Posts
McQuail
(2000) describes the media as a means of communication that operates on a large
scale, reaching and involving virtually everyone in the society to a greater or
lesser degree. Media is a plural of medium, which means a channel or vehicle
through which something is carried or transmitted. We have the print, electronic and digital
media. The media primarily informs,
educates and entertains the society.
Violence has always been a subject of interest in portraying media
content because every aspect of media seems to use violence as means of drawing
attention. Despite the consequences of
violence in any society, the increase in media content portraying violent acts
gives rise to questions being asked as to why the popularity of violence in the
media? Is the media using violence to increase its audiences or for other
pecuniary purposes?
Overview of the Various
Forms of Media
1. Broadcast: Radio and television programs are distributed over frequency bands that are
highly regulated.
2. Film:
Films are produced by recording people and objects with cameras, or by creating them using animation techniques and/or special effects. Films entertain, educate, enlighten, and inspire
audiences. Any film can become a worldwide attraction, especially with the
addition of dubbing or subtitles that translate the film message. Films are also artifacts
created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn,
affect them.
3. Video Games: A video game is a computer-controlled game in which a video display, such as a monitor or television, is the primary feedback device. There always must also be
some sort of input device, usually in the form of button/joystick combinations (on arcade games), a keyboard and mouse/trackball combination (computer games),
a controller (consolegames), or a combination of any of
the above.
4. Audio recording and reproduction:
Sound
recording and reproduction is
the electrical or mechanical re-creation and/or amplification
of sound, often as music. This involves the use of audio equipment such as microphones, recording devices, and
loudspeakers. Music videos can accommodate all styles of filmmaking,
including animation, live action films, documentaries, and non-narrative, abstract film.
5. Internet: The Internet is a more interactive medium of mass media, and can be
briefly described as "a network of networks". Specifically, it is the
worldwide, publicly accessible network of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP).
6. Print Media: We have
journals, newspapers and magazines. A magazine is a periodical publication containing a variety of articles, generally financed
by advertising and/or purchase by readers. Magazines
are typically published weekly, biweekly, monthly, bimonthly or quarterly, with a date on the cover that is in advance of the date
it is actually published. On the other hand, a newspaper is a publication containing news and information and advertising,
usually printed on low-cost paper called newsprint. It may be general or special interest, most often
published daily or weekly.
7. Outdoor Media: Outdoor media is a form of mass
media which comprises billboards, signs, placards placed inside and outside of
commercial buildings/objects like shops/buses, flying billboards (signs in tow
of airplanes), blimps, skywriting, AR Advertising.
Brief Analysis of the Role
of the Media in Society
The
primary function of the media system in any society is to provide information
to several millions of people. The media are extremely influential. Each of the
media is presumed to affect perceptions and behaviour in a distinctive way.
They can affect the society and vice versa. The media are the uniquely modern
means of public communication and much of their importance lies in the fact
that they are a major cause of whatever modes of perception, thought, public
discourse, and political action. Because of their size and the large number of
people they reach, the media have tremendous impact on society. Murphy (1977)
sums up societal impacts of the media in different ways as oil, glue and
dynamite. As oil, Murphy (1977) asserts that media of communication keep the
world running smoothly by helping individuals adjust to the reality of their
lives. They keep society on and healthy by suggesting solutions that are
socially acceptable. As glue, social cohesion is maintained by communication.
He contends that the media gives all of us including strangers something to talk
about by setting agenda of discussion and that over the years, communication
builds up and reinforces the fabrics that hold a society together. Murphy
(1977) also describes the media as dynamites that can rip the society apart. A
good example of this is the propaganda campaigns that preceded the Russian
Revolution in 1917 and Hitler’s rise to the German Chancellorship in 1933.
Similarly, the media particularly the newspapers and magazines played a
tremendous role in the struggle for Nigeria’s independence in 1960.
Various Forms of Violence
and Their Consequences in Society
Smith
et al (1998) defines violence as “any overt depiction of a credible threat of
physical force or the actual use of such force intended to physically harm an
animate being or group of beings.” Violence is defined by the World Health
Organization as "the
intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or
against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood
of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or
deprivation". Violent
acts can be physical, sexual, psychological and emotional. The various forms of violence include:
i. Self-directed violence: Self-directed violence is subdivided into suicidal behaviour and self-abuse. The former includes suicidal thoughts, attempted suicides – also called para suicide or deliberate self-injury in some countries – and completed suicides. Self-abuse, in contrast, includes acts such as self-mutilation.
ii. Collective violence: Collective violence is subdivided into structural violence and economic violence. Unlike the other two broad categories, the subcategories of collective violence suggest possible motives for violence committed by larger groups of individuals or by states. Collective violence that is committed to advance a particular social agenda includes, for example, crimes of hate committed by organized groups, terrorist acts and mob violence. Political violence includes war and related violent conflicts, state violence and similar acts carried out by larger groups. Economic violence includes attacks by larger groups motivated by economic gain – such as attacks carried out with the purpose of disrupting economic activity, denying access to essential services, or creating economic division and fragmentation. Clearly, acts committed by larger groups can have multiple motives.
iii. Interpersonal
violence: Interpersonal
violence is divided into two subcategories: Family
and intimate partner violence –
that is, violence largely between family members
and intimate partners, usually, though not exclusively, taking place in the home. Community violence – violence
between individuals who are unrelated, and who
may or may not know each other, generally taking place outside the home. The former group includes forms of
violence such as child
abuse, intimate partner violence
and abuse of the elderly. The latter includes youth violence, random acts of violence, rape or sexual
assault by
strangers, and violence in institutional settings such as schools, workplaces, prisons and nursing homes. When
interpersonal violence occurs in
families, its psychological consequences can affect parents, children, and their relationship in the short- and
long-terms.
The consequences of violence in any society are
many. In societies with high
levels of violence, economic growth can be slowed down, personal and collective
security eroded, and social development impeded. Families edging out of poverty and investing
in schooling their sons and daughters can be ruined through the violent death
or severe disability of the main breadwinner. Communities can be caught in
poverty traps where pervasive violence and deprivation form a vicious circle
that stifles economic growth. For
societies, meeting the direct costs of health, criminal justice, and social
welfare responses to violence diverts many billions of dollars from more
constructive societal spending. The much
larger indirect costs of violence due to lost productivity and lost investment
in education work together to slow economic development, increase socio-economic
inequality, and erode human and social capital.
Additionally,
communities with high level of violence do not provide the level of stability
and predictability vital for a prospering business economy. Individuals will be
less likely to invest money and effort towards growth in such unstable and
violent conditions.
Child maltreatment could lead to impaired lifelong physical
and mental health, and social and occupational functioning (e.g. school, job,
and relationship difficulties). Youth violence greatly increases the costs of
health, welfare and criminal justice services; reduces productivity; decreases
the value of property; and generally undermines the fabric of society. Youth
violence has a serious, often lifelong, impact on a person's psychological and
social functioning.
Beyond deaths and injuries, highly prevalent forms of
violence (such as child maltreatment and intimate partner violence) have
serious lifelong non-injury health consequences. Victims may engage in high-risk
behaviours such as alcohol and substance misuse, smoking, and unsafe sex, which
in turn can contribute to cardiovascular disorders, cancers, depression,
diabetes and HIV/AIDS, resulting in premature death. Violence may beget violence.
The balances of prevention, mitigation, mediation and exacerbation are complex,
and vary with the underpinnings of violence.
The Commodification of Violence
by the Media
The
commodification of violence has occurred for centuries, even millennia. Violence has always been used for commercial
business by the media. Representations of
violence in the media are not new. In
fact, violence has been a key part of media since the birth of literature:
Ancient Greek poetry and drama frequently portrayed murder, suicide and
self-mutilation, many of Shakespeare’s plays revel in violence, torture,
maiming, rape, revenge and psychological terror, and some of the most popular
books of the 19th century were “penny dreadfuls” that delivered blood, gore and
other shocks to the lowest common denominator. The simple fact is: violence is a highly
popular, entertaining and profitable commodity.
Serious issues such as domestic violence and child abuse are
essentially commodities for the media which is used to increase viewership or
unit sales. Entertainment industry lore has it
that audiences - young men, in particular - want to see violence. Indeed, a content analysis by Oliver and
Kalyanaraman (2002) found that movie trailers exaggerated the level of violence
within the movies being previewed, presumably because the creators believed
that doing so would enhance the film’s appeal.
For film, then, the financial “sweet spot” appears to be
films that are action rather than dialogue oriented, but still accessible to
minors. This combination allows filmmakers to target the most profitable local
markets while still being relevant in foreign markets due to the relative lack
of dialogue and domestic-culture-specific references: action movies don’t
require complex plots or characters. They rely on fights, killings, special
effects and explosions to hold their audiences. And, unlike comedy or drama—which
depend on good stories, sharp humour, and credible characters, all of which are
often culture-specific—action films require little in the way of good writing
and acting. They’re simple, and they’re universally understood. To top it off,
the largely non-verbal nature of the kind of films that journalist Sharon
Waxman refers to as “short-on-dialogue, high-on-testosterone” makes their
dubbing or translation relatively inexpensive.
It is impossible to fully quantify how
big of a role mediated violence plays in creating real life violence, but
common sense tells us that cultures define themselves by the stories told
within those cultures. And the stories told in most western cultures today are
obsessed with violence, often of the most sordid and demented kind. Violence is
legitimized through its glorification in broadcast and cable television,
movies, and video games.
Prime-time television exhibits
violence every night. Research by the Parents Television Council confirms that
a weapon is displayed every three minutes. Psychopaths and serial killers are
often portrayed as protagonists. Women are often the targets of sick violence,
as evidenced in the CBS drama “Stalker.” That show opened this fall with a
young woman being trapped in a car, doused with gasoline and then incinerated
while the car careened down a hill and exploded, all while the victim was
screaming.
Apologists for the media industry
excuse the peddlers of entertainment violence by defending the producers’
rights to exercise free expression and artistic license. But this has nothing
to do with rights. This
has to do with cultural leadership.
As for artistic merit, it doesn’t take much creative genius to develop
blood-splattered, context-free plots in which people are tortured and/or blown
up.
On the impact of film violence on
children, there is the tired argument that parents just need to be more
responsible for their own kids’ viewing. True enough, but parents hardly have a
fair fight in shielding kids from big media’s relentless violence parade in
television, film, music and video games.
This excuse also ignores the impact of
mediated violence on rational adults. Recent research by the Annenberg Public
Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania shows parents themselves become
desensitized when exposed to media violence and, consequently, are more willing
to allow their kids to absorb such content.
None of this is to say that violence
has no place at all. But the violence
now being peddled as entertainment is too often highly graphic, and void of any
consequence or moral reflection. Culture shapers in Hollywood like to get on
bandwagons to speak out against bullying, domestic violence and other such
actions. They are remarkably quiet when it comes to criticizing the mediated
culture that perpetuates violence as an entertainment commodity. Clearly, the
money generated by violent programming is more important.
Nearly a decade ago, a renowned
professor of Communications, George Gerbner made the following comment about
media violence in an instructional video, The Killing Screens (Jhally,
1994):
“Why is violence so pervasive? Many people say,
‘well that’s what the people want and that is because it
is very popular.” That
is not so. Violence, in itself, is not a popular commodity. To be sure there are some good stories
and some very strong stories that have a lot of violence, but their popularity
does not rest in the violence. Most
of the highly rated programs on television are non-evident.”
Gerbner explained that the
pervasiveness of violence in movies and TV programs has much more to do with
its easy global marketability than it does with its inherent
appeal or attractiveness to audiences. While humorous media content is
often difficult to produce and is often misunderstood when it travels across
cultures, violence is relatively cheap to produce and communicates in
a universal language. While
Gerbner acknowledges that violence ‘livens up’ a dull program, he argues that
it is not an enjoyable form of content for its own sake.
While there is no particular reason to
question Gerbner’s analysis about the general appeal of media violence except
for the fact that violence continues to be a staple of media content, it is remarkable
that so little research attention has been devoted to studying the extent to
which violence contributes to the enjoyment of media entertainment. Part of the explanation for the lack
of research on this topic probably has to do with the fact that researchers
have been preoccupied with documenting the prevalence of violent media content
and the potential negative consequences of viewing media violence. However,
given the past research indicating that viewing media violence is causally
related to subsequent aggressive behaviour, it seems important to understand
more about the particular dynamics involved in viewing violence. If, for
example, media violence is not particularly enjoyed for its own sake, this
would suggest that viewing of violence along with its negative effects on
aggression could be curtailed
without sacrificing viewer enjoyment.
While prominent researchers like
Gerbner, Cantor, and Goldsten clearly suggest that violence is not particularly
popular, few studies have attempted to directly explore the
extent to which violence might contribute to enjoyment in a
program or movie. One
recent meta-analysis on the effects of media ratings revealed that ratings of
violence tended to cause potential viewers to become more attracted to the material,
but this finding does not rule out the possibility that viewers use the violent
rating to infer the presence of other sorts of non-violent content (e.g. sex or
exciting action) to which they are attracted.
Two notable exceptions from most studies on the appeal of
violence (published 20 years apart) reported data
from experimental investigations that were designed to determine
if violent versions of media presentations were enjoyed more than
their non-violent counterparts. Both
of these experiments found evidence in favour of the notion that violent
content fails to contribute to the enjoyment of a program or movie. Taken
together, the available data seems to point consistently against
the idea that media violence is an enjoyable commodity.
If, in fact it turns out that media
violence is not enjoyable in and of itself, how does one account for its
continued prevalence in mainstream entertainment? Sparks and Sparks (2000) provided an
analysis of the appeal of media violence that offered several plausible
accounts for its enjoyment that do not involve the enjoyment of violence per
se. For example, these
authors pointed out that violence could be confounded with other variables like
production quality or sexual content. Alternatively, viewers might experience
a number of post-viewing gratifications such that
they report enjoyment of a program or movie even though the violent
content itself was not experienced as pleasurable. One example of
this possibility involves excitation transfer. If violent
content triggers arousal and a particular plot-line is resolved
favourably, viewers might experience a sense of relief that
is intensified by residual excitation. According to the theory, since arousal
intensifies any emotion and decays slowly, any new emotion will be more intense
than it ordinarily would be if it occurs during the time when arousal from a
prior event has not fully decayed.
Thus, arousal from a violent film
might intensify feelings of relief following the film and cause it to be
recalled as particularly pleasant even though the violence itself was not
enjoyable. Of course, it is
also possible that violence may trigger negative emotions in some viewers such
as disgust, anxiety and upset. These
emotions may sustain themselves even after viewing is finished.
Theorizing Motives for
the Commodification of Violence by the Media
A
common theme that emerges in many theories of the appeal of violence in the
media is that images of bloodshed and aggression are not intrinsically
attractive to most audiences, but that there are other pleasures that accompany
exposure to violence. Such explanations may be categorized into three
interrelated categories.
One
set of explanations focuses on gratifications related to intense emotions and
arousal, such as voyeurism and curiosity about taboo actions (Sparks &
Sparks, 2000), rebellious tasting of the “forbidden fruit” of violence, the
intense absorption provided by highly engaging, arousing content, and the
arousal-based enhancement of happy endings. Such gratifications related to
arousal are often argued to be even more compelling for subgroups such as boys
and young men, and sensation-seekers.
A
second set of explanations focuses on social gratifications, such as bonding
while viewing intensely disturbing material, or the playing out of traditional
gender roles of masculine bravery and feminine timidity.
A
third set of explanations focuses on the content features that often accompany
violence and that are argued to be the source of appeal, such as the pleasure
of seeing villainous characters get punished and heroic figures get rewarded. Additionally, Wakshlag, Vial, and Tamborini
(1983) reported that violence that is followed by the restoration of justice
and order is appealing to those who are anxious about their own safety, because
such material can offer vicarious relief from safety-related concerns. Other
authors have noted the appeal of suspense, conflict, and action, all of which
may co-occur with violence and which may explain why viewers seek out violent
content.
Taken
together, a growing body of evidence suggests that violence may increase
viewing interest because it signals the presence of other desirable content characteristics
and viewing experiences. Indeed, research by Oliver et al. (2002) found that
the level of violence in movie previews did not enhance anticipated enjoyment
directly, but instead did so indirectly by altering perceptions of other
qualities of the films. That is, those who saw thriller previews containing
more violence thought the films would be more suspenseful, and those who saw
comedy previews with more violence thought the films would be more humorous.
These perceptions, in turn, predicted anticipated enjoyment and desire to see
the films.
Conclusion
It
is apparent that since time immemorial, violence has always been part of media
content. The media sees violence as a highly popular, entertaining and
profitable commodity and can be effective in performing their functions of
informing, educating and entertaining the society. Violence
in the media increases viewership and thus raises profitability. Violence in movies has much to do with its
easy global marketability than it does with its inherent appeal
or attractiveness to audiences. Be
that as it may, the argument that audiences are not so attracted to violence in
films but rather to other pleasures that accompany exposure to violence could
effectively counter the belief that people patronize media products that have
high violent content. It behoves on
media producers to always consider the interest of the society vis-a-viz the
messages they churn out and balance things up so that the impact of their
content does not destroy the health of the society they are trying to serve.
REFERENCES
Anderson,
C.A., et al (2003). "The Influence of Media Violence on Youth". Psychological Science in the Public Interest Vol. 4 (3): 81–110.
Bartsch, A &
Mares M.L. (2014). Making Sense of Violence: Perceived Meaningfulness as a Predictor of Audience Interest in Violent
Media Content. Journal of Communication
Vol. 64 (pp 956–976) International
Communication Association.
Bushman, B.J. and
Anderson, C.A. (2001). Media Violence
and the American Public. The American
Psychologist. Vol. 56, No. 6 &
7. pp. 477 – 489.
Diener, E., &
DeFour, D. (1978). Does Television Violence Enhance Program Popularity? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 333–341.
Jhally, S.
(1994). The Killing Screens: Media and the Culture of Violence
(Video). Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.
McCall, J.M.
(2014) Media Contribute to America’s Violent Culture. Retrieved 22nd March,2016 from
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/12/10/mccall- violence-tv/20157729/.
McQuail, D.
(2000). Mass Communication Theory. 4th Edition. London: Sage Publication.
Murphy, D.R.
(1977). Mass Communication and Human
Interactions. Boston: Houghton Miftlin
Company.
Oliver, M.B. and
Kalyanaraman, S. (2002). Appropriate for
All Viewing Audiences? An Examination of
Violent and Sexual Portrayals in Movie Previews Featured on Video Rentals. Journal
of Electronic and Broadcasting Media.
46(2), 2002, pp. 283-299.
Slater, S. (2005). The
Commodification of Violence on the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com
Sparks, G.G.,
Sherry, J and Lubsen, G. (2005). The
Appeal of Media Violence in a Full- Length
Motion Picture: An Experimental Investigation. Journal of Communication Reports. Vol. 18, No. 1 pp. 21-30.
Sparks, G.G. &
Sparks, C.W. (2000). Violence, Mayhem and Horror. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds). Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its
Appeal (pp. 73-91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wakshlag,
J., Vial, V., & Tamborini, R. (1983). Selecting Crime Drama and Apprehension
about Crime. Journal of Human Communication Research,
10 (2), 227-242.
Why is Violent
Media So Pervasive? Retrieved 30th March, 2016 from http://mediasmarts.ca/violence/why-violent-media-so-pervasive
World
Health Organization (2006). "Preventing Child Maltreatment: A Guide to Taking
Action and
Generating Evidence" Geneva:
WHO and International Society for the Prevention
of Child Abuse and Neglect.
Zillman, D. and Vorderer, P. (2000).
Media Entertainment: The Psychology of Its Appeal. Routledge, UK.
