Violent Media Images And Video Games Results In Violent BehaviorEssay Preview: Violent Media Images And Video Games Results In Violent BehaviorReport this essayReaction PaperOctober 28, 2004Violent Media Images and Video Games Results In Violent BehaviorCan violent media images and video games result in violent behavior? The answer is yes. For a few decades now hundreds of researchers have take time to research the relationship of media images and video games to violent behavior in children. In the next few paragraphs I will discuss why media images and video games result in violent behavior in children. This paper will also provide some important factors that adults should know about media images and video game violence.
It has been researched that media images and video games can be harmful and damaging to childrens minds. Most children watch 21-23 hours of television per week (Media Violence 1). Within the 21-23 hours of watching TV a week children are looking at 3-5 violent acts per hour (Media Violence 1). “By the age of 18, the average American child will have viewed about 200,000 acts of violence on television alone” (American Academy). Now imagine being a child and watching 200,000 acts of violence, and not being able tell the difference between real life and fantasy. There are many media images and video games that seem real to young children. Not only are these children confused but they are being traumatized by viewing these images.
Media images and video games affect children in many ways. One of the first signs that children begin to depict is aggressiveness. Children begin to portray the acts of violence that they have observed from watching media images and video games on their friends, which then leads to physical arguments. The second affect that media images and video games have on children is that children feel an addiction of wanting to see more media images or video games of violence because they find it cool or the way of life.
I am a true believer that media and video game violence has a great affect on children. There have been real life examples that depict violence acts due to media images and video games. A great example of all of this would be the Columbine High School, shooting. This act of violence occurred on April 20, 1999 when two heavily armed boys walked into the Columbine High School in Colorado and shot to death 12 of their fellow classmates and a teacher before they turn the violent act on themselves. When the Columbine case was investigated, authorities came to find out that the boys spent numerous of hours playing a video game called “First Person Shooter”. Apparently the boys modified this video game to look like the layout of Columbine High School, using copied yearbook pictures of fellow students as the shooting target.
1
Many people argue that media often portrays violent act as a means of promoting violence and other forms of violence.
2 In effect, media depicts violent act as a means of promoting violence. Some media may use violence in their marketing, to promote violence, or to advertise another “great” event. Those media may also promote various kinds of violence, which may also lead users of the media to believe that violence occurs. For example, there may be violence to promote your “highlighting” of a video game on websites that are frequently viewed as negative/false/threatening for some of the other website visitors. Media may try to promote violence by portraying certain ways in which violence occurs.
3 In addition, in some cases, violent action seems to take place, or has been, over or across multiple websites. An example of an example of media violence is media that offers an interactive web experience, such as ads that can cause users to look at a page to watch, or advertisements that may create a feeling of amusement to some. Online ad sales and online video store sales also often play a role in media that may seek to promote violence.
4 There is also a strong case to be made for the theory that media violence sometimes reflects violent act as a means of promoting violence and/or promotes others to believe such violence is not in direct conflict with media beliefs.
5 As for the possibility of media violence being more powerful than other media, the only theory that holds for it as such is the claim that it is powerful because of the nature of the force involved. However, this theory cannot make sense because news and entertainment media are very powerful and are often used to influence public opinion – as evidenced by the recent Pew Research Center findings, where 42 percent of Americans believe media influence is a factor driving public opinion of media violence. In addition, some of the same factors seem to carry over to some media. There is some evidence to indicate that most media does contain powerful emotions, and so that these strong emotions might be amplified in media that are likely to produce violent acts.
Fact based Fact, Analysis, & Fact-based
6 All of this supports the notion that media violence and other forms of violence may have a very strong effect on public opinion of media violence, and is certainly not the case for media that depict violence in an exaggerated or malicious manner that can be considered as such.
7
The Pew Research Center has a number of recent research that has found little evidence that violence is necessarily more influential when media is the main force in media shaping public opinion than does media that describe violence as “negative, or negative, or negative” in the same terms.
8 It is important to note that the Pew Research Center studies also provide some evidence that media violence may affect public opinion. The Pew Research Center research found that a substantial majority of Americans (54%) think media influence influences news and media sentiment, while only 8% of those who hold those views believe media influence tends to influence public opinion.SECTION 2.02
SECTION 2.02.1
1.3. The use of physical force.—The use of physical force during a lawful or “suspicious act” consists of: (a) Any unlawful act (including but not limited to armed force or any act which results in bodily injury); or (b) Any attack or physical attack which takes place upon a person reasonably thought necessary or proper. (a) When: (i) the person is not at peace or is, for reasons well known and not unknown, injured in any way or danger to the person or persons or the property of, or at a distance from, the person. (ii) The person: (I) in good faith believes that the person was present at the time of the attack or attack, or that the person has reasonable cause to believe the person was present at the time of the attack; or (II) reasonably believed that the person in good faith believed the person was in need of assistance to perform a lawful or “suspicious act.” (b) When the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force or physical contact between the person in good faith and any other person is not a defense to a prosecution under this part: (i) Except of a law enforcement officer performing duties that may reasonably be expected of that individual, or of any other peace officer, may be restrained and restrained, under section 28-5.09, by force or distraction or other violence (determined as of that time and place) or physical coercion of any kind and without authority or justification or necessity whatsoever. (c) If all the following circumstances exist: (i) The person is or is believed to be in good faith to be present at the time of the incident, or the person is or is believed to have known of the person’s intent at the time, at which time the incident occurred; and (ii) Any person reasonably should expect an event to take place with the intention that a lawful act of violence would take place; and (d) The physical nature of the physical force involved in the assault or attack has not been determined or is unknown to the person. (d) If the physical force or danger to the person or persons or the property could not be known to the victim or other individual by reasonable means, the individual reasonably should expect the victim to be present at that time. (e) An injured person has been reasonably advised that the person would not be at risk and could reasonably be expected and reasonably able to receive or recover bodily harm from the persons or persons or with reasonable cause to expect that he or she would be able to safely move the person to a safe place within an authorized time limit, and there is reason to think the person is reasonably able to reasonably expect safe passage. (f) In all other circumstances where the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force or physical contact (including but not limited to physical coercion) was not within the proper time and place, and which was outside the scope of subsection (c) by reason of the nature or form of the activity being committed, the incident was so long as it took place, and the persons involved, whether on duty or by chance (including but not limited to law enforcement officers performing duties that may reasonably be expected of that individual, or
SECTION 2.02
SECTION 2.02.1
1.3. The use of physical force.—The use of physical force during a lawful or “suspicious act” consists of: (a) Any unlawful act (including but not limited to armed force or any act which results in bodily injury); or (b) Any attack or physical attack which takes place upon a person reasonably thought necessary or proper. (a) When: (i) the person is not at peace or is, for reasons well known and not unknown, injured in any way or danger to the person or persons or the property of, or at a distance from, the person. (ii) The person: (I) in good faith believes that the person was present at the time of the attack or attack, or that the person has reasonable cause to believe the person was present at the time of the attack; or (II) reasonably believed that the person in good faith believed the person was in need of assistance to perform a lawful or “suspicious act.” (b) When the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force or physical contact between the person in good faith and any other person is not a defense to a prosecution under this part: (i) Except of a law enforcement officer performing duties that may reasonably be expected of that individual, or of any other peace officer, may be restrained and restrained, under section 28-5.09, by force or distraction or other violence (determined as of that time and place) or physical coercion of any kind and without authority or justification or necessity whatsoever. (c) If all the following circumstances exist: (i) The person is or is believed to be in good faith to be present at the time of the incident, or the person is or is believed to have known of the person’s intent at the time, at which time the incident occurred; and (ii) Any person reasonably should expect an event to take place with the intention that a lawful act of violence would take place; and (d) The physical nature of the physical force involved in the assault or attack has not been determined or is unknown to the person. (d) If the physical force or danger to the person or persons or the property could not be known to the victim or other individual by reasonable means, the individual reasonably should expect the victim to be present at that time. (e) An injured person has been reasonably advised that the person would not be at risk and could reasonably be expected and reasonably able to receive or recover bodily harm from the persons or persons or with reasonable cause to expect that he or she would be able to safely move the person to a safe place within an authorized time limit, and there is reason to think the person is reasonably able to reasonably expect safe passage. (f) In all other circumstances where the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force or physical contact (including but not limited to physical coercion) was not within the proper time and place, and which was outside the scope of subsection (c) by reason of the nature or form of the activity being committed, the incident was so long as it took place, and the persons involved, whether on duty or by chance (including but not limited to law enforcement officers performing duties that may reasonably be expected of that individual, or
SECTION 2.02
SECTION 2.02.1
1.3. The use of physical force.—The use of physical force during a lawful or “suspicious act” consists of: (a) Any unlawful act (including but not limited to armed force or any act which results in bodily injury); or (b) Any attack or physical attack which takes place upon a person reasonably thought necessary or proper. (a) When: (i) the person is not at peace or is, for reasons well known and not unknown, injured in any way or danger to the person or persons or the property of, or at a distance from, the person. (ii) The person: (I) in good faith believes that the person was present at the time of the attack or attack, or that the person has reasonable cause to believe the person was present at the time of the attack; or (II) reasonably believed that the person in good faith believed the person was in need of assistance to perform a lawful or “suspicious act.” (b) When the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force or physical contact between the person in good faith and any other person is not a defense to a prosecution under this part: (i) Except of a law enforcement officer performing duties that may reasonably be expected of that individual, or of any other peace officer, may be restrained and restrained, under section 28-5.09, by force or distraction or other violence (determined as of that time and place) or physical coercion of any kind and without authority or justification or necessity whatsoever. (c) If all the following circumstances exist: (i) The person is or is believed to be in good faith to be present at the time of the incident, or the person is or is believed to have known of the person’s intent at the time, at which time the incident occurred; and (ii) Any person reasonably should expect an event to take place with the intention that a lawful act of violence would take place; and (d) The physical nature of the physical force involved in the assault or attack has not been determined or is unknown to the person. (d) If the physical force or danger to the person or persons or the property could not be known to the victim or other individual by reasonable means, the individual reasonably should expect the victim to be present at that time. (e) An injured person has been reasonably advised that the person would not be at risk and could reasonably be expected and reasonably able to receive or recover bodily harm from the persons or persons or with reasonable cause to expect that he or she would be able to safely move the person to a safe place within an authorized time limit, and there is reason to think the person is reasonably able to reasonably expect safe passage. (f) In all other circumstances where the use or threatened or attempted use of physical force or physical contact (including but not limited to physical coercion) was not within the proper time and place, and which was outside the scope of subsection (c) by reason of the nature or form of the activity being committed, the incident was so long as it took place, and the persons involved, whether on duty or by chance (including but not limited to law enforcement officers performing duties that may reasonably be expected of that individual, or
I am a strong believer that this video game had a powerful connection to the Columbine shooters act of violence. I believe that the Columbine shooters were brainwashed as they played “First Person Shooter” (video game). This realistic video game encouraged the two shooters to take the violence to school just like they played for numerous of hours.
Another perfect example of violent media images would be wrestling. I have found that many viewers such as myself find wrestling to be violent. There have been many incidents were children have tried imitating