joeySimzee
15th Jun 2008, 11:29 AM
I've decided to start a debate thread after reading through this one right here (http://forums.sims2community.com/showthread.php?t=51916) on whether Video Games should be blamed for violence. I'm going broaden the scope by posing a new question:
"Should the MEDIA be blamed for increased violence?"
What do YOU think of this? My English teacher raised this discussion topic in class the other day (we were told to do some research on our own beforehand), and it gave me food for thought. A lot of valid points were also exchanged within the class.
Someone brought up a point he read in an online article that millions of people all over the world watch violent movies and read such news articles on a daily basis without committing dreadful and unlawful acts, so if media really WERE such a bad influence, then that country would have been full of ruthless criminals.
Also, someone else with a different view shared another article he read which said that the reason Los Angeles became a violent city was due to the fact that it had been repeatedly portrayed as a violent city in fiction and movies. The article implied that after seeing of so much violence in movies, the inhabitants of Los Angeles became violent too. Researches related to this have been done in many countries as well, with all of them coming to the same conclusion that viewing violence in movies and TV shows does cause people to become more violent.
I haven't seen the article he mentioned myself, but his points do make sense and I do remember hearing the same thing about Los Angeles somewhere else.
So, since it IS true that the media gives publishing news of violence more emphasis than any other kind of news, is it fair then to conclude that it IS the media that's responsible for increased violence in the world today? In other words, should the media be blamed, or not?
Do share your ideas.
"Should the MEDIA be blamed for increased violence?"
What do YOU think of this? My English teacher raised this discussion topic in class the other day (we were told to do some research on our own beforehand), and it gave me food for thought. A lot of valid points were also exchanged within the class.
Someone brought up a point he read in an online article that millions of people all over the world watch violent movies and read such news articles on a daily basis without committing dreadful and unlawful acts, so if media really WERE such a bad influence, then that country would have been full of ruthless criminals.
Also, someone else with a different view shared another article he read which said that the reason Los Angeles became a violent city was due to the fact that it had been repeatedly portrayed as a violent city in fiction and movies. The article implied that after seeing of so much violence in movies, the inhabitants of Los Angeles became violent too. Researches related to this have been done in many countries as well, with all of them coming to the same conclusion that viewing violence in movies and TV shows does cause people to become more violent.
I haven't seen the article he mentioned myself, but his points do make sense and I do remember hearing the same thing about Los Angeles somewhere else.
So, since it IS true that the media gives publishing news of violence more emphasis than any other kind of news, is it fair then to conclude that it IS the media that's responsible for increased violence in the world today? In other words, should the media be blamed, or not?
Do share your ideas.