When a person or persons create media that contains scenes of violence, they rar

Question

When a person or persons create media that contains scenes of violence, they rarely, if ever, have the intent of, “I sure hope someone who interacts with my work commits violent acts against others after the interaction.” Not only is said intent not present, but how can media creators foresee violent actions that may result from their media?

When someone creates a film containing violence for the purpose of entertaining others and then a viewer murders someone after seeing the film, it’s unreasonable to put blame on the creator. The creator cannot account for the intents, mental states, personalities, etc., of every potential viewer of the media, and it’s unreasonable to expect a creator to do so.

Essentially, putting the burden of duty of care on creators of violent media will serve no other purpose than to unreasonably censor said creators. If media creators are held responsible for violent acts derived from violent media, then the only choice is to start creating media that includes little to no violence so that it cannot be claimed that a violent scene caused real-life violence. While this forced self-censorship would not directly violate First Amendment speech rights, it’s still a massive impedance on the free speech of media creators and unreasonably unfair.

Finally, putting the burden of responsibility on the creators of media ignores the responsibilities of other involved parties. Should the parents of a child who commits a violent crime after viewing violent content not be held responsible for allowing their child to view such content? The parents should be the ones who control what media their children interact with. It’s not the responsibility of a media creator to actively prevent certain people from viewing their media.

Some people like to think that we are totally in control of who we are, that we are the only ones who decide what goes on in our own minds and the sole decision-makers in our lives. However, that isn’t the full story. We are heavily influenced by the world outside our minds, from the books we read to the people we converse with to the movies we watch. It’s simply not reasonable to argue that interacting with violent media has zero influence on our decisions.

Can violent movies or video games pick up a weapon and kill someone? Of course not. But can violent media influence growing minds toward violent actions? This question isn’t so open-and-shut. When the glorified heroes in our films and television shows regularly use violence, or when our increasingly realistic video games reward players for how efficiently they can kill people, it’s not too far-fetched to say that these media are teaching children to be violent or, if nothing else, to become desensitized to real-life violence. Is it really reasonable to argue that real-life violence is not foreseeable as a possible consequence of creating and distributing violent media?

Page 236In addition, creators of this media should bear some kind of responsibility for crimes with violent media influence because, unfortunately, most people will not take any responsibility for moderating the media that young minds consume. For example, a 2012 survey given by the UK-based gaming website playr2.com revealed that 64 percent of parents do not check age recommendations on video games before purchasing them for their children. Most parents do not monitor what their children watch or play, and, as a result, these children can be exposed to horribly violent media before they fully understand the implications of what they are interacting with. We cannot force parents to stop allowing their children to view such media, so unfortunately some of the burden of responsibility for crimes derived from violent media has to be on the creators of said media.

Finally, media creators, realizing the effect their media could potentially have on those who experience the media, have the choice to not create media that includes violence. There are countless examples of successful films, books, television shows, video games, etc., that contain absolutely no violence. Violence is not needed to sell a product. So, by creating media containing violence, a creator is accepting the risk that their product could inspire someone to commit a violent act and that the creator can therefore be held responsible in some way.

Review the Point/Counterpoint at the end of chapter 9. Do you agree with the No side or the Yes side. Why?

Explanation / Answer

We agree with no side.

Reason

It is true that one cannot detach from the thing one consumes. It has impact on feelings, thoughts etc.

So, there may be influence of voilent media on person consuming it.

However, to put blame squarely on creators of voilent media is also not right.

Creators just create the media amd in this highly commercial world try to incorporate ingredients that can help them sell their product.

Sometimes they use extreme voilence to do this but to say that they are doing this to encourage some young person to kill someone or become extremely voilent is not right perspective.

Secondly, media creators can only create content and have control over that but they do not have control over how end user is perceiving their creation.

To put sole responsibility on media creators for causing voilence through their creation is a false notion.

Society as a whole has to come forward and work in tandem to educate users to differentiate between fiction and reality.

Family has to be the foremost unit in this endeavor. Regular stock taking of what is being watched by young ones, whether it is suitable or not can lead to reduced interaction of youngsters with voilent media.

This can create an atmosphere where voilent media is still be created but is catering to those who can ably differentiate between reality and fiction.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.