Violent Video Games: The Effects on Youth, and Public Policy Implications
Violent video games and the effects they may have on youth, and public policies is the main focus of this article. It starts with the history of video games and the amount of violence progression. As many other aspects of life progress over time, so does the violence and reality of games. Next the article explains the multiple tests and theories about aggression and aggressive behavior. The studies were conducted of not only children, but teenagers and adults. Many of these studies proved to be successful but couldn't be consistent because of the change of violence over time. Media was the next eye opener in the article. The intense scrutiny of video games as is stated was the "result of tragic school shootings in which the shooters had a history of playing violent video games". This was a explained through the reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as early as 2000. Even though the tragedies drew much attention to the potential effects of violent video games, it was said "these are actually not good examples of the effects". The next subject is the risk factors that would play a role into becoming violent. Most people who play violent video games would not later become violent themselves. If more of the risk factors (abused, psych. disorders, gang membership, drug use, media violence, and inflated self-esteem) are present with a child than the risk would be further elevated. Parental control has also confirmed to be successful with children's aggressive habits. Public policy is also put into question with children's exposure to media violence. It is said that there are at least three pillars of responsibility. These are the video game industry, the rental and retail industry, and parents. Although there had been few publicly funded efforts to educate parents about media ratings, it is a responsibility to limits your child's content. The Government enforced ratings and restrictions are common except for the United States. First amendment concerns hold a big role in this aspect. At the end it explains how there is too little public policy debate on how to reduce child and youth exposure of media violence. Many of the debates were focused on whether there is sufficient scientific evidence of the harmful effects. The last note is "what public policies would likely be the most effective".
Weinstein, Tarantino and the standoff over movie violence
This article describes the violence in movies and how little it has been discussed. It starts with Harvey Weinstein vowing to back away from making violent films. Then it explains why dismissing what he said is no good and why it is an important subject. The decline in overall crime has gone down but somehow mass shootings are more frequent. Andrew then goes on to talk about how there is usually two sides to the argument. The first being that violence in media is corrupting our youth and society as a whole. Second is that violence is an appetite and almost therapeutic as a universe. He states that neither statement can be true, yet both can be false as we are about most wisdom of violence in America. The amount of firearms is also taken into consideration and the murder rate as well. Andrew finishes the article by saying that what Weinstein said was serious and should be talked about.
Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?
The article starts with a realistic statement that "the first few people on earth needed no books, movies, games or music to inspire cold-blooded murder". Marilyn says that religion has given us a picture of what death and sexuality is based around our culture. He says that the media has made killers an icon just as much as our movie stars. Then he talks about how the shooters of Columbine were on the front page of the newspaper. Giving the next kid whose pushed around "new idols" as he put it. He talks about how the initial report said they were dressed like him and obviously worshipped him. After he says that responsible journalists reported the shooters didn't even listen to his music and had no interest in him. The fact he says "isn't killing just killing" implies that there is no effect his music or him as a person can have. The point he brings is that there is violence everywhere. It is in our religion, media, music and ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment