Violence in the media
Jun. 1st, 2006 12:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethResearch reports published in the early 1970’s indicated that by age 14, the average child had witnessed more than 11,000 murders on television (Looney, 1971).
Looney, G. (1971, October). Television and the child: What can be done? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Chicago, IL.
or
By the time a child is eighteen years old, he or she will witness on television (with average viewing time) 200,000 acts of violence including 40,000 murders (Huston, et al, 1992).
Huston, A.C. et al (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
We have to write a one thousand word essay on different theories of the effect of media violence. So I've been reading the handout we were given (big thick wodge of photocopies, mostly from psychology review and psych textbooks, but the last section from Wiki, which I queried in class because my last year teacher said never use Wiki it doesn't count. This year teacher doesn't know what Wiki is, yet uses it for class handouts. This causes me to worry, just a little. /tangent). A lot of these bits of research tweak my Agenda sensors big time, people going hunting for what they are sure are there, bit of a worry.
But those numbers up there? I started with the 11,000 number and wanted to hunt a source, and then found that 40,000. And both numbers worry me. For I did Math.
(possibly badly - poke me if I'm wrong)
11,000 / 14 = 785 and a bit
785 / 52 = 15
785/365 = 2.15
so for that number to be correct, the average child must, from birth, have seen 2 and a bit murders every single day.
?!
40000 / 18 = 2222 and a bit
2222 / 52 = 42.7
2222 / 365 = 6
Six murders every single day of their lives? Where do they get these numbers from?
Have I screwed up the maths? Have I missed a . or something?
I found another site said that 11,000 was between the ages of 6 and 11, but it also said it was a different researcher and didn't say what publication it was from so I'll call that misremembered or something.
But, I go a great many days without seeing murders on TV. Granted, with my current DVD binge, I'm seeing whole planets get blowed up, but that would actually suggest the numbers are wrong in a completely different direction. I mean Alderaan probably had more than 11,000 inhabitants, and I'd guess a large proportion of the average Americans have seen that go boom. Which brings up, what are they calling murder? What are they calling 'seeing' murders? And how the frell did they get those numbers? I'm seeing them quoted, I'm not seeing them in the original places.
Aha! Have poked google until Google Books found the Big world, small screen thing. Am now poking it more to try and find numbers.
Score!
content analyses by George Gerbner and associates
level of violence in prime time, 5 violent acts per hour
in children's shows way more, peak at 32 violent acts in 1982
"if we multiply these rates of televised violence by the amount of viewing of the average pre-school and school aged child (two to four hours a day) we begin to understand the magnitude of the problem. By the time the average child graduates from elementary school she or he will have witnessed more than 8,000 murders"
the page after that it wants my Google password and I can't remember the stupid thing.
Actually, I just made up a new one, and now it simply doesn't work. Bonus.
but the last paragraph I can actually read says "The accumulated research clearly demonstrates a correlation between viewing violence and aggressive behaviour" and we just spent all lesson seeing how that just ain't so, so I am now frowny at this book.
But: they got their number by taking two averages other people did and smooshing them together.
4 hours a day at 32 violent acts adds up really fast.
But I'm not sure its terribly accurate. I mean, when I was little, I spent a lot of time watching Sesame Street and, er, Open University programs, not just 'children's television' of the smash stomp variety.
... I'm being fascinating to my f-list, I'm sure.
I just... so much of this 'violence' research is so...
There was a bit in one of the handouts about someone who was studying juvenile delinquents. One of her subjects had a fasination with samurai movies and did crime with a samurai sword. So, to this researcher, QED, media violence caused actual violence.
But I wanted to ask, was it samurai? Was it martial arts in general? Did she compare to rates of availability - last time I checked I could buy a 'samurai' sword for £20 easily, possibly a set of three. Its cheap tat, but it has the label to try and look classy. If the things are so easy to get hold of, does using one for crime be significant? And what was the kid getting out of 'samurai' movies? It isn't like the dudes were known for random violence. Was he concentrating on blood and gore, or did the code of honour appeal to him? How was he reading these things? What was he getting out of it? Why was it useful to him?
Why, rather crucially, do almost all people manage to watch the things without running around with Samurai swords?
I've been collecting news clippings related to the Highlander movie for years. I have found one of a mentally ill guy claiming to be immortal and waving a sword around. He also claimed he was being chased by little demons who wanted to eat him (iirc, I haven't reread lately, I can dig it out). So that isn't exactly a direct import from the film. And I've been looking.
Then once you get into the moral arguments for getting rid of media violence, they talk about 'protecting vulnerable people', which when you poke it turns out to mean 'making sure crazy people don't see anything to upset them'. Which, believe me, hiding to nothing. Can't be done. You eliminate all the violence, somebody somewhere is still going to see your pretty kittens and wildflowers and find it really upsetting.
Governments are/were making policy based on research that turns out to be based on incorrect media reports. Moral panics steer the nation's legal system. Shallow and *daft*.
/rant
Sorry. This is kind of why I'm not studying Sociology next year - it winds me up immensely, deals with these big huge things, and yet I can't figure anything I can do to make better. With studying stories I can make better stories, but making a better society is a bit out of my power.
Looney, G. (1971, October). Television and the child: What can be done? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Chicago, IL.
or
By the time a child is eighteen years old, he or she will witness on television (with average viewing time) 200,000 acts of violence including 40,000 murders (Huston, et al, 1992).
Huston, A.C. et al (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
We have to write a one thousand word essay on different theories of the effect of media violence. So I've been reading the handout we were given (big thick wodge of photocopies, mostly from psychology review and psych textbooks, but the last section from Wiki, which I queried in class because my last year teacher said never use Wiki it doesn't count. This year teacher doesn't know what Wiki is, yet uses it for class handouts. This causes me to worry, just a little. /tangent). A lot of these bits of research tweak my Agenda sensors big time, people going hunting for what they are sure are there, bit of a worry.
But those numbers up there? I started with the 11,000 number and wanted to hunt a source, and then found that 40,000. And both numbers worry me. For I did Math.
(possibly badly - poke me if I'm wrong)
11,000 / 14 = 785 and a bit
785 / 52 = 15
785/365 = 2.15
so for that number to be correct, the average child must, from birth, have seen 2 and a bit murders every single day.
?!
40000 / 18 = 2222 and a bit
2222 / 52 = 42.7
2222 / 365 = 6
Six murders every single day of their lives? Where do they get these numbers from?
Have I screwed up the maths? Have I missed a . or something?
I found another site said that 11,000 was between the ages of 6 and 11, but it also said it was a different researcher and didn't say what publication it was from so I'll call that misremembered or something.
But, I go a great many days without seeing murders on TV. Granted, with my current DVD binge, I'm seeing whole planets get blowed up, but that would actually suggest the numbers are wrong in a completely different direction. I mean Alderaan probably had more than 11,000 inhabitants, and I'd guess a large proportion of the average Americans have seen that go boom. Which brings up, what are they calling murder? What are they calling 'seeing' murders? And how the frell did they get those numbers? I'm seeing them quoted, I'm not seeing them in the original places.
Aha! Have poked google until Google Books found the Big world, small screen thing. Am now poking it more to try and find numbers.
Score!
content analyses by George Gerbner and associates
level of violence in prime time, 5 violent acts per hour
in children's shows way more, peak at 32 violent acts in 1982
"if we multiply these rates of televised violence by the amount of viewing of the average pre-school and school aged child (two to four hours a day) we begin to understand the magnitude of the problem. By the time the average child graduates from elementary school she or he will have witnessed more than 8,000 murders"
the page after that it wants my Google password and I can't remember the stupid thing.
Actually, I just made up a new one, and now it simply doesn't work. Bonus.
but the last paragraph I can actually read says "The accumulated research clearly demonstrates a correlation between viewing violence and aggressive behaviour" and we just spent all lesson seeing how that just ain't so, so I am now frowny at this book.
But: they got their number by taking two averages other people did and smooshing them together.
4 hours a day at 32 violent acts adds up really fast.
But I'm not sure its terribly accurate. I mean, when I was little, I spent a lot of time watching Sesame Street and, er, Open University programs, not just 'children's television' of the smash stomp variety.
... I'm being fascinating to my f-list, I'm sure.
I just... so much of this 'violence' research is so...
There was a bit in one of the handouts about someone who was studying juvenile delinquents. One of her subjects had a fasination with samurai movies and did crime with a samurai sword. So, to this researcher, QED, media violence caused actual violence.
But I wanted to ask, was it samurai? Was it martial arts in general? Did she compare to rates of availability - last time I checked I could buy a 'samurai' sword for £20 easily, possibly a set of three. Its cheap tat, but it has the label to try and look classy. If the things are so easy to get hold of, does using one for crime be significant? And what was the kid getting out of 'samurai' movies? It isn't like the dudes were known for random violence. Was he concentrating on blood and gore, or did the code of honour appeal to him? How was he reading these things? What was he getting out of it? Why was it useful to him?
Why, rather crucially, do almost all people manage to watch the things without running around with Samurai swords?
I've been collecting news clippings related to the Highlander movie for years. I have found one of a mentally ill guy claiming to be immortal and waving a sword around. He also claimed he was being chased by little demons who wanted to eat him (iirc, I haven't reread lately, I can dig it out). So that isn't exactly a direct import from the film. And I've been looking.
Then once you get into the moral arguments for getting rid of media violence, they talk about 'protecting vulnerable people', which when you poke it turns out to mean 'making sure crazy people don't see anything to upset them'. Which, believe me, hiding to nothing. Can't be done. You eliminate all the violence, somebody somewhere is still going to see your pretty kittens and wildflowers and find it really upsetting.
Governments are/were making policy based on research that turns out to be based on incorrect media reports. Moral panics steer the nation's legal system. Shallow and *daft*.
/rant
Sorry. This is kind of why I'm not studying Sociology next year - it winds me up immensely, deals with these big huge things, and yet I can't figure anything I can do to make better. With studying stories I can make better stories, but making a better society is a bit out of my power.