Playing the Victim

The article that I chose, “Community Violence, Children's Development, and Mass Media: In Pursuit of New Insights, New Goals, and New Strategies.” by Friedlander proves to be a scholarly source because it is indicated to be so according to the online database provided by Texas A&M University.  This means that the source was peer reviewed.  The only thing that might take away from the relativity of this article is the fact that it was published in 1993.  However, for my purposes, I think that the message still rings true today.  

The article makes the claim that “[c]omprehensive meta-analysis indicates that prosocial messages on television can have greater effects on behavior than antisocial messages.” more specifically, “Community violence that victimizes children is an unmitigated evil that is exacerbated by vast economic and social forces”(Friedlander).  By this, Friedlander tries to convey the power of the media’s message but only when it comes across in a certain way.  But he also tries to show that in the media can play a role in stopping this cycle of violence by saying “that mass media can play a strong and positive role in alleviating some of the distress of victims of community violence, and in redirecting the behavior of some of its perpetrators so as to protect the children.” (Friedlander)

The main point that Friedlander is trying to make, I think, is that when media takes the blame off of the perpetrator and puts it on the community, then the weight of the consequences feels light enough for kids to act violently because they feel then the guilt would be shared and no longer their own.  In other words, kids see other kids who commit violent crimes not getting blamed for what they’ve done, instead media tries to put the blame on their situation.  This creates a victimization phenomena that makes people think they can do something bad because they feel it’s all they’re good for, or that its’ all they can do because of their situation, even though that’s not true.  People should be held accountable for their actions, and they should be judged not because of their circumstances but because of their character.  That is what Friedlander thinks the media is taking away and that’s what’s leading to these crimes. 

I think that he brings up a good point and the fact that I still hear this same argument today leads me to believe that he is right in making these claims.  I think this addresses a very specific discipline because I don’t think that just anybody looks at why there are violent crimes being committed and trying to link them to media.  

Works Cited

Friedlander. ““Community Violence, Children's Development, and Mass Media: In Pursuit of New Insights, New Goals, and New Strategies.” Psychiatry 56.1 (1993): 66-81. TAMU Library Database. Web. 21 Oct 2012. 

Violent by Nature

           Violence in corporate America, does it exist?  This might come off as a vague connection but stick around for a bit.  Let’s think about what the American mind-set is, “I’m going to work hard and make as much money as possible no matter what.”  There’s not a lot of room in there for things like looking after the wellbeing of others.  Most stories you hear about  business are about ethical issues around people trying to obtain more money then they actually earned.  Some American businessmen are willing to do a lot of desperate things in order to obtain large amounts of money (Large relative to the individuals situation).  People even disregard their morals in order to further their gains.   That’s the point I want to focus on.

The act of suppressing moral judgement for personal gain is a slippery slope.  If someone is willing to cheat others out of their hard earned money that goes towards feeding their family in order to add to their bank account, what’s to stop them from later suppressing foreigners in order to acquire cheaper labor leading to greater financial gains?  If a businessman doesn’t even care about his employees why should he care about people who aren’t even his own countrymen?  Chinese labor anyone?  It may not be violent in the sense of murder, but forcing people to work 12+ hours a day for minimal pay could be seen as physically endangering others in regards to their health and wellbeing.  Which, isn’t that what violence is?  So now instead of violent acts being committed out of passion they are now being committed for capital gain.

Sure this isn’t the run of the mill story when it comes to violence in our culture but I think it’s definitely worth taking a look at corporate America from another perspective.  It may not be violent in the traditional sense but it is violent in nature.  

Batman Status

           So in the late, great “Batman: The Dark Knight Rises” there’s a fair amount of violence.  One thing that I like about Batman and how he handles justice,  it doesn’t matter if it’s one person getting mugged in an alley or if the whole city is about to get nuked, he’s going to handle it the same way.  He has a bottom line rule or creed that he is able to fall back on,  and no matter the situation it will guide him to the correct response.  

Without ignoring the fact that he’s a super hero and the movie is not a retelling of real events, he goes about dealing with evil I feel in a very just way that I feel can be modeled in real life.  He’s never killing his opponents like they’re trying to do to him, and he never uses the same weapons that they do.  Both of these symbolize how he’s above the petty level that these criminals are on, which as peacemakers I feel is very important moralistically.  If we can’t deal justice without reciprocating the same amount of terror that the “bad guys” are inflicting, then are we any better than they are?  Or are we just inflicting our will because we have the money to flex our guns against anyone who doesn’t play by our rules?

Also Batman is not a power thirsty figure enlisting to fight crime so he can fulfill some sick fantasy of inflicting pain and justifying it because they are criminals.  You wouldn’t see Batman on some YouTube video harassing prisoners of war, that's not what he's about. The thing that I love about Batman is that he sees himself as a public servant; if there was no crime, he wouldn’t exist, he wouldn’t be out looking for trouble.  He waits until he’s called upon (The Bat signal).  Which I feel we could learn a bit from this in the form of foreign policy.  

No doubt Batman is not afraid to inflict pain on a few to save the innocent many, but there’s no question that’s not the right thing to do in that situation.  As messy as things can get and as harsh of a reality that war and violence is, I feel we can look at some of the fundamental qualities that make Batman great, and apply them to real life to ensure justice is being carried out in a humane way.  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/ 

Scare Me Once, Shame on You

I’d like to dedicate this blog to the scary movie trailers that leave me a little more than slightly disturbed, especially on those late nights when I think a little television will put me to sleep.  Psych,”no sleep for you, one year”!  (Seinfeld reference)   
   

The trailer I have in particular picked out is the one for American Horror Story on FX.  I love that channel but I hate seeing that commercial pop up because it spooks me so much.  It comes on no matter what I’m watching, whether it be a drama or a comedy or whatever other genre that channel has.  Seriously though, I don’t even have to give a specific example because we all have that one trailer in our heads picked out that gives us the willies just thinking about it.  In real life we are shocked when people do these awful things, yet look at what we’re contributing to:  Saw I-VII and other movies with demonic spirits slaughtering innocent families (Paranormal Activity series).  Our wallets show that we actually like to see violence, just not on the news.  I know nobody likes to blame media for any of these psycho attacks that happen in real life but I think we can’t simply ignore that we all feel there has to be at least a slight correlation.  

The things that pop up on “night time t.v.” (I think the earliest time I’ve seen a creepy trailer was 7?)  are just plain awful, in my humble opinion.  Who’s 10 year old do you know goes to bed before “night time television” comes on?  Are those movie trailers what you’d want your child watching?  And we want to say they have no effect on whether or not they’ll be violent?  I don’t want to risk my kids becoming psychopathic killers, or more realistically traumatizing them at the very least.  Or let’s even forget 10 year olds, I’m 20 and I still don’t want to see that stuff.  Here I am watching Wilfred (a comedy show on FX) and next thing I know I’m being bombarded with bloody scenes and demon possessed killers on the loose.  Talk about a mood destroyer, happy to terrified in .6 seconds, that should be the measurement used for how scary trailers are.  It amazes me what’s allowed to be played on public television.  

Now I don’t think watching a trailer will make someone twisted but one can’t watch that stuff over and over again without being affected by it whether they respond positively or negatively to it.  Media can’t be held responsible for how people react to what they put out but I think as a society we can make a statement and say “No, we don’t support this type of behavior.  Therefore, we won’t spend our money on things that glorify, make light of, or potentially influence violence.”  

The fact that these movies are making truckloads of money with essentially the same plot over and over again has to reflect something in our society otherwise they wouldn’t make a dime.  The question is, what exactly causes us to have such an obsession with these movies?  Is it the fact that the plot can be so far fetched that it peaks our curiosity?  I don’t think it can be too far fetched because then it would no longer be scary, I think we have to relate to the story on some level in order to get emotionally invested to become scared.  So then if it’s pure curiosity with this violence that draws us in, then should’t that be a red flag that something might be wrong with what we’re thinking about?  Or is it curiosity because some of these things we feel could never happen in real life so we live out these alternate realities to fulfill some unknown pleasure that comes from seeing these images?  So then is the movie like getting a really in-depth fictional news story about something awful that happened?  I don’t know about anyone else but I’m not one to look through news sites trying to find something tragic, I don’t think enough people enjoy that feeling for them to project that same desire to scary movies.  

I truly believe that society has an obsession with violence, I’m not sure if it’s nature or nurture.  Maybe it’s this primal instinct from our cave man days that’s lacking because our world that we live in is so urbanized that we no longer have that natural encounter with such extreme fear so we seek it elsewhere?  Or perhaps with this recent obsession with the need to be constantly being entertained that we are now having to always push the envelope for what gets us excited.   Just like a serial killer who no longer finds pleasure in killing his victims one way so he progresses to another way  and another way until a regular murder has turned into something inhuman.  I’m just saying I think we have to draw a line somewhere before we end up in a place we thought we’d never be.  

I’d really be interested to hear someone’s response who loves scary movies, especially the ones that are more slasher than spooky, you know just raw violence like the Saw films.  What is it that makes people come back for more?