Different Media Coverage of Israel-Palestine Conflict

The movie “Wag the Dog” is supposedly a fictitious film about a group of publicity managers who fabricate a war in an unknown country in the Middle East and then work their publicity magic in order to create the persona of a president in charge. The movie was a highly comical yet engrossing look at how mass media easily manipulates the public into believing what they want the public to believe. What is highly disturbing is that the movie, made by Hollywood for the entertainment of the masses, is actually based on reality.
This reality is deeply embedded in the Israel – Palestine conflict that has been raging on for as far back as I can remember. Politics is a very dirty and secretive game. The government and its supporters will utilize anything and everything in order to achieve their endgame. The public is the unwitting spawn in this power struggle and the controlling method of choice is the mass media. The manipulation happens so high up in the government power hierarchy that even the media no longer realizes that their supposedly independent and free thinking job of keeping the public informed is a well thought out and planned outcome of Washington’s needs.
Media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict is considered an important tool in understanding the source of their bad blood relationship. The media reports that are seen worldwide are an influential source both political and social support for both nations. This is the reality that is presented to the world and it is the basis for the creation of a strong public opinion either in support of or against the goings on between the two countries.

In the opinion column of Sonia Nettnin that she entitled “U.S. Media Coverage of Israel-Palestine Conflict”, she informed her readers about the reality of who really controls the US Media when it comes to the coverage of the Israel – Palestine conflict: Few Americans realize that U. S. mainstream media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict passes through America’s political elites, Israeli public relations organizations and private American organizations, before it reaches the public. In other words, we get the sanitized version of the reports.
Nothing we see on the nightly news, or hear on the radio reports, even what we read in the newspapers, can be taken to be the unabridged truth of the goings on in that part of the world. She invites her readers to watch the film ” Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: U. S. Media and the Israel – Palestine Conflict” in order to realize how much our media is censored without realizing it. Nettnin specifically wants the viewers to understand how the director of the film, Sut Jhally:
Examines how these filters distort the realities on the ground. It demonstrates how through word choice, limited historical context and one-sided perspectives, U. S. journalists provide the American public with limited news coverage. The media’s misinformation campaign is actually a public relations manipulation being masterminded by American corporations and lobbyist groups. The manipulation of the news allows the media and various interests groups to mold the public opinion towards beliefs that will be beneficial to those concerned.
Simple word play can totally alter the way news video footage is presented to the public. In reference to an actual event that happened in September 3, 2001, Nettnin relates that: Through interviews with journalists, media analysts and political activists, the film explores the co-opted media’s techniques for reporting the conflict and mobilizing public opinion. For example, on September 3, 2001, a news network did not want its journalists referring to the Israeli settlement, Gilo, as a “settlement. ” Instructions given to journalists explained that “?
We don’t refer to it as a settlement? ” so in one of the network’s news clips that followed, the journalist reporting from Gilo used the officially substituted word “neighborhood. ” The word change altered the perspective of the news report drasttically because it removed an perception of colonization from the report’s context. Clearly, replacing or eliminating words from a report can assist with removing skepticism about the nature of its subject matter. Moreover, it helps modify public perceptions as to who is the aggressor.
Last February 5, 2006, Alison Weir, founder of If Americans Knew (IAK) presented a compelling power point presentation titled “Israel-Palestine: What the Media Leave Out” at the Meditation Center in Fairfax, California. Here, she showed her audience of 14 people her personal statistical analysis pertaining to the American media reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to her, their group research discovered that television reports covering the conflicts between September 2000 – 2001 reported:
Israeli deaths at a ratio of three to four times greater than reports of Palestinians killed. In addition, Israeli deaths frequently would have a prominent follow-up report, whereas Palestinian deaths were rarely reported even once. What further disturbs Weir is that this pattern of inaccurate and biased reporting continues to be the format for news reports of similar events up to the present time of the conflict. Basically, the whole world will depict the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine based upon reports coming out of the USA.
This is because the USA is considered the World Police by majority of the nations thereby giving the country the right to dictate how other countries will be viewed in the context of a battle. According to a joint article entitled “America’s One-Eyed View of War: Stars, Stripes, and the Star of David” by Andrew Gumbel and Donald Macintyre of The Independent: There are two sides to every conflict – unless you rely on the US media for information about the battle in Lebanon.
Viewers have been fed a diet of partisan coverage that treats Israel as the good guys and their Hizbollah enemy as the incarnation of evil. American media has portrayed the Hisbollah as the bad guys in this ongoing religious war. This is not to say that the Hizbolla’s are not the bad guys, but the Israeli’s, the people viewed as the innocents may not really be all that clean either. But, the U. S. has made such a clear cut decision on who the bad guys are in this scenario that the attitude of the country has left no room for any sort of debate on the topic.
While watching the cable news reports, I have come to realize that the reason we feel such empathy for the Israeli’s is because these networks all have their reporters in the thick of the action within Israel and none in Palestine. There is also a lack of real interest in getting a professional opinion from a historical expert who is familiar with the roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict. But, the report goes on to say that: A startling amount of airtime, meanwhile, is given to the likes of Michael D Evans, an end-of-the-world Biblical “prophet” with no credentials in the complexities of Middle Eastern politics.
He has shown up on MSNBC and Fox under the label “Middle East analyst”. Fox’s default analyst, on this and many other issues, has been the right-wing provocateur and best-selling author Ann Coulter, whose main credential is to have opined, days after 9/11, that what America should do to the Middle East is “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. It is said that the Bush Administration has a solid view of the Hizbollah as, according to Gumbel and Macintyre:
Part of a giant anti-Israeli and anti-American terror network that also includes Hamas, al-Qa’ida, the governments of Syria and Iran, and the insurgents in Iraq. It is this view that the media of the world has interpreted and believed. Mainly because the conflict is presented in such a cut and dried manner by the United States government that nobody will dare to ask questions such as what the difference between the 2 groups are or perhaps wonder aloud as to what their goals might be. Mainly because according to San Francisco rabbi Michael Lerner:
There is no major figure in American political life who has been willing to raise the issue of the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people, or even talk about them as human beings. The organised Jewish community has transformed the image of Judaism into a cheering squad for the Israeli government, whatever its policies are. That is just idolatry, and goes against all the warnings in the Bible about giving too much power to the king or the state. But just like everything else that has to do with war, the media has slowly come to realize that Palestinians are not just people across the border from Israel.
They too have their own stories to tell about the atrocities of war, and, their story must be told as well. According to the video Der Yassin Remembered: Westerners now realize that Palestinians, as a people, do exist. And they have come to acknowledge that during the creation of the state of Israel, thousands of Palestinians were killed and over 700,000 were driven or frightened from their homes and lands on which they had lived for centuries. Deeper research into this topic led me to information about how the Czech media handles the reporting of the aforementioned events.
In her article ” Are Czech Media Reports on the Arab World Objective”, Dita Asiedu asked Jan Krecek, a faculty member at Charles University if the Czech media was providing the public with an unbiased coverage of the events in the Middle East and the Arab World. The reply received was quite straightforward: The media institutions are normal firms that are working on the market and you can see it in their content – the news is somewhat biased. This is because they have to make a profit. He points out that the worldwide media exercises 2 different powers when reporting the news.
That of a selective power when deciding what news feeds are newsworthy, and descriptive power, or the power to choose how a story is presented. These are the main moneymakers for the company and are therefore are the major factors in making their decisions. When Czech reporters are asked why they report so little about the real status of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the usual reply is that Arab countries seem to have a closed door policy when it comes to information dissemination. According to Bretislav Turecek, reporter for Pravo, a paper in Czechoslovakia:
Even Arab journalists who go to Israel see an openness of the Israelis – it’s possible to call the spokesman of the Israeli Army 24 hours a day and it’s possible to reach the spokesman of the Prime Minister. This is really unusual in most of the Muslim countries in the Middle East, where there are so many restrictions for journalists, or generally for foreigners. So Israel knows use the foreign press for its purpose – in both the positive and the negative way. As Mr. Turecek mentioned, the Arab community is not really interested in sharing their views and information with the rest of the world.
Which is why my research turned up no Middle East media views on the media coverage of the Israel – Palestine conflict. Instead, what I did turn up were the opinions of various Israeli and Palestinian citizens who have migrated to the USA and have shared their personal views with the western media. Thus, it is this viewpoint that will be thrust of my paper from this point on. Leon T. Hadar, author of “Quagmire: America in the Middle East” is also a former New York correspondent attached to the Jerusalem Post. He related that during a conference discussing” Is the American media coverage of Middle East biased?” which he attended 2 years ago.
He was hosted by the New York Times and Washington Post who allowed him to present various media reports related to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict to his audience and asked them to guess what particular newspaper covered the issue. He shocked the audience when he told them that the articles were not from American, British, nor European based newspapers. Nobody could believe that: The articles, however, were all published in the leading Israeli Hebrew-language daily, Ha’aretz, also known as “the New York Times of Israel.”
Ha’aretz is read by government officials, business executives, and the professional and intellectual elites in Israel. In addition to its exceptional coverage of current events, which has garnered the newspaper many national and international awards, Ha’aretz carries editorials and commentaries that help set the public agenda in Israel. It is a “must read” among diplomats and foreign correspondents stationed in Israel, who receive a more accurate and balanced picture of what is happening there than the one presented by most leading American newspapers.
Ha’aretz—unlike the Times or the Post—even employs a full-time correspondent who is stationed in the West Bank and Gaza and who provides the Palestinian perspective on the conflict, which explains why the articles by correspondent Amira Hess were considered so “pro-Arab” by my hosts. Additionally, he mentions that: Questioning the credibility of news reports from the Middle East has been one of the major tools of American Jews trying to cope with the continuing cognitive dissonance.
I am amazed sometimes that, even in this age of the internet, with Ha’aretz and other Israeli newspapers maintaining English-language websites and cable news networks broadcasting around the clock, for many American Jews (and for many Christian evangelicals), Israel still remains a fantasy—and they would like to keep it that way. Meanwhile, Remi Kanazi of the Palestine Monitor author if the article ” US Media Bias: Covering Israel/Palestine” and was really troubled by the marked discrepancies between reports from CNN and Haaretz regarding an encounter between Israel – Palestine troops:
The contrast in coverage between CNN and Haaretz is staggering. The CNN headline was written in absolutes: “5 militants shot in raid. ” The CNN article continues by stating only the Israeli claim that five militants were killed, making the headline biased and misleading. The Haaretz headline read: “U. S. urges restraint after IDF raid that killed 5 Palestinians. ” This headline refers to the people who were shot as Palestinians and not solely militants. The Haaretz article covers conflicting Israeli and Palestinian claims, which made it impossible to determine whether or not all five killed were militants or civilians
He mentions that he considers CNN and The New York Times . as “left wing” media outlets and wonders why they never present the Palestinian side of the war. He claims that the answer is that both companies are neither liberal nor honest. They are simply out to sell a product and will only cover a story properly if covering it does not pose a risk of losing readers or advertising revenues. But, it is not to say that the only reason there is a slant in the coverage of this war is for financial or political reasons. Both Israel and Palestine accuse the media of being bias although these accusations have never been proven.
One of the main reasons that Israel gets more news coverage in both print and television news the world over is because Israel knows how to play the lobby and public relations game. Israel has put together a highly impressive public relations team that speaks English, has knowledge of western media, and is very much at home being interviewed in front of the camera. The same public relations department also insures that informative emails are send to various news wires everyday. On the other hand, Palestinians, due to their intense secrecy, prevents itself from presenting their side of any given situation.
Their grasp of the English language is so poor that the language ends up a mangled mess when they try to communicate in it thus opening themselves to misinterpretation each time anybody from their side is interviewed. The roads leading to and from Palestine are also hard to traverse making the best way to get an interview from them over the phone. They also do not have an efficient public relations team and only manages to send out about 5 emails a week to keep the international press informed of their situation.
These are but a few reasons that explain why the Western news teams rarely get assigned to cover such country territories. There is so little for the other world media to go on when covering Palestine so that they instead spend their time explaining to their readers and viewers about why they don’t have any information that is necessary to explain what is going on to them. For far too long, Israelis have been using the term “war against terror” in a manner that exploits the current actions of Palestine against Israel.
It is this Israeli battle cry that has gotten the most media coverage over the decades much to the detriment of the Palestinians who are seemingly unable to express themselves effectively to the world. Quite recently though, there seem to have been observable changes to the way the Israel-Palestine conflict has bee playing out. With the support of British 24 hours news channel BBC, once formally accused of bias leaning towards the side of Israelis, there has been a slowly developing trend towards improving news coverage in the area. Nachman Shai an Israeli spokesman was asked about how he viewed the media coverage of the war and he replied:
It (meaning the media coverage of the Israel – Palestine conflict) has gradually become more balanced than in the beginning—the media are now seeing more of the complicated issues than at the beginning, because of the indiscriminate violence of the suicide bombers against the Israeli population. The bottom line is that the varying differences in the media’s coverage of the ongoing Israel – Palestine conflict is due to the very conflicting reports coming out of the opposing camps. Reporters are seemingly welcome only on one side of the border and this certainly affects the way they present the information they gather to the public.
There is no bias or hidden agenda on the media’s side. It is simply a matter of using the information that they can get their hands on in the best way they know how. Perhaps in the future, all of this will change and their will finally be a balanced and unbiased view of the events as they unfold in the Middle East. After all whether he is a television or print journalist, the main objective of a news reporter remains the same. To present the events as they happen in unbiased reporting styles.


Media Convergence And Its Effects

University of Phoenix Material Media Convergence Worksheet Write brief 250- to 300-word answers to each of the following: QuestionsAnswers What is meant by the term media convergence with regard to technology, and how has it affected everyday life? The term media convergence with regards to technology is defined as a process of combining together the telecommunications and computers and turning them into one electronic or digital form.
The media convergence has affected our everyday life as we know it in many ways, you can now watch television shows, listen to music and shop online using your computer all without leaving the privacy of your home. Using the computer you can also communicate using the email, or chat option on the computer, eliminating the need to call from your phone. Facebook is another option that allows you to keep up with friends and family, while knowing where they are at all times.
The internet is a multitasking piece of equipment that has replaced many forms of communications. Hard back books have been replaced with e-books, which can be electronically downloaded from your computer. The way we watch television has also changed, there are so many things that we can do through the television. You can program your home lights and alarms from you cell phone through the television. You can also communicate through you television to others, replacing the need for a telephone.

The television and the internet are just two examples of media convergence, that has changed the way we shop, communicate, listen to music, watch the news and educate ourselves, it can all be done using the computer and connecting to the internet. People actually live on the internet and are becoming less social, because there is no need to leave their home for anything. What is meant by the term media convergence with regard to business, and how has it affected everyday life?
The term media convergence in regards to business is the combination of computing and information processing with telecommunication networks provided from magazines, music, and entertainment programs. This converging links computing, communications and content. An example would be content that has been changed through different forms of delivery, digital forms are transmitted through broadband or wireless for viewing on computer s or similar equipment, cell phones, personal digital assistants, to video recorders that connected to television (technology).
Business industries (media, technology, and telecommunication) have combined and developed new ideas that can increase profit from the consumers’ growing need for “on demand content”. Many analysts view media convergence as ending of the old media and rise of the new media (industry). Some of the many changes that have affected our lives as a result of media convergences in the business industry are the way we view information, the way we do everyday tasks and our value system.
As a result we now have PDA or personal digital assistants this device is a portable electronic notebook/computer that store information, keeps notes, addresses, reminders, and has a calendar. It is a mini computer that allows you to everything that you can do with a computer using a stylus rather than the keyboard. It fits in your pocket or purse and people rely on this device in order to function in everyday life. The smartphone is also a device that people rely on and they could not perform simple duties without it.
You can text, email, chat, shop, watch movies, play games, use face book and twitter all from the smart phone. This eliminates a one on one discussion with a friend or family member and takes away the personal touch of body language and having face to face conversation. What are some of the issues that result from dependency on modern media? Describe at least three issues. Some of the issues that result from dependency on modern media are the increase of becoming withdrawn from society, the loss of social skills and personal relationships with friends, family and other loved ones.
Another issue that can arise as a result of dependency is the chance of becoming what is known as a “media junkie” where the modern media takes preference over anything else (losing touch with reality). The cell phone has taken away our ability to properly communicate with each other by using slang and abbreviations in place of proper English. People are becoming less active, less visible, and trusting with each other. Studies have shown that “gamers” or people who play games (game tournaments) over the internet for hours and hours without stopping are likely to lose social skills.
People with addictions or dependency on modern media are similar to those of a drug addict. It has been shown to produce distress and isolation in many people who are deprived from these devices. I think that this a major concern for parents of students and this younger generation. Dependency on modern media has caused up to depend on smartphones to tell time rather than wearing a watch. We text each other to communicate rather than using the phone to talk, and as opposed to watching the new we go to face book for the latest information, replacing the family time together watching television.
These are just a few examples of the issues that results from the dependency on modern media. How does media literacy help with responsible media consumption? Media literacy helps individuals develop an informed understanding the nature of mass media. This awareness will prepare you to make wiser decision concerning issues that are facing our society, results of dependency, promotion of unacceptable behavior and exploiting personal problems for profit and other serious problems that can arise as a result of media consumption.
The amount of available information is overwhelming and media purposely promotes dangerous stunts, violence, even pornography. The media impacts our society through this information and degrades our moral values, social values, and integrity. Media has shaped the way we live, think, communicate and our life styles. We have cars that can park themselves, we speed date, we date online, from relationships online, and the media has played a role in all of it. Media consumption is important to prevent us from falling into the snare of becoming isolated and less social.


Pursuing Perfection: Society, Media and Beauty

Beauty has been long defined as a set of attractive features a certain individual appreciates. It is a generally accepted notion that beauty remains to be declared by the one who sees. However, as time went by, people’s sight blurred and along the chaos, this individual’s notion of beauty became the one and only truth. Being sensitive to what is real beauty is as dull as it sounds inefficient.

To simply redefine what is beauty is never simple. Influenced from certain icons, highlighted by flashing media, and affirmed by many socialites, beauty has become more than a description of the face. Women had to be always pretty and slim.

Men had to be muscular and strong. It has become a high demand in the market where hobbies and little appreciation became obsessions. The American society would almost chant miracles by cosmetic surgeries. The media plays a major influence, the society tolerates the subtle imposition, and the person within grasps the whole idea with both arms. Media Affirmation Media affirms the silent speculation of how people define beauty. People think they will not fit in with other people and ad commercials will show them how they can be happier when they are as beautiful as their models. It will be a challenge, the ad would say, but worth doing so.
Little did the audience know that they were simply trying to sell their products that truthfully caring for their lives. To be young and full of physical life is the only key to happiness. According to website Media Awareness Network, ads take advantage of the insecurities of the people. Those who are not beautiful should use their products. When they use the products, and achieve the kind of beauty they desire, then their lives would be worth living. These ads could be as simple as the right clothes to wear for the season or the latest trend in cosmetic surgery available in the market today.
Regardless of what product it is, it will make their lives perfect, or so their ad says so. Media has presented different options: shampoos, soaps, perfume, lipstick, make-up, clothes, accessories, shoes, bags, and even underwear. Media would allow people to choose to make them feel the freely did so. But each item on the racks and shelves of malls and grocery stores lead to say one thing: if you want to be beautiful, use it until you are. Society and the Tasty Bait In this regard, media hands over a product as a bait, and society takes a bite on it.
In any generation of people, what others think and feel about a certain person mattered a lot to that person. It dictates how they should fit in into society and how they can be truly happy when they are truly beautiful. When the ads say a person will have to be slim so that others would even find true friends, then it would seem then that the basis of relationships is shallow to begin with. For every culture, beauty is defined differently. However, in the latest trends of fashion and influences, and the rise of a global market, one construed definition has crossed borders.
It made the world want that kind of beauty. The kind that is rather superficial than appealing to certain existential individuals and society is most appealed by it. It is one thing to have all forms of media present a definition of beauty, it is another when the rest of society applies these bait to everything it was intended for. Website Associated Content noted that media distorts the meaning of beauty but the society takes as it is. One could even say that society even confirms the ads and everybody else should follow. People should always be beautiful and sexy no matter who or where they are.
Weakling Within There will always be the option to not follow the trends and be themselves no matter how eccentric they are. But as the society dictates, the individual is more inclined to follow. This means that other affairs associated with that person is influenced by the constantly changing trends. YGoY Beauty Tips even noted that even in employment, employers also consider the physical attributes of a person before hiring them under their wing. However, as observed of majority of America, they failed to consider other attractive qualities of a person that cannot be observed by the eye by first glance.
Being intelligent with a great sense of humor can also be considered as beautiful. The individual is weak and insecure. It has made them quite gullible and the companies have taken advantage of this by blasting all avenues of media possible solutions. They are saying, one will have to feel beautiful to be less miserable. With ads presenting mostly physical beauty than essential beauty, an individual will assume that beauty should start from the skin, instead of from the heart. Companies catered to the fears and insecurities and turned them around to make them buy the product to solve their problems.
These assumptions, according to the abovementioned website, were affirmed by a research study. People strongly believe that physically beautiful people are happy and content with their lives. It has become their personal goals to reach this level. They failed to see that without being the epitome of beauty, one can achieve great happiness as well. But because the society applies what the media says, an individual bends to these trends. As another article from Associated Content said, beauty is demanding. Conclusion In the end, the definition of beauty today is the misconception of what is really most important in life.
It deludes the public and make them feel secure enough to get into the next day. It pushed people to believe that you always have to fit in. Little did these people know that they are just being succumbed to buy certain products and make other people happy. Certain people bend for it and others end being obsessed with it. Beauty became a form of evil when it should be most appealing even with eyes closed. Beauty has been defined by media, as a marketing strategy to continually have their products on sale. Society takes on the definition beyond that an economic exchange. They made it as a way of life, indulging at what the media offered.
The individual succumbs to the manipulation to alleviate their own insecurities. With this, one loses the essence of being an individual. Being who you are no longer mattered and fitting in did. Being happy is not being able to express oneself completely. Instead it is about being beautiful and always appealing to anyone’s eyes. They pursue perfection. But how could anyone continuously look at a person’s face, and appealed by it, if the words that come out of their painted lips are not as the plastic face has promised? References (2005). What are the notions of beauty in society. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://beautytips.
ygoy. com/general-tips/effects. php. (2006, December 20). Society and the pursuit of society. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://www. associatedcontent. com/article/103679/society_and_the_pursuit_of_beauty. html? cat=9. (2008). Beauty and body image in the media. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://www. media-awareness. ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and_girls/women_beauty. cfm. Little Lady. (2006, November 8). Media distortion of beauty. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from http://www. associatedcontent. com/article/84381/media_distortion_of_beauty. html? page=1&cat=60.


Violence in the Media and its Effect on Adolescents

From the beginning up to the late ninetieth century, the only type of mass media was literature. One of the notable changes around the twentieth and twentieth-first centuries has been the saturation of people daily lives by the mass media. In that environment, television, movies, videos, cell phones even computer have assumed central roles in people’s daily lives. According to Ana Homayoun, teens spend around nine hours on social media every day.
Nowadays, it is not just the fact of people having a lousy friend who is likely to be exposed to bad things when they go out together. The development of electronic media have made much harder to protect people from the threats and have revealed many of them to risks that few people might have already been through.
As time has passed, and a new generation of parenting has come to the forefront, today’s children are becoming more learned in foul language and behaviors at a younger age. Through these messages, the mass media might have a strong influence on individual behavior, values, and views, as well as in shaping national character and culture.

People may have different things in their mind when they think of media violence. Similarly, with the public, there can be little consensus on what constitutes a violent media and violent behavior. Which impacts does the mass media have on people’s beliefs, practices or life?
Children readily embrace the behavior of the characters, which they see as heroic, courageous, and useful. In order to have any sustenance at all, it was first necessary to find out whether or not adolescents took what was seen on television, played on video games, or heard in music and applied such to everyday life situations.
In my journey through The New York Times, I first came across “Does Media Violence Lead to the Real Thing?” written by VASILIS K. POZIOS, PRAVEEN R. KAMBAM and H. ERIC BENDER and publisher on August 23, 2013. This article, from The New York Times, described several studied and experiences on teenagers about the effect of violent media. They did approximately 459 studies related to the relation between the media violence and actual behavior (H. Eric Bender, Praveen R. Kambam and Vasilis K. Pozios, paragraphs 5 and 7).
Many of their researches confirm the link between the immense viewing of television violence and negative behavioral implications. In scenes of violence, this point of view clarifies how the scene affects the viewer, and whether he or she relates to and shares the experience with the attacker or with the victim.
If the viewer shares the experience of the victim, he or she, in turn, feel helpless, afraid, powerless, less valuable, and may experience rage because of the attack. Meanwhile, consumers who associate themselves with the attacker, share the felt experience of power, control, domination, and respect (Hyman, 1974, p. 534).
The amount of violence influential is not the only one, but the context and relationships portrayed through scenes of violence may have severe effects on the viewers. Many psychologists have studied the impact of the media on an individual’s beliefs and behaviors on the world. There have been many studies which confirm the link that violence portrayed through the media can influence the level of audacity in the behavioral patterns of children and adults (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001).
The authors show that it is hard to measure the effects of the media on adolescents. They agree that the media is a potent vehicle of attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, norms, social, and occupational roles, values, and beliefs. It is with these that someone learns “the distinctive patterns that fit an individual into the particular place and subgroup in which he lives” (Hyman, 1974, p. 529).
Now that it has been thoroughly sorted through, one of many, studies that showed positive results for children, It should be necessary to find out if adolescents spent a significant amount of time viewing, and or playing with violent or listening to crude media. These questions can lead to “Exposure of US Adolescents to Extremely Violent Movies”, an article written by authors Keilah A. Worth, Jennifer Gibson Chambers, Daniel H. Nassau, Balvinder K. Rakhra, and James D. Sargent from American Academy of Pediatrics, in the journal, PEDIATRICS.
That article was published on August 1, 2008. In this study, 6,522 US adolescents were interviewed on whether or not the most famous scary movies had been seen. It was awe-struck to find that the most popular R rated movie, Scary Movie, had been seen by 48% of America’s youth. The majority of the teenagers who have a higher percentage of watching the violent film are black teenagers.
Authors cite many researchers and studies that have proof of violent media hurting the mentality and morality of youngsters. According to the article, the principal problem lies in the fact that parents are not educated or do not have any idea about the fact that violent media can be harmful to children. Parents let their children with significant exposure to any violence by having a television in children’s bedrooms.
Violence on television, no matter if it is in programming or commercial TV, is shown as a way to resolve problems, gain control and to get one’s desires fulfilled. Furthermore, programming with violent content and displays of aggressiveness has been shown to incite higher levels of arousal than non-violent programs. If the intense action is positively rewarded or portrayed as heroic, more violent behavior is subsequently displayed. The solution which has been given is to have Pediatricians be more informative to parents.
After looking at a couple of articles on how mass media negatively affected children, it should be fair to give mass media a chance by searching for research on the positive effects of press on youth. This being a less researched area because it was a little more difficult to find articles relating to the topic. However, “Uncommonly Good: Exploring How Mass Media May Be a Positive Influence on Young Women’s Sexual Health and Development” from New Directions For Children and Adolescent Development.
Although this article is primarily written for an audience that was strictly looking at female adolescent behaviors, the information is readily applicable to both genders. There are many benefits from mass media listed, such as sharing information on sexual health issues, the provision of many different types of role models so that any child can relate, and different ways that media provides outlets for self-expression.
The information found in this article is interesting, but helpful as previous sources, mainly because the information given in this article seemed to be more speculative and less researched. The report from New Directions For Children and Adolescent Development, though less useful, spun me on to another idea, are there good role models in current pop media? Resulting from this question I found Celebrity Role Models, from the website
Described is the fact that children will have celebrity role models; it is merely up to the parents to make sure that the celebrity is a good role model. Even what some would call a wrong role model can produce sound. For instance when a star gets into trouble make sure the child sees the consequences of the action and make an example out of the celebrity.
Concluding from my research thus far, it is safe to assert that children mimic the behaviors that they witness from media sources like video games, television, and music. Also, multiple studies prove that it is a collective action for young adolescents to participate in interaction with inappropriate media for the age group. Although a few beneficial factors were stemming from pop media, the negative factors were far out-numbering.
Before our final project, there are particular subject matters I want but yet have not addressed. There could be a continuing discussion as to whether violence in the media is responsible for the violent behavior in children and society, or whether it is a scapegoat to describe the violent society in which we live. Namely, whether or not young parenting also affects the morality of children of this generation.