Lilah Gilmore Tuesday/Thursday Media Aggression and Violence The argument about the connection between media violence

and aggression is definitely an interesting one. Both sides make many good points. I felt like the point made about television being able to sell goods such as cereal or salsa was one of the most effective points. The idea that just watching television could make one crave such items definitely coincides with the idea that watching television could make one crave violence. The point about thousands of dollars being spent just to get a product one minute of airtime proves that the media knows how impressionable viewers, especially young ones, are. Therefore, violence can be seen as a product that is being sold to the audience. Another great point that was made was the analogy between smoking and media violence. The article pointed out six parallels between the relationship between smoking and lung cancer and media violence and aggression. By comparing the problems of smoking and media violence, the point about media violence becomes more tangible. By comparing the nauseating effects of a first cigarette to the eventual craving of more cigarettes, a strong comparison is formed between watching violence in disgust to eventual desensitization or even craving violence. Another comparison that he uses under this analogy is the long term effect. He compares the severity of long term smoking to long term exposure to violence. Long term smoking can cause horrible damage; just as long term viewing of violence will increase violent tendencies in people.

One of the arguments made from the yes side that I felt didnt really help to prove their case was the point about the catharsis hypothesis. It discusses Aristotles teachings on how the ancient Greeks found emotional release from view tragic plays. During this argument, it seems almost as if the author is agreeing that the emotional release is a good thing. The author even goes so far quote A. A. Brill that the television is a good tool for emotional release. This gives the reader a mixed signal; the author now seems to be agreeing that violent media can provide a good release. This, of course, nullifies many of the previous statements made about the horrible effects violent media can have on people. Also, with the author telling one of the positive aspects of violent media, it seems that the author himself doesnt wholeheartedly believe that media violence is strongly linked to aggression. If the author doesnt believe it himself, then how is the reader supposed to believe the author? Therefore, I thought this argument was not just the least effective, but also detrimental to the whole yes sides case. One point I found from the no side that I thought was effective was the accusation about an exaggeration of research. The article says that pediatricians said that they based their statements off of the 3500 studies that have been done over the link between media violence and aggression. According to the author, this was a complete exaggeration; there have been nowhere near that many studies. He then compares it to this scenario: if someone were to say that there are 150 states in the United States then no one would trust anything else they said. This argument makes an excellent case that since it is highly unlikely that there are that many studies, why should society believe any of the other facts linking violent media to aggression given to us by the pediatricians. Another argument that I found effective from the no side

was about a study that was conducted. In the study, one group of children watched aggressive cartoons and the other group watched Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. The childrens levels of violence and impatience were then measured. The results showed that watching violent cartoons did not make the children aggressive. In fact, they responded the same as the ones who watched Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. I thought that this point was extremely effective because it specifically mentioned an experiment that had been done and gave the results of the experiment. The argument that I felt was the weakest from the no side was saying why the APA agreed that media violence causes aggression. The author tells the reader that the APA was perhaps appeasing Congress or concerned about its public image, which is why it agreed that violent media is bad. I felt like this was the weakest argument because there was absolutely no scientific fact to back it up. It was just an assumption. Overall, I agree with the no side. I dont believe that media violence causes aggression. As pointed out in the article, aggression has been on the decline while it seems violence in media is becoming more widespread and more gratuitous. There really isnt a surefire way to conduct an experiment to affirmatively link the two together. Like the yes side mentioned, if one looks at violence like a product being sold to the audience just like commercial products, then violence definitely makes its way into the minds of the audience. But, stating that the violence then causes strong aggressive impulses from the viewers, I dont agree with. That being said, I will limit my childs exposure to violence when I become a parent , but not because of the supposed links to aggression. The first reason is that I wouldnt want my

child to be desensitized to violence so early in life. The second is that most violent media doesnt have the best value system; I wouldnt want my child to learn their moral values from a morally unsound television show. The last reason was actually mentioned briefly in the beginning of the article, (A twelve year old boy kills his friend after imitating a professional wrestler whom he saw on television,) but the author chalked it up to the violence influencing the child; children are very impressionable. They will copy what they see on television without putting much thought into it, but I dont think it has anything to do with aggression caused by the media violence. Generally, both sides had very good points. Yet, I believe that even with these articles, the debate about media violence and aggression will still wage on.