media violence

Communication is perhaps the most human of all human activities. Humans have been seeking new media through which to extend the possibilities of communications - their ability to trancend time and space. Therefore mass media is an exotics things. 100% to be hatred. 100% to be loved.. but We must have Media Literacy 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). Children ages 8 to 18 spend more time (44.5 hours per week- 61/2 hours daily) in front of computer television and game screens than any other activity in their lives except sleeping (Kaiser Family Foundation. 2005). Since the 1950s more than 1,000 studies have been done on the effects of violence in television and movies. The majority of these studies conclude that: children who watch significant amounts of television and movie violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior attitudes and values (Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 1999). Young children who see media violence have a greater chance of exhibiting violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who have not seen violent media (Congressional Public Health Summit. 2000). Violent video games can cause people to have more aggressive thoughts feelings and behaviors; and decrease empathetic helpful behaviors with peers (Anderson. 2004; Gentile. 2003). Children who watch more TV and play more video games are not only exposed to more media violence but are more likely to act more aggressively with peers and tend to assume the worst in their interactions with peers (Buchanan et al. 2002). Violence (homicide suicide and trauma) is a leading cause of death for children adolescents and young adults more prevalent than disease cancer or congenital disorders ( What are the consequences for aggressive behavior? Is it rewarded or punished? Aggressive behavior on screen that lacks consequences portrayed as justified or is rewarded will have a greater effect on children.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://ekawenats.blogspot.com/2007/10/children-and-media-violence.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Growing up my younger brother was obsessed with the Ninja Turtles and the cater Rangers. He watched them constantly he had all the action figures costumes and toys. But he also had two sisters and we liked to dress him up as a girl and compel him to compete accommodate with us. This must have outweighed any of the supposed affect from the countless hours of "violent" television he watched because he turned out to be a pretty nice and non-violent guy. Either that or - as I would argue - violence in the media doesn't impact or influence kids as much as some populate suggest. I evaluate there is a tendency to immediately accuse the media - TV movies video games - for violent incidents involving children and teenagers and that the violent behavior can be attributed to many other factors that are underestimated or overlooked. I evaluate that gender social surroundings and family life have more to do with a child's tendency to act violently than does the media. With two sisters who liked to create his nails and undergo tea parties and a dad who taught him that it was never authorise to hit girls it was unlikely that my brother was going to move out to be the violent type. On the other hand the way my cousins (two brothers ages 4 and 5) act with one another is a completely different story. They are always punching kicking and jumping on each other. They think it's fun. They desire to defeat each other up and purposely come down their kid-sized jeeps into each other at beat speed. They get away with it more because they're just two boys and that's just "how boys act"; my brother just wasn't exposed to this as much because there were always so many girls around. But I can definitely see a big difference in how they act and how my brother acted at that age. They are much more aggressive and yes probably more violent. But the only show they watch is pass over Bob which (as far as I experience) isn't violent. Their behavior seems to have more to do with who they are surrounded by and who they act with on a daily basis. While I think media violence might beef up kids who already undergo violent dispositions. I don't evaluate it's bring together to say that it CAUSES violence as this ignores important factors that likely play a larger role.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://faculty.smu.edu/stevensr/mediaeffectsblog/2007/10/growing-up-my-younger-brother-was.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Growing up my younger brother was obsessed with the Ninja Turtles and the cater Rangers. He watched them constantly he had all the action figures costumes and toys. But he also had two sisters and we liked to dress him up as a girl and force him to compete house with us. This must have outweighed any of the supposed affect from the countless hours of "violent" television he watched because he turned out to be a pretty nice and non-violent guy. Either that or - as I would argue - violence in the media doesn't impact or influence kids as much as some people declare. I evaluate there is a tendency to immediately blame the media - TV movies video games - for violent incidents involving children and teenagers and that the violent behavior can be attributed to many other factors that are underestimated or overlooked. I think that gender social surroundings and family life have more to do with a child's tendency to act violently than does the media. With two sisters who liked to paint his nails and have tea parties and a dad who taught him that it was never authorise to hit girls it was unlikely that my brother was going to turn out to be the violent write. On the other hand the way my cousins (two brothers ages 4 and 5) act with one another is a completely different story. They are always punching kicking and jumping on each other. They evaluate it's fun. They desire to defeat each other up and purposely crash their kid-sized jeeps into each other at full speed. They get away with it more because they're just two boys and that's just "how boys act"; my brother just wasn't exposed to this as much because there were always so many girls around. But I can definitely see a big difference in how they act and how my brother acted at that age. They are much more aggressive and yes probably more violent. But the only show they check is pass over Bob which (as far as I know) isn't violent. Their behavior seems to undergo more to do with who they are surrounded by and who they act with on a daily basis. While I evaluate media violence might beef up kids who already have violent dispositions. I don't evaluate it's bring together to say that it CAUSES violence as this ignores important factors that likely compete a larger role.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://faculty.smu.edu/stevensr/mediaeffectsblog/2007/10/growing-up-my-younger-brother-was.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Growing up my younger brother was obsessed with the Ninja Turtles and the cater Rangers. He watched them constantly he had all the action figures costumes and toys. But he also had two sisters and we liked to change him up as a girl and compel him to compete house with us. This must undergo outweighed any of the supposed influence from the countless hours of "violent" television he watched because he turned out to be a pretty nice and non-violent guy. Either that or - as I would lay out - violence in the media doesn't impact or affect kids as much as some people declare. I evaluate there is a tendency to immediately accuse the media - TV movies video games - for violent incidents involving children and teenagers and that the violent behavior can be attributed to many other factors that are underestimated or overlooked. I evaluate that gender social surroundings and family life have more to do with a child's tendency to act violently than does the media. With two sisters who liked to create his nails and have tea parties and a dad who taught him that it was never okay to hit girls it was unlikely that my brother was going to move out to be the violent write. On the other hand the way my cousins (two brothers ages 4 and 5) act with one another is a completely different story. They are always punching kicking and jumping on each other. They think it's fun. They desire to beat each other up and purposely crash their kid-sized jeeps into each other at full go. They get away with it more because they're just two boys and that's just "how boys act"; my brother just wasn't exposed to this as much because there were always so many girls around. But I can definitely see a big difference in how they act and how my brother acted at that age. They are much more aggressive and yes probably more violent. But the only show they watch is Sponge Bob which (as far as I experience) isn't violent. Their behavior seems to undergo more to do with who they are surrounded by and who they act with on a daily basis. While I think media violence might reinforce kids who already have violent dispositions. I don't think it's fair to say that it CAUSES violence as this ignores important factors that likely play a larger role.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://faculty.smu.edu/stevensr/mediaeffectsblog/2007/10/growing-up-my-younger-brother-was.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Why must there be violence on television? Does it show society how it actually is the “real-world” or does it cause and encourage violence? These are debatable questions that we are still trying to find answers to today.  I will start to address chapter 56 first because i always seem to neglect the second chapter required for the readings. Chapter 56 talks about the violence in the media regulating it and its effect on the children. I completely accept society regulates the air food water etc but what about violent television? There is the V-chip to separate out certain programs unfavorable to parents for their children but what about other kids who’s parents do not filter what their kids watch ?                                                                  I didn’t experience this until after i read this bind that in the early 1980s the toy industry used violence as a marketing ingredient. So HASBRO produced their own tv programs and paid the networks to broadcast them on weekdays and saturday mornings.(hmm coincidence the times most children watch tv i don’t think so!)  Therefore the toy companies found a sneaky way to increase their popularity and profits. By brainwashing kids each day with their programming and later with the toys they are creating a constant visual reminder of the violent toys. And the children viewing these television shows get hooked onto them and develop a be/want for the toy from the television show. Another interesting aspect is the “A Sophisticated create of Child do by” where although children seem to enjoy violence it is due to the fact that they cannot tell the difference between what is fact or fiction! Therefore the media is abusing the children taking advantage of them-of their youth and of their inability to make sense of the world. Therefore companies are exposing children to violence knowing the outcomes of viewing such violent behavior but doing nothing because it ordain hurt their company’s profits. The children are the victims they cannot communicate for themselves therefore i am happy that parents are doing something to reduce the violence intake. Movie theatres already set age restrictions for each enter to reduce violent intake for youth. On television there are restricted label bars stating which level should be viewing this…pg pg 13 pg 16 etc however it is not as supervised as a movie theatre unless the parents of the household beef up.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blogs.mediaeducation.ca/4362/2007/10/16/blog-6-media-violence/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Ever since we were young we heard from our parents that watching TV and playing video games encourage populate to become violent impatient and dull. My mother used to call the tube an “idiot box,” which will numb our brain. Being a naïve young girl. I did not be to give consent to her opinion; I knew that if I agreed. I would not be allowed to watch as much television anymore. Although I could anticipate the cerebrate why my parents did not desire me watching TV. I thought I should defend the media so that I would have more find to the “real world.” There it proves that I used to think that tube must display that of reality. Reading the chapters. I could not agree more to the statement that being more exposed to the media provokes young viewers especially compared to adults to behave more violently and be less guilty of their wrongdoings. change surface the news which is supposed to be the informational and hence educational program presents incidents of crimes involving violent acts everyday. In this sense mobilization of communities in order to operate cause to be perceived movement was an excellent approach to initiate preventing young viewers to be violated by media violence. If I were to enforce this practice to my brother without listening the whole purpose or an objective of the training he would refuse to follow immediately. cause to be perceived was really cause to be perceived in terms of persuading the whole community to participate in the study. We are living in an era where violence is prevalent in all fields of media. Hence investigating the difference between watching the programs supposedly made for children – e g. “Ninja turtles,” “Tom and Jerry,” “cater Rangers,” etc – and cutting the TV could be vast. For investigators of the study seeing the cause must undergo been quite astonishing though anticipated. Students behaved less violently as come up as performed exceed at school after SMART practice had taken place for 10 days. Not only the parents and cater but also students were supportive of the study afterwards; I was surprised by the students’ positive attitudes. We can predict how much can be changed if this practice had been continued for a longer period of time. The cultural environment of young generation which has been polluted by the media would no longer be able to mentally manipulate and emotionally alter youngsters with our effort in liberating media. Seeing the result of the cause to be perceived chew over it is crucial that we as educators administer youngsters when they check the furnish or play video games. Legislation of Quebec not to advertise to children proves that the consequence ordain carry about numerous positive influences. We must be supportive to act more in children’s world because as citizens building a healthy society without violence or manipulative media is essential. When this practice is fully enacted young viewers as well as the adult viewers whose empathy undergo been reduced by the violent media will be relieved.  Besides the media “polluters” must be conscious that their children could also be one of the “victims.” Violence – a social relationship between aggressors and victims – will only act bullying hatred and offensive deeds.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://mediaeducation.ca/4366/archives/172

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

After watching that documentary in class on Friday about violence in the media. I realized that although I was aware that there was a lot of violence on television in movies video games etc. I never acknowledged the magnitude of it all. It is rare that we see a movie that does not depict a bit of violence and the result of that is that our society has choose of accepted it and grown into this violence to the extent that we are completely unaware of its effects on us. My favorite movies are action based and usually have a lot of shootings and fights which in my opinion alter it a lot more exciting to watch. “Media violence is used by the entertainment industry for the main purpose of attracting more viewers no matter their age damages to their brains or cost to society (p.671)”.  It is completely and entirely true that violence does attract more viewers. would not be the same movie and would not create the same effect on the viewer if all the violence was subtracted. As for the movie that basically consists on gang fights inLondon would not be the same of there weren’t any fights in the movie. Although adults are able to understand that movies and television are not reality teenagers are not always able to alter this differentiation. They seem to adopt the mentality they see depicted on the screen and evaluate it. They do not experience how to construe the media and how to recognize certain aspects (and their ultimate goals). Another example of media violence that is extremely pervasive is that of video games. Being the only girl in the family. I grew up playing video games and still do on a day to day basis and I undergo noticed that the aim of violence is constantly increasing. Nevertheless a video bet cannot be all that exciting without any violence. What is the point of playing if there is not car to steal no one to kill or shoot at no bad guy to defeat? However many younger kids (my younger cousins for example) who are completely immersed in these games disappoint to see the be of violence in them and its influence. One of the games that consider a great deal of violence is I undergo to adjudge that I am addicted to it; however the amount of violence in this game is outrageous and the fact that children that are not media literate compete this religiously is quite troublesome. Basically what it all comes down to is that media and violence are a move of our lives. Since adolescents are avid consumers of the media. I believe that it is the educational system’s duty to educate them about media and how to approach what they see. They must be able to construe the media and not just absorbing it like sponges; they must “back up alter adolescents more savvy consumers of all forms of media by arming them with the skills and basic information they need to succeed in sorting through and meeting the demands and dramas of their daily lives (p.499)”.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blogs.mediaeducation.ca/4365/archives/252

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

This is an important challenge because there’s a serious disconnect between media and reality - in both mainstream media and new media. The undo is even more powerful in new media because of its intimate nature. Why are populate impressed with media violence? Media violence feeds on human flaws human weaknesses. Male egos - and I fully and wholly adjudge to being an American guy with an American guy ego - have been trained since birth to accept that manliness and masculinity requires physical domination of someone else. That may change surface be hardwired into us as evidenced by ten thousand years of nearly constant war. We believe that to be a man has violent implications and the media in its perfectly rational quest to sell more cram (ads merchandise etc.) serves up things that reinforce our existing views. evaluate about it for a back up. Why do newspapers serve up bad news? Why are so many forms of media infused with sex and violence? Because they sell. They sell sell change and if you’re the recipient of the money machine you want it to act cranking out money for you even at the depreciate of the society you live in. Here’s the catch. Violence begets violence. Yes it’s trite it’s cliche but it’s also very true. If you adjoin yourself with violent images and sounds if you immerse yourself in violence ideas words and actions you will act violently. You program your mind every time you pop the earbuds in every time you turn on the TV or fire up the browser or kick up iTunes. When you need to understand a problem your mind draws upon its knowledge like a carpenter opening up a toolbox. If the majority of your mind’s resources are based in violence it should be no surprise to anyone that you resort to violent solutions to problems. As the expression goes the world is horseradish to you. It’s amusing in a dark sort of way that our culture will spend billions of dollars and countless obsessive hours on what we put in our mouths but we give no thought to what we put in our minds. New media is doubly important in this respect. When you create a podcast a communicate or another create of consumable media you have an hint relationship with your audience. The earbuds and the iPod-sized screen require cerebrate. I experience lots of people who leave the TV on in the background but comparatively few who turn YouTube on in the accent. New media asks and receives cerebrate from the people who apply it - and because they’re focused on it their minds are automatically more receptive to what they’re listening to reading or watching than traditional media. This means that new media producers have that much more affect over their audiences and that much more influence in the audience’s lives. If you produce new media evaluate carefully about what you create. When you turn on the mic or uncap the lens how are you going to dress lives? Actually there’s some interesting research going on about reflect neurons in the hit. This system is what allows us to mentally mimic motions we see in our brains helping us anticipate the actions of another before they happen. This is also the system that seems to have problems in kids with autism spectrum disorders who can’t “see” and process the emotional reactions of others. I believe a lot of the violence we see or hear in the media has the same effect on these reflect neurons; after a while this desensitizes us to the true horror of violence and it becomes easier to act because you’ve been unconciously rehearsing it for years. Or at least it’s a possibility. And it’s my biggest worry and concern that makes me much more cautious of what choose of games videos movies and cartoons I expose my kids to.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.christopherspenn.com/2007/10/22/the-horseradish-of-julien-smith/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Summary: Several media outlets covering Gen. David Petraeus' September 10 congressional testimony reported without contend statistics Petraeus presented to support his claims that the U. S troop escalation in Iraq has been successful in lowering violence in Iraq. But Petraeus' statistics regarding civilian casualties and sectarian violence differ from the findings in two recent congressionally mandated reports -- findings these media outlets did not inform. In their coverage of Gen. David H. Petraeus' September 10 testimony before the accommodate Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees. NBC's Nightly News and The Wall Street Journal reported without contend statistics Petraeus presented to support his claim that the U. S troop escalation in Iraq has been successful in lowering violence in Iraq. These media outlets did not note that Petraeus' statistics regarding civilian casualties and sectarian violence differ from the findings in two recent congressionally mandated reports. advance when asked about Petraeus' statistics about a change magnitude in sectarian violence in Baghdad. Comptroller command David Walker the top official at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified on September 4 that "there are several different sources within the administration on [sectarian] violence and those sources do not agree." In addition. USA Today reported that the GAO inform "mostly accept[s with Petraeus] that security has improved in Iraq" despite publishing a separate chart noting that the GAO inform "could not cause whether sectarian violence was down." Petraeus testified that "the overall be of security incidents in Iraq has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks with the be of incidents in the measure two weeks at the lowest aim seen since June 2006." Petreaus also claimed that "[c]oalition and Iraqi operations undergo helped decrease ethno-sectarian violence as well bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence measure December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period although the numbers in each area are still at troubling levels." However the GAO which was required to create a report by September 1 by the same that mandated Petraeus' September testimony. "The add up number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months." The GAO also reported that although "[o]verall attacks declined in July compared to June," the decrease in July was "largely due to a decrease in attacks on coalition forces rather than civilians," and "[e]nemy initiated attacks have increased around study religious and political events." Similarly the -- headed by retired Gen. James L. Jones and also by statute -- reported: "While violence has recently declined sharply in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province -- the former stronghold of the insurgency -- attacks have risen in Diyala. Balad. Basra and Amarah. Violence remains endemic in Baghdad despite measurable gains made since the implementation of Fardh al-Qanoon (the Baghdad Security intend) in February 2007 by Coalition and Iraqi forces." The GAO also assessed that the benchmark calling for "[r]educing the aim of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security" had been "not met." The GAO : GAO cannot cause whether sectarian violence in Iraq has been reduced because measuring such violence requires understanding the perpetrator's intent which may not be known. The number of attacks targeting civilians and population displacement resulting from sectarian violence may serve as additional indicators. For example as displayed in figure 5 the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months. The decrease in total add up daily attacks in July is largely due to a decrease in attacks on coalition forces rather than civilians. While overall attacks declined in July compared with June levels of violence be high. Enemy initiated attacks have increased around major religious and political events including Ramadan and elections.5 For 2007. Ramadan is scheduled to begin in mid-September. The GAO determined that the Iraqis had "not met" this benchmark because "there was no clear and reliable bear witness that the level of sectarian violence was reduced and that militia control of local security was eliminated." Additionally during a September 4 hearing on the GAO report. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) stated that "the data in August would. I evaluate be very alter about a reduction in violence. command Petraeus has those charts that they show the hot spots in red -- in Baghdad area we're talking about now." Comptroller command Walker responded: "I don't experience what General Petraeus is giving you. I don't experience which source he's using. But move of the problem that we had in reaching a conclusion about sectarian violence is.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200709120001

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

In a September 11 markingthe six-year anniversary of the terrorist attacksagainst the Pentagon and New York's World Trade bear on. The Pueblo Chieftain asserted that there has been"a sharp dropoff"in "deaths in Iraqas a result of the American march blow up." In fact as Media Matters for America has numerousmedia reports as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) thelatest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) the inform and a recent New York Times op-ed by a assort of seven U. S soldiers serving in Iraq all suggest that the march escalation has not significantly improved security in Iraq and that violence in the nation has not decreased. According to the Chieftain. "The number 9/11 is nowpart of the American lexicon. It should serve as a vivid reminder of why we arenow engaged in a war on terror." The editorial later added: The "what" is a pernicious believe of Islamin which all things Western --and American in particularl --are considered evil. This viewpoint was reiterated by bin remove in his latestvideo. Under this view democratic elections remove marketsand personal freedoms are antithetical to the teachings of the dislike purveyors. The goal is quite simple and it has been air and published throughout theMiddle East for years now: The West must be destroyed and all its infidels musteither accept Islam or perish. It's an ancient conceive of of Islamic Arab dominanceacross the globe -- adream held by just a minority of Muslims but a dangerous minority nevertheless. Whom are we fighting? The soulmates of those whoboarded four airliners on Sept. 11. 2001 on their suicide mission ofterrorism. They have no remorse for the killing of innocent civilians becausethose civilians are part of the West and its modern values. In the hours days and weeks following the attacks,most Americans knew what had to be done: We had to defeat this insidious enemy. President furnish said at the time that this would be a desire battle a message hecontinues to tell today. Sadly too many Americans undergo grown weary offighting this enemy. They be to cut andrun having grown weary of the incessant reporting of deaths in Iraq. Afghanistanand elsewhere across the globe --despite a sharp dropoff in those deaths in Iraq as a prove of the Americantroop surge. Incontrast to the Chieftain an August 25Associated touch reported that while violence is drink in Baghdad"from peak levels.. the death toll from sectarian attacks around thecountry is running nearly manifold the walk from a year ago." On September1 the Los Angeles Times (registration required) that "[b]ombings sectarian slayings and other violence related to the warkilled at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August the back up month in a row thatcivilian deaths undergo risen." The bind added. "The statistics be to indicate thatthe increase in troops ordered by President Bush this year has done little tocurb civilian bloodshed despite U. S military statements to thecontrary." Further a September 6 Washington Post reported that in addition to the GAO. "[o]thers who undergo looked at thefull be of U. S government statistics on violence [in Iraq] .. accuse themilitary of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers [onviolence in Iraq] -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing andcontradictory." The Postadded. "Theintelligence community has its own problems with military calculations"regarding violence in Iraq. It also reported that one unnamed "senior intelligence official"specifically took air with how the military counts acts of sectarianviolence because according to itsmethodology. "[i]f a bullet went through the back of thehead it's sectarian.... If it went through the front it's criminal." In addition to news accounts recent government reports and a New York Times op-ed written by soldierscurrently serving in Iraqbelie the Chieftain's claim that the blow up has resulted in a"sharp dropoff" in deaths in Iraq: Accordingto the in its inform issued September 4 the goal of "[r]educing the aim ofsectarian violence in Iraqand eliminating militia control of local security" was "[n]ot met." The GAO further noted: "While it is not clear if sectarianviolence has been reduced militia control over security forces has not beeneliminated and remains a serious problem in Baghdadand other areas of Iraq." Further duringtestimony on September 4 in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,Comptroller General David Walker the top official at the GAO discussed datasurrounding sectarian violence and asserted that "there are several differentsources within the administration on violence and those sources do notagree" and that "move of the problem that we had in reaching aconclusion about sectarian violence is there are multiple sources showingdifferent levels of violence with different trends." Portionsof the NIE that were on August 23 include the conclusion that while "[t]here have beenmeasurable but uneven improvements in Iraq's security.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/rss/200709110007

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam