The Media and Violent Crime

The Media and Violent Crime
An issue that many corporate executives ignore is the possibility that

aggressive people seek reinforcement for their own destructive acts. Television

violence, for instance, and the widespread public concern accompanying it have

led to calls for strict controls on the depiction of violent programs.
In their decision making, some producers do not take responsibility for the

equally important minority. Instead, they may gear their content toward the

masses, who crave sexually explicit and violent action. Fortunately, this group

has the ability to disseminate violent action rationally, realizing that in

reality, people who commit acts of violence have to compensate for their actions

by taking full responsibility for the harm they cause others.

Not everyone can distinguish fact from fantasy. Not only is it the

irrational people who commit the crimes in our country, but our own children who

may errantly be learning from day one that nothing bad will happen to them if

they shoot their brother in the head with Daddy?s pistol.

Studies show that in one week of content analysis of prime-time output on

seven New York City channels, there were 3,421 acts and threats of violence

observed. Children?s fictional entertainment programs had three times the

frequency of violent acts or threats recorded in adult programs. (Gunter,

p.13). many of these acts were committed without any compensation for the

action without responsibility, then it must be acceptable behavior. Similarly,

aggressive adults are seeking reinforcement for their own anti-social behavior

from seeing attractive television characters behave in the same way.

Behavioral evidence has indicated that the anti-social effects of violent

television portrayals are strongest and are most likely to occur among

individuals who are already aggressive. (Palmer, p. 10).

The ethical question is, should television submit to mass appeal or take

into consideration the affects on certain members of society, including

children? The consequences of televising violence are not only harmful to some

viewers but concurrently affect the television stations in the form of loss of

viewers and possibly gaining a bad reputation. There are many sources,

including viewers? associations and popular journalism, which have been

condemning the depiction of violence in television programs as a potentially

dangerous and anti-social act on the part of those who make and transmit

programs. (Gunter p. 2). Still, even though these associations have been

condemning television violence, their efforts have had little effect on the

large money-making corporations. Therefore, the decision, on the part of those

in charge of the programs, should be one of social responsibility.

In his article, ?Sex and Violence?, Joe Saltzman states, "If, as producers

argue, violence is a part of the human condition, then so is responsibility. In

real life, you just do not commit mayhem and then go on to the next scene."

It is also necessary to realize that violence is part of our nature and of

our life. Almost everyday we are participants and observers of violence,

whether it is natural violence, theatrical or fictional violence, sporting event

violence, or political violence. To exclude all scenes of violence form

television would be to falsify the picture of life.

Television media can ?encourage or aid? destructive behavior, not ?cause?

it. There are usually many more casual factors involved. To tell people what

they can and can not say, write, and televise is unconstitutional; however, it

can be controlled and we can hope that the decision makers will promote strong

moral, ethical values in their decision making or at least consider them, in

order to help prevent violent our self-destructive behavior.

The Media and Violent Crime 9.8 of 10 on the basis of 3546 Review.