaged in some behavior, prior to the incident, that caused others concern or indicated a need for help"
• "incidents of targeted violence at school rarely are sudden, impulsive acts"
• "most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack"
The last finding there to me, was the most interesting out of all of them. If a teen has access to violent video games, violent music, violent movies, but no access to guns or to other weapons save for a steak knife, how can they cause violence? By taking away weapons from this 'violence equation', there is little happenstance for violence to actually happen. However, there was another finding of particularly great interest:
• "Over half of the attackers demonstrated some interest in violence, through movies, video games, books, and other media (59 percent, n=24). However, there was no one common type of interest in violence indicated. Instead, the attackers’ interest in violent themes took various forms."
° "Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent movies (27 percent, n=11)"
° "Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent books (24 percent, n=10)"
° "One-eighth of the attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games (12 percent, n=5)"
° "The largest group of attackers exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent, n=15)"
Because we live in an age where people are tl;dr, here is a handy-dandy pie chart:
The majority of violence did not stem from media influences, but rather, from personal influences.
Sociology has a theory called the theory of anomie. In short, the theory of anomie offers an explanation of how deviance occurs; the explanation is that through social strain and the failure to meet positive goals, deviance occurs (more on the theory can be read here). According to one of the theorists, Robert Agnew, "as applied to school crime, personal strain may result from a variety of negative school and interpersonal experiences by the student" and "delinquency may result from an inability to avoid negative or painful situations in life" (Sociology of Deviant Behavior, 13th ed., Clinard & Meier). Since a majority of juvenile crimes happen in a school setting (Seigel & Welsh), there seems to be a correlative link between the way a school is run, and the conduct of the students. It's easy to blame the media, it's harder to blame the US public school system.
Man's greatest fear is chaos. It was unthinkable that these kids did not have a simple black-and-white reason for their actions. And so a scapegoat was needed. I remember hearing the initial reports from Littleton, that Harris and Klebold were wearing makeup and were dressed like Marilyn Manson, whom they obviously must worship, since they were dressed in black. Of course, speculation snowballed into making me the poster boy for everything that is bad in the world. These two idiots weren't wearing makeup, and they weren't dressed like me or like goths. Since Middle America has not heard of the music they did listen to (KMFDM and Rammstein, among others), the media picked something they thought was similar.
Responsible journalists have reported with less publicity that Harris and Klebold were not Marilyn Manson fans -- that they even disliked my music. Even if they were fans, that gives them no excuse, nor does it mean that music is to blame. Did we look for James Huberty's inspiration when he gunned down people at McDonald's? What did Timothy McVeigh like to watch? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones? Do you think entertainment inspired Kip Kinkel, or should we blame the fact that his father bought him the guns he used in the Springfield, Oregon, murders? What inspires Bill Clinton to blow people up in Kosovo? Was it something that Monica Lewinsky said to him? Isn't killing just killing, regardless if it's in Vietnam or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Why do we justify one, just because it seems to be for the right reasons? Should there ever be a right reason? If a kid is old enough to drive a car or buy a gun, isn't he old enough to be held personally responsible for what he does with his car or gun? Or if he's a teenager, should someone else be blamed because he isn't as enlightened as an eighteen-year-old?
-Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?, Marilyn Manson
[available to read here]
-Juvenile Delinquency: The Core, 2nd ed., Seigel & Welsh
Click to viewI read this little excerpt on the first page of my Juvenile Delinquency textbook. It was written in reference to the case of Lionel Tate, an 11 year old boy who decided it would be a great idea to try out some wrestling moves he saw on TV with a 6 year old girl. The girl ended up dying. Tate was originally given a life sentence, that was changed to three years (that he already served), one year of house arrest, and ten years of probation. In addition, he had to perfrom a thousand hours of community service, recieve conseling, and wear a monitoring device (you can read more about Tate here).
tl;dr, some kid imitated the alleged violence he saw on TV. A lot of kids do that. Granted, a lot of kids don't end up murdering someone else in the process. But now I'm getting offhand a bit.
I lived in an age where the only people who brought guns to school were gang members. Rap and metal were for hardcore people only. The most violent TV show was either Jerry Springer, and the most violent movie was probably Pulp Fiction. When people still used Netscape as an internet browser.
That little girl is going to grow up to be a mass ass-rapist, due to the violence that dog just exposed to her.
Then, Columbine. At the age of 10, I understood the very reason why those boys shot up their school. I understood what it was like to be bullied, to be frustrated and angry with everyone, to want to hurt people who hurt you. But when I heard they used guns, it changed me. I realized then and there that violence was a terrible answer. It's better to ignore bullies- the best trolling tactic ever. I still use it. But it's a very important lesson in why making fun of people for their lifestyle choices can probably end up nasty.
Immediately, everyone and their mother blamed the media. Blamed Marilyn Manson. Blamed violent video games. They blamed everyone but themselves. The question shouldn't be, "what gave them the idea to do this?", rather, it should be, "where did they get the guns?" Media doesn't give people ideas, media gets its ideas from people. People already know what a gun is for.
This is your kid on rap.
To counter what the authors Seigel & Welsh are saying, "In Da Club" is tame compared to most rap and hip-hop songs. But substance abuse and promiscuity also exist in other forms of musical genres, do they not? For instance:
Promiscuity: Dinah-Moe Humm -by- Frank Zappa. Rock 'n' roll.
Substance abuse: Weed With Willie -by- Toby Keith. Country.
Also, remember this guy?
Sure, he didn't sing about doing drugs, binge drinking, or about having tons of sex, but LOOK AT THOSE HIPS they are the things that will surely destroy the youth of America! :/
Most violent TV shows are on at 10 pm or later. The reason, I assume, is because most kids aren't up at that time. If for some reason they are, then eliminate that reason. Then, the kids won't be up to watch Comedy Central or HBO. Ergo, they won't see or learn things they really shouldn't (yet).
But I'll take a chance here and make a guess. It's a good guess, and probably pretty truthful. Kids don't learn things from the media. Sure, they can hear bad words and see sexual imagery, but that doesn't mean anything. Kids learn from society. Why do toddlers sometimes repeat curse words? Because they heard mommy or daddy say them. Where do kids get access to cigarettes or beer? Because mommy or daddy has them at home. And if mommy and daddy are Puritans, then kids will learn from their peers. At the age of 11, I didn't even know of the term 'blowjob' until an equally confused friend asked me (we then asked a more "experienced" friend of ours, to whence she informed us of what a blowjob was. My reaction then is the same now: ewwww). You can learn deviances from your neighbors, from the people you meet in the street, from relatives, from teachers.
This is what happens when you let your kids watch Spongebob.
It's not violence if anthropomorphic animals are beating other anthropomorphic animals!
But now here's a new phenomena. Kids learning things from the internet. As previously stated, I grew up in an era where Netscape was the only browser. Not too many people had the internet, which was only dial-up, in their homes. More than ten years later, perish the thought! There's this threat that kids will access to MySpace, Facebook, IM services, Megaporn, 4chan, etc. As a person who spends too much time on the internet, I can understand why parents would be worried. No one wants their child to be harassed, molested, kidnapped, or killed by some creep they've been talking to online. There are ways to monitor and block particular websites; this happens in most public schools, it can also be done at a private computer at home. Another popular method is to have parents alert their children to the dangers of the internet. "Some 45-year old dude could be posing as that 14-year old girl you think you've been talking to!" For added effect, make them watch To Catch A Predator.
Yikes.
To answer the author's question, "Can the media be blamed for Lionel Tate's violent act?", my answer to this is a resounding no. The media cannot be solely blamed for any violent act. Without a doubt, there are more factors pertaining to why juveniles become violent. So why blame the media? To an extent, the media can be blamed. When parents or guardians cannot protect or appeal to the child, they turn to two other things that they will readily have available: their peers and the media. Want to shield kids from the stupidity of MTV? Then instead of protesting shitty television channels, spend time with your kids.
This is why parents don't spend time with their kids.
Upon viewing this, I felt the desire to blow something up. Look how violent wrestling has made me!
In 2002, the US Secret Service and the US Department of Education presented a report entitled, The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States, available here to read. Here are some findings of the report:
• "there is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence"
• "in several cases, individual attackers had experienced bullying and harassment that was long-standing and severe. In some of these cases the experience of being bullied seemed to have a significant impact on the attacker and appeared to have been a factor in his decision to mount an attack at the school"
• "most attackers showed some history of suicidal attempts or thoughts, or a history of feeling extreme depression or desperation"
• "most attackers had no history of prior violent or criminal behavior"
• "most attackers appeared to have difficulty coping with losses, personal failures or other difficult circumstances"
• "most attackers engaged in some behavior, prior to the incident, that caused others concern or indicated a need for help"
• "incidents of targeted violence at school rarely are sudden, impulsive acts"
• "most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack"
The last finding there to me, was the most interesting out of all of them. If a teen has access to violent video games, violent music, violent movies, but no access to guns or to other weapons save for a steak knife, how can they cause violence? By taking away weapons from this 'violence equation', there is little happenstance for violence to actually happen. However, there was another finding of particularly great interest:
• "Over half of the attackers demonstrated some interest in violence, through movies, video games, books, and other media (59 percent, n=24). However, there was no one common type of interest in violence indicated. Instead, the attackers’ interest in violent themes took various forms."
° "Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent movies (27 percent, n=11)"
° "Approximately one-quarter of the attackers had exhibited an interest in violent books (24 percent, n=10)"
° "One-eighth of the attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games (12 percent, n=5)"
° "The largest group of attackers exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent, n=15)"
Because we live in an age where people are tl;dr, here is a handy-dandy pie chart:
The majority of violence did not stem from media influences, but rather, from personal influences.
Sociology has a theory called the theory of anomie. In short, the theory of anomie offers an explanation of how deviance occurs; the explanation is that through social strain and the failure to meet positive goals, deviance occurs (more on the theory can be read here). According to one of the theorists, Robert Agnew, "as applied to school crime, personal strain may result from a variety of negative school and interpersonal experiences by the student" and "delinquency may result from an inability to avoid negative or painful situations in life" (Sociology of Deviant Behavior, 13th ed., Clinard & Meier). Since a majority of juvenile crimes happen in a school setting (Seigel & Welsh), there seems to be a correlative link between the way a school is run, and the conduct of the students. It's easy to blame the media, it's harder to blame the US public school system.
Man's greatest fear is chaos. It was unthinkable that these kids did not have a simple black-and-white reason for their actions. And so a scapegoat was needed. I remember hearing the initial reports from Littleton, that Harris and Klebold were wearing makeup and were dressed like Marilyn Manson, whom they obviously must worship, since they were dressed in black. Of course, speculation snowballed into making me the poster boy for everything that is bad in the world. These two idiots weren't wearing makeup, and they weren't dressed like me or like goths. Since Middle America has not heard of the music they did listen to (KMFDM and Rammstein, among others), the media picked something they thought was similar.
Responsible journalists have reported with less publicity that Harris and Klebold were not Marilyn Manson fans -- that they even disliked my music. Even if they were fans, that gives them no excuse, nor does it mean that music is to blame. Did we look for James Huberty's inspiration when he gunned down people at McDonald's? What did Timothy McVeigh like to watch? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones? Do you think entertainment inspired Kip Kinkel, or should we blame the fact that his father bought him the guns he used in the Springfield, Oregon, murders? What inspires Bill Clinton to blow people up in Kosovo? Was it something that Monica Lewinsky said to him? Isn't killing just killing, regardless if it's in Vietnam or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Why do we justify one, just because it seems to be for the right reasons? Should there ever be a right reason? If a kid is old enough to drive a car or buy a gun, isn't he old enough to be held personally responsible for what he does with his car or gun? Or if he's a teenager, should someone else be blamed because he isn't as enlightened as an eighteen-year-old?
-Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?, Marilyn Manson
[available to read here]