I read ahead in the Tyner book. Chapter 7 made me stop and think. Tyner is talking about the history of media education in the U.S. She spends a large portion of the chapter talking about how the U.S. has viewed media consumption as bad for young people. In this discussion, the negative effect of media violence is brought up. This led me to some questions about research and finding truthful information.
As an undergraduate, I had psychology and communications professors who insisted that research showed a correlation media violence and aggressive/violent behavior. They did say it was only a correlation, but it was strong enough to cause grave concerns. One psychology professor went so far as to say it was comparable to the correlation between smoking and cancer. Other professors and sources from communications, English, and library classes have said that the evidence is absolutely inconclusive. Each side has their arguments and studies and swears they are correct. (Tyner does a nice job of going through the history of this research and pointing out problems in the research when they occur.)
I am not looking for a solution to this dilemma. I’m looking for a way I can make my own informed decision. When there is an issue, such as this one, that is controversial, how does one get past the rhetoric and agendas and find clear information? Both sides present “evidence” to prove their point, how can a person best evaluate this “evidence” objectively? Is it possible to get unbiased information?
Everyone respond to this post, because I have no idea. I need some good thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think it's pretty hard to respond to this, because there's such conflicting "evidence" on this issue. Basically I don't think anyone has an idea, and they are doing the kind of research where they start out with an opinion and find various semi-facts out of context to back up what they believe.
So at this point I think may have to go by common sense. I personally don't appropriate singular blame to any one cause in society, be it media violence, bad parenting, peer influence, or whatever else. At the same time, I do think it probably has some effect on kids (more than if all we saw on TV were happy golucky lovey dovey-ness).
Another way you might find out more is by talking to experienced teachers and librarians about what their experiences are.
But ultimately, to my knowledge this is a very very contested topic. It's interesting that your professors were all trying to prove that media violence does have effects, because the people I have encountered all say the exact opposite.
Oh, I just remember this study I did research on as an intern a few years ago. It was basically trying to say that instead of passing laws to curb violent and sexual content (i.e. restricting freedom of speech and possibly causing educational programming on, say, African tribes where women are naked, to be illegal as well), we should focus on media ownership. The study showed that since a 1996 law that allowed for more concentration in the media industry (and the subsequent massive growth of Clear Channel), indecent programming has increased substantially on radio.
This relates a bit to the Beyond Beats and Rhymes video that talked about how industry has supported nasty hoochie rap over the more revolutionary, artistic forms.
Here's an article by Henry Jenkins on the PBS site (we read a chapter from his Convergence Culture book already) that reflects a more positive view of video games:
Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked
He testified before Congress after the Columbine shootings based on his position at MIT with the Media studies program there, and the Chronicle of Higher Education described the response later:
"[The] testimony made him a hero to many who read it online after thousands of people e-mailed it to their friends. A techno artist remixed it into an upbeat song called "Goth Control." The online video-game publication Penny Arcade called Jenkins "the last line of defense against the hordes of irrational, knee-jerk parents' groups and anti-game zealots."
(note: the quote is from an article titled "The Mud-Wrestling Maven from MIT" by Jeffrey Young, published September 14, 2007. If the link above doesn't work for you, go to this link, where you can log in as a UIUC student to get access.)
I was looking at the reading list and on the second to last week of class we Jenkins' article. I tend to agree with Jenkins, but calling people "hordes of irrational, knee-jerk parents' groups" is immature and does nothing to promote positive discussion about the issue. Even if they are misguided, these parents simply want what is best and safest for their children, and you can hardle blame them for that. Many times these parent group have other moral or religious agendas, but honestly, Jenkins, MIT, Penny Arcade have agendas too. To position one group as the enemy, even if you disagree with them, is counterproductive. It changes no one's mind and does not further thoughtful research.
John,
your comments about Tyner's chapter 7 and media consumption strikes a chord with me too. I understand that many sources see media education as little more than an excuse to watch TV, play on the computer, or view videos. Some people don't see or understand that as consumers of something, we need to be cognizant of the various components of it. There are all types of education and understanding. We need to have experience with and access to a variety of those types in order to better function in our complex world.
As someone who grew up as an avid TV watcher, I have read and heard a lot about the problems associated with TV. It gets blamed for many of society's ills - it's too violent, shows too many inappropriate things, causes our society to deteriorate.
But then there is the flip side - TV merely reflects the changes in our society and unfortunately those are ever increasing violence, dropping off of morality, and tendency to accept lower standards. Where do we draw the line and how do we determine who's to blame for all of the problems?
Obviously, it's not an easy answer. TV and other media tend to be easy scapegoats. Do the writers, producers, and directors share part of the responsibility? Yes, they do. Do consumers/watchers have a role as well? Yes, they do.
I tend to take a middle ground approach to this idea of who's at fault. TV is a reflection of how our society has changed, and in some cases, it can help to change society - for good or for bad. It finally arrives at our own personal doorstep to be able to assimilate the information.
For example, as a child, most of the "family shows" on TV that I watched showed what we now refer to as the golden age of TV. Mom, Dad, and the children all sat around the dinner table and worked out any situations - not really problems- to everyone's satisfaction. Today's "families" are at best disfunctional - single parents, kids who are loud mouthed smart alecs, and problems that never get resolved are the norm. Are either of these realistic? No!
But the same can be said for other media that has been around a lot longer than TV. Do the families depicted in Shakespeare's plays reflect the violence of his time period? Yes indeed. Does it mean that because I read Hamlet that I think murder is the solution to my family's problems? No! Can I learn something from the interaction of the characters and themes of the plays? Absolutely.
I've read a lot of articles, books, and journals which tout the solution to our modern problems with TV is to simply stop watchiing TV. Many of these resources offer a "self-help" program in which parents or anyone basically weans themselves or their loved ones from watching TV. Or at a minimum, the suggestions are to watch only so many minutes per day and then with a very strict control over what we watch. The authors of these materials are well known medical professionals, educational gurus, or concerned citizens who become the experts in the field.
However, their solutions fall into the extremes. It's an all or nothing approach. I've yet to read one that offers a common sense approach to the problem. They all seem to see a simple solution to a very complex situation.
I think it's like saying that because some people are allergic to peanuts or some get hyper when they eat too much sugar, then we should all stop eating peanut butter and stop using sugar. Absurd!
Is all TV bad? No. Is everyting on TV suitable for everyone? No. We have to be able to make choices. If we abdicate our responsbility in this whole process, then we suffer the consequences. And that's the thing about choices - having choices is a positive, making them is the hard part.
Do some kids get violent because of what they watch on TV? Sure - there are some kids who are easily influenced. Do some kids make better decisions because of something they learned on TV? Sure- there are changes that occur because we've watched others struggle through certain situations.
So how do we make informed decisions? We have to be consumers who are informed and who are able to express our preferences. And we have to be able to make decisions that affect ourselves and our loved ones. If we don't like the programming we see, then don't watch it and let those people who are in the industry know. Write, call, or email TV networks. Let the commercial sponsors know as well. Money still speaks loudly. Monitor what the people we're responsible for are watching. Discuss the issues with them and teach them how to differentiate between the good and bad influences.
I think your last phrase is the best idea. We have to make informed decisions. We wouldn't ban a book (or shouldn't) if we haven't read it. We need to look at the item in question, learn about it, and then evaluate it in terms of our own system of beliefs. We can't just reply on the "experts" in this situation. We have to reflect on what information we've gathered and then make that informed decision to the best of our own resources and abilities. We can't abdicate our role in media education. It's far too important.
Post a Comment