Media Violence Makes People More Violent

Media violence refers to depictions of aggressive behavior, fighting, shootings, murder and other types of violence, often glorified, in television, movies, video games and other popular culture.When "entertainment" violence is marketed to children – as it is every day through television, video games, movies, music, toys and other media -- it is neither innocuous nor harmless.
The scientific consensus is clear: "The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children," according a Joint Statement signed by representatives of six public health in July 26, 2000 and presented to Congress. This Statement was signed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
While the entertainment industry pays its own consultants and researchers to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus, almost every public health and education organization has now developed a Policy Statement warning about the dangers of marketing media violence to children.
And while most of the long-term research has focused on television violence – which is a passive viewing of violence -- preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact of interactive violence may be "significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies or music," according to the Joint Statement.
In this section, we have gathered some articles, research and related information dealing with the marketing of violence to children through video games, movies and music. Our concern is only with the marketing of violence to children: we do not support censorship or any limits on the First Amendment

Violence in the media and popular culture is a contributing or peripheral factor in violence carried out in real life. The question is how much of a factor it is, and what, if anything, should and can be done to diminish its harmful effects. Thomas K Capazzoli, an associate professor of organizational leadership at Purdue, and R. Steve McVey, research associate at the National Center for the Management of Workplace Violence, list media influence as one of nine contributing factors in the rash of school shootings of the recent past. The others are personality conflicts, conduct and personality disorders, abusive parents, inept parents, stress, lack of conflict resolution skills, substance abuse, and mental disorders. They cite media influence, in conjunction with a lack of conflict resolution skills as mitigating factors, saying that any child lacking these skills may “learn about resolving conflicts…from books, movies, computer games, or music.

While cautioning that the rash of school shootings is a relatively new phenomenon and “has not occurred in sufficient numbers to enable definitive conclusions to be made about the causes, predictions, or solutions,” they also point to the media’s cumulative desensitizing and legitimizing effect when it comes to children’s view of violence, especially “those who were never introduced to positive behavioral responses.” In their viewpoint, however, they do not view the media’s influence as being as important as the child’s internal and immediate environmental factors.

Whether or not a direct, causal relationship can be established between real-life violence and the fictional violence found in popular culture and the media, Katha Pollitt, columnist for The Nation points out that “thousands of hours of it can’t be good for the soul.” She goes on to say that maybe “[v]iolent and stupid entertainment is popular because it corresponds to reality, which is often violent and stupid.” Anne P. Dupre, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, further notes that “if these movies were not profitable, they would not be made.” Americans are entertained and fascinated by violence, and as Pollitt says, “the idea that Americans have been imposed upon by entertainment moguls who have seized control of culture is much too simple.”

It's a conclusion that's about as silly as Saturday Night Live's immortal Emily Litella commenting about "violins on television."
Researchers from Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute "tracked" about 700 children from adolescence to adulthood. Correlations between adolescents who watched more than one hour of TV per day and violent acts committed in their young adulthood were reported in the journal Science.
"Our findings suggest that, at least during early adolescence, responsible parents should avoid permitting their children to watch more than one hour of television a day. That's where the vast majority of the increase in risk occurs," said researcher Jeffrey Johnson.
An editorial accompanying the Science study advocates "interventions for adolescents … because a heavy diet of media violence contributes to a societal violence rate that is unnecessarily obese."
I've reached a different conclusion, however: Science's editors should be ashamed for once again allowing the prestigious journal to be the mouthpiece for junk science-fueled political correctness.