By Don Hazen [2], Jan Frel [3] Alternet.org
There are many causes of violence in our culture, but the least understood is the heavy influence of media.
Alternet concur that the liberals’ knee-jerk embrace of media excuses for their overuse of violence is misguided if not politically idiotic. As the authors point out violence in America has no single explanation: it’s a systemic uber problem, with many separate organic streams of causality contributing their share to making it nearly intractable. This is not say that we think it’s a good idea to legislate or ban the depiction of violence in all its forms in cinema and associated arts. Violence is part of life; it happens in many different ways, times, and cultures, and ugly as it may be, in responsible, truly artistic hands, it has a role to play, a role of uplift instead of debasement through crass exploitation. The good or bad of violence in “entertainment” is a subjective question and can’t be reliably legislated, but this doesn’t mean it can’t be socially controlled. People, however, seem more horrified by the retail manifestation of violence at the hand of unpredictable unhinged males, than by its wholesale version via large-scale state violence, easily far more devastating, and in general the preserve of hypocritical leaders worldwide. In any case, whatever the relative dimensions of the problem according to source, the indictment of a mendacious media culture is long overdue.—PG
By Don Hazen [2], Jan Frel [3] Alternet.org
The horrific massacre of schoolchildren and their teachers in Newtown, Connecticut, has unleashed an unprecedented debate about how to address the problem of mass violence in our country. There is an increasing sense that American society is incapable of protecting its citizens, including young children, the most vulnerable among us.
Yes, it’s important to focus attention on the increase in the size andsavagery of the murders [4]: Six of the 12 most deadly shootings in our history have occurred within the past five years. The vast majority of the world’s worst mass shootings have taken place in the United States. And there have been 65 mass shootings since Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot in 2009. Still, despite their horror, mass murders like Newtown are thankfully rare. So we must pay attention to the daily violence, too. Nearly 13,000 homicides were committed in theU.S. in 2010 [5], 8,775 with firearms. So in addition to the most heartbreaking, large-scale killings, the problem is pervasive and the bloodshed overwhelming.
What About Violence in the Media?
It’s revealing, that amidst the millions of written words, TV discussions and proposed solutions, regulating the violence that pervades mass media — movies, TV, the toy industry, gaming, and the Internet — is not often seen as a productive avenue for reform of our violent culture. This seems especially true of liberals and progressives. We invest a great deal of energy pushing strongly for gun control, which is more concrete and tangible, with clearly defined targets and enemies. But we stop short of going after purveyors of violence in the media. Traditionally, this has been more of a priority for conservatives.
But when we looked into the impact of violence in the media, we were shocked at what we found. We, like many people we know, and perhaps you reading this, had a series of wrong-headed notions about the nature of the problem. We found that the issue has been studied for well over 40 years, and has been the subject of over 1,000 studies — including reports from the Surgeon General’s office in 1972 [6], and the National Institute of Mental Health. The studies “point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,” according to theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics [7].
We were especially surprised to learn that researchers, as summarized by the French Canadian media activist andresearcher Jacques Brodeur [8], claim to have proven that “the effect of media violence is bigger than the effect of exposure to lead on children’s brain activity, bigger than the effect of calcium intake on bone mass, bigger than the effect of homework on academic achievement, bigger than the effect of asbestos exposure on cancer, bigger than the effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on lung cancer.”
Are you surprised? We certainly were. If you are like us, you probably think that the research linking steady exposure to violence in the media to anti-social attitudes and acts has not been proven, which of course, is what the entertainment industry has insisted over and over again.
In line with arguments made by the entertainment industry, you might also have bought into the notion that violence in the media simply reflects the violence in society — even though that is patently absurd when you look at the numbers. Or, because the First Amendment is sacred, expressions of violence, no matter how unrealistic, inaccurate or gruesome, are protected or should be protected.
But most media violence is a commercial creation, designed to addict people to violence and make billions of dollars. This has almost nothing to do with free speech.
Multitudinous Causes in the Mix
Before we go any further we want to stipulate that there is no one cause, or small number of causes, behind the culture of violence in America. There are many culprits but especially culpable are alcohol abuse, which often leads to violence; the war on drugs, which make drugs hugely valuable, increasing the violence (though much of the worst violence takes place in Mexico); the return of hundreds of thousands of soldiers from two long and brutal wars, many trained killers, many with PTSD; the militarization of police departments, with heavy surveillance technology designed to make even a normal person paranoid; mass incarceration in prisons run frequently by companies trying to make a lot of profit off crime, and where for inmates, prison is often a graduate course in more advanced crime, especially since there are no jobs and almost zero help in integrating ex-cons into productive lives after they leave prison; and high levels of unemployment, especially among the working class and those without college diplomas.
Certainly, the political climate over the past five years, with the emergence of the gun-toting Tea Party, has raised the specter of violence. There has been a marked increase in militia groups and right-wing extremists. Threats upon the president’s life have increased, likely stoked by the relentless and aggressive lies about President Obama’s birthplace, his roots and his intentions. Attacks on Obama get huge attention in the media, exacerbating divisions and frustrations. There have been powerful propaganda campaigns by the NRA to scare people into stockpiling massive amounts of ammo, based on the completely out-of-touch-with-reality notion that the Obama administration is going to take away their guns and ammo. (Actually, President Obama has increased the rights of gun owners, and articulated an aggressive interpretation of the Second Amendment.) It’s hard to measure the levels of paranoia and fear that cloud the judgments of millions of Americans, enhanced by a number of conspiracy theories and the presence of media idiots like Donald Trump to give them exposure. That too must be factored in when it comes to understanding the ingredients of the violence.
Then there is what is often called the “masculinity crisis.” The changing roles of men, inspiring feelings of uselessness; the growing success and prominence of women and the increased maladaptiveness of many masculine traits, which are not so useful in day-to-day life in America in 2013 as they have been in the past. The end result, for whatever combination of reasons, is that virtually all the violence in America is executed by men.
What About Mental Illness?
Notice that mental illness is not on the above list of the most obvious causes of violence. While people who commit mass murder and suicide are obviously ill, Dr. Richard Friedman,writing in theNY Times [9], explains that only 4% of the violence in the U.S. can be attributed to mental illness — and that the lifetime prevalence of violence among people with very serious illnesses is only 16% compared to 7% of people with no mental illness. Friedman adds that people who abuse alcohol and/or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse problem to commit violent acts. And then, the mass murderers are not predictable: expert and psychiatrist Dr. Michael Stone at Columbia says, “Most of these killers are young men who are not floridly psychotic. They tend to be paranoid loners who hold a grudge and are full of rage.”
Add Guns and Media to the Mix
Add to this gnarly mix of causes 300 million handguns in a third of American homes — and you have a ticking time bomb. Then, you place all of the elements in the context of the pervasive violence in media, so prevalent that it’s almost like the air we breathe. It starts with “killer” toys aimed at toddlers, moves to the most violent video games imaginable, then to films and television shows with numerous acts of violence, seen daily by hundreds of millions of people. Many of these depictions glorify brutishness, macho insensitivity, misogyny, racism, and barbaric behavior. According toSophie Janicke [10] of Florida State University, who references the National Television Study (1998), two out of three TV programs contain violence, amounting to six violent acts an hour. The majority of this content is shown in children’s programming (69%). It has been estimated that by the age of 18, the American youth will have seen 16,000 murders, and 200,000 acts of violence only on television.”
The end result is the mess we are in as a society. And there is no easy way out.
Because the problem of violence is so omnipresent, clouding many people’s daily lives with fear, real or imagined, distorting relationships and many aspects of human interaction, we must start to seriously look at the prevalence of media violence and try to imagine how we might make it better. We must acknowledge that the media adds to the dangerous brew of violence in our culture.
Gun Control or Gun Safety
The rush for some kind of symbolic or even modestly substantive gun control legislation is understandable. There is no question that reducing the number of guns in the country, especially making them harder to access when someone has the urge to kill, will result in fewer violent deaths. However, gun control is not a quick, easy or comprehensive solution to the problem of perpetual violence. The battle for gun safety — given the political realities and the pervasiveness of guns — won’t even begin to address the massive, interlocking and mutually reinforcing violent aspects of our culture.
Future generations may benefit from whatever we are able to accomplish now in terms of gun reforms. But there are many other factors to tackle, and solely focusing on gun control is not enough.
A Reflection of Society
You may wonder, as the heads of the Motion Picture Association have told us over and over, doesn’t media simply reflect the society we live in?
The notion that media merely holds a mirror to society is easily disproven. Iowa State’sBrad J. Bushman and Craig A. Anderson explain [11]:
“Even in reality-based TV programs, violence is grossly overemphasized. For example, one study compared the frequency of crimes occurring in the real world with the frequency of crimes occurring in the following reality-based police TV programs: America’s Most Wanted, Cops, Top Cops, FBI, The Untold Story, and American Detective (Oliver, 1994). The real-world crime rates were obtained from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI; 1951-1999) Uniform Crime Reports, which divide seven major types of crimes into two categories, violent and nonviolent. About 87% of the crimes occurring in the real world are nonviolent crimes, whereas only 13% of crimes occurring in reality-based TV programs are nonviolent crimes. The largest discrepancy between the real world and the world depicted on television is for murder, the most violent crime of all. Only 0.2% of the crimes reported by the FBI are murders, whereas about 50% of the crimes shown in reality-based TV programs are murders.”
What About the First Amendment?
As you might expect, given the huge dollars involved, any attempt to constrain big media, entertainment, video game and toy manufacturers, will result in screaming about “freedom of expression.” And it is true that the FCC regulates indecency and offensive speech but not violence, because content regulation can be construed as a First Amendment concern as much as a matter of commerce.
However, the First Amendment, like the Second Amendment, has been substantially altered by powerful forces influencing the courts over time. As Adam Gopnick writes in theNew Yorker [12]:
“….. the blood lobby still blares out its certainties, including the pretense that the Second Amendment—despite the clear grammar of its first sentence—is designed not to protect citizen militias but to make sure that no lunatic goes unarmed. (Jill Lepore wrote [13] about the history of the Second Amendment in the New Yorker recently.) Make sure that guns designed for no reason save to kill people are freely available to anyone who wants one—and that is, and remains, the essential American condition—and then be shocked when children are killed.”
To many, the Second Amendment now means the freedom to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere, including schools.
Over time, the First Amendment — the right to free speech — has also been distorted to serve the interests of the corporations that in dominating our media are never at a loss for the right to speak. It’s not unlike the infamousCitizens United Supreme Court decision, where the courts have expanded corporations’ rights to expression to include investing unlimited money in political campaigns, without even identifying themselves, and at the expense of the individual person’s rights.
According to Mary Megee,in the U.S. [8], “most cultural messages are strained through a commercial filter which uses gratuitous violence as an industrial ingredient to keep viewers tuned in, ratings high and profits up.”
For corporations, the law of commerce and the market is the ultimate rule. In their highly sophisticated propaganda efforts, media corporations try to obscure the fact that they operate on the public airwaves, with licenses. The government intervenes if a swear word is uttered on air, or when Janet Jackson’s nipple was exposed for a brief moment during a Super Bowl show. But the most gratuitous, destructive, dehumanizing violence is not considered worthy of focus, because of the power of the media to shape reality, as well as significantly affect the careers of elected officials and the “fear” associated with tangling with the First Amendment.
It’s ironic that parents who push for less violence on TV are labeled “pro-censorship,” when in fact the omnipresence of programming filled with violence often displaces more constructive material from the air. “The preference for violence, is made by somebody, elected by nobody, prisoner of a toxic culture,” who knows that whomever is in charge expects them “to give priority to cruelty, aggression and hatred,” writes Jacques Brodeur.
The tobacco industry offers a relevant analogy. Tobacco companies (along with the ACLU), in the face of overwhelming negative health data about tar in cigarettes, insisted that the regulation of cigarettes, and the advertising for them, interfered with free expression. It took many years to marginalize the cigarette industry. Twenty percent of the population still smokes,falling by half [14] from 1965 when 42% of adults smoked.
Changing behavior and fighting corporate power is a long and arduous process, but it’s possible.
Isn’t Violence Going Down?
We do face a paradox in society where the hugely visible mass murders are increasing, while violence as a whole, as measured by crime statistics, has gone down — great news. For example, violent crime in Los Angeles is four times lower than it was in 1992. The interesting thing is that no one can explain exactly why. Of course, there is no end of politicians and police officials who take credit for it. The high number of people in jail may be a contributing factor, although many are in jail for non-violent crimes, mostly drug offenses. The high number of police in some cities like New York may contribute to less crime. On the other hand, in Chicago, where the high ratio of police to citizens is second only to New York, crime appears to be out of control.
Nevertheless, it’s important to keep in mind how the U.S., despite drops in crime, still dwarfs all developed countries in the number of guns, level of violence, number of mass murders, and number of people in jail and under supervision by the criminal justice system. The fact that violent crime has dropped is certainly good news. But we made the bar so high that we still have epidemics of violence, bloodshed and murder in our society.
It’s worth noting that in the wake of the Newtown massacre in Connecticut, TV and film executives purposefully avoided broadcasting violent programming. TheNew York Times [15] noted thatUSA Today stopped broadcasting violent police and detective shows; Quentin Tarantino’s gory new film had its red carpet event scaled back; previews of Tom Cruise’s new film were canceled; and “Hollywood’s power lunches have been filled in recent days with conversations about hypocrisy.”
History tells us that this momentary moral pang will dissipate and the hunt for profit through violence will continue. If we want to get serious and confront this issue, we will have to establish a framework for regulating media violence made by businesses seeking to sell tickets, ads and products to the American public.
Time to Put TV Under Scrutiny
The ultimate trouble we face as a society is the powerlessness of most people in the face of corporate dominance. We lack responsive democratic institutions to leverage change in policy to make us less vulnerable to domination by corporate interests. The pervasive and accurate feelings that the political system is bought and sold, that most elected officials belong primarily to the “money party” or their “future million-dollar job” party in whatever industry they choose to specialize, leave many people in despair, and in some cases angry and violent.
In a political system as out-of-whack as ours, where billionaires pour untold millions into elections to seal their outcomes, where corporations spend billions on lobbyists who promote their interests, building on citizen outrage and turning it into change is a difficult challenge.
As Brodeur writes [8], over the past 40 years there were industries polluting our air, water and food, while the entertainment industry “increasingly poisoned children’s cultural environment with violence carried by TV programs, movies and video games. While society agreed to regulate the pollution of air, water, food, governments have been unable to regulate use of violence in entertainment products for children.”
The executives of a handful of big media conglomerates think they own the freedom of the press and it’s their right to decide what will be aired to children (and adults) in the global market. Of course, not all TV is toxic; some of it’s often inspiring, but a lot of it is the opposite.
Still we have to face the music. We need to challenge our assumptions about why our society is so violent. Yes, there are many reasons, and it’s often next to impossible to separate them, as they do feed on each other. But that is no excuse for not trying to address all of the causes and not spend all our political capital on gun control and fighting the NRA. There is no avoiding that violence in the media, for children and adults, which along with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is central to our society being drenched in violence.
Television, quintessentially American, may very well be our biggest culprit. Brandon Centerwall argues that research demonstrates [16] “that crime rates more than double within 10 to 15 years of the introduction of television to any society.” He points out that homicide doubled in the US after the introduction of TV in the 1950s and that the relationship is causal [17].
It’s time to take a closer look at the dark side of the ubiquitous and beloved television, and ask what television programming contributes to a very imperfect society. Is your TV making you less safe?
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jan Frel is AlterNet’s editor-at-large and associate publisher. Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.
See more stories tagged with:
media [18],
violence [19],
sandy hook [20],
newton [21]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/media/we-are-country-drenched-bloodshed-some-hard-truths-about-violence-media
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/don-hazen
[3] http://www.alternet.org/authors/jan-frel
[4] http://prospect.org/article/why-obama-needs-be-more-parent-today
[5] http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/effectiveness-policies-programs-reduce-firearm-violence-meta-analysis
[6] http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/G/X/
[7] http://www2.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm
[8] http://data.edupax.org/precede/public/Assets/divers/documentation/1_articles/1_089_PagesfromSteinbergMacedo_ch56.pdf
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0
[10] http://www.academia.edu/1270752/Janicke_S._H._2011_._Violence_in_broadcast_regulation_A_comparative_analysis_of_broadcast_regulation_in_Germany_and_the_United_States
[11] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ba.ap.pdf
[12] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/07/aurora-movie-shooting-one-more-massacre.html
[13] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita
[16] http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/reviews/mediaviolence.html
[17] http://cursor.org/stories/television_and_violence.htm.
[18] http://www.alternet.org/tags/media-0
[19] http://www.alternet.org/tags/violence-0
[20] http://www.alternet.org/tags/sandy-hook
[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/newton
[22] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
ADDENDUM
Is The Reality Of ‘CSI’ Really Unrealistic?
By NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief | Deadline.com
(Originally: Sunday April 29, 2007)
The CBS’ Nielsen-topping series CSI and its NYC and Miami spin-offs are having a profound effect on juries, trials and law enforcement. But is hair and fibre analysis actually passé in crime-fighting? That’s the basis for Jeffrey Toobin’s article in the upcoming New Yorker. because of the show, ”criminalists have acquired an air of glamour, and its practitioners an aura of infallibility … But the fictional criminalists speak with a certainty that their real-life counterparts do not,” Toobin writes. He quotes Lisa Faber, a criminalist and the supervisor of the N.Y.P.D. crime lab’s hair-and-fibre unit, as saying that, in her field, “The terminology is very important. On TV, they always like to say words like ‘match,’ but we say ‘similar,’ or ‘could have come from’ or ‘is associated with.’
The fact is that “virtually all the forensic-science tests depicted on CSI—including analyses of bite marks, blood spatter, handwriting, firearm and tool marks, and voices, as well as of hair and fibres—rely on the judgments of individual experts and cannot easily be subjected to statistical verification,” Toobin writes. And that’s coming under fire. ”Given the advent of DNA analysis, some legal scholars argue that older, less reliable tests, such as hair and fibre analysis, should no longer be allowed in court. Last week, a commission on forensic science sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences held an open session in Washington at which several participants questioned the validity of hair and fibre evidence.” But Faber said prosecutors still introduce fibre evidence because they think the juries like it because it’s “more CSI-esque”. And it’s working. “I just met with the conference of Louisiana judges, and, when I asked if CSI had influenced their juries, every one of them raised their hands,” Carol Henderson, the director of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law at Stetson University in Florida, told the writer.
It’s not surprising that networks are metaphorically clawing each others’ eyes out to work with Ryan Murphy, the co-creator of “Glee,” “American Horror Story” and his latest effort, “The New Normal.”He’s proven time and again that he’s a master at pushing the media’s buttons and getting coverage for his shows, and the programs themselves reflect his relentless ability to attract eyeballs by any means necessary. Murphy’s shows make a lot of noise, and to nervous networks worried about standing out in a cluttered pop-culture landscape, that quality grows more important every day.But beyond the heat and the hype, is there anything recognizably human in these intentionally provocative shows? Are they merely constructs designed to gin up and savvily exploit controversy, a cycle that Murphy is able to repeat again and again while the networks haul the lucrative results to the bank? Or are his shows merely feedback loops designed to cynically challenge and then confirm viewers’ least charitable impulses?Those questions matter quite a bit when it comes to “The New Normal” (previews at 10 p.m. ET Monday, officially premieres at 9:30 p.m. ET Tuesday on NBC), which Murphy created with Ali Adler. More than any of his previous shows, “The New Normal” rests on the assumption that a broadcast-network sized audience will latch on to the emotional aspirations at the center this comedy, which tells the story of a gay couple and the surrogate they hope will bear a child for them.The thing is, if viewers can’t make real connections with the hopes of these characters, there won’t be any Top 40 songs, latex freaks or plastic-surgery disasters to distract people from that fact (though I wouldn’t rule any of those things out if the comedy’s ratings are weak).On the positive side of the ledger, “The New Normal” does have some witty lines and the cast is solid (attention “Real Housewives” fans: NeNe Leakes is surprisingly good as a supporting character). The comedy is a slickly made piece of entertainment, and the shamelessly sentimental moments aren’t too eyeroll-inducing, thanks mainly to the skills of Georgia King, who plays a Midwestern surrogate named Goldie, and Justin Bartha, who plays David, the quieter half of the lead couple.On the less positive side of the ledger, “The New Normal” features a whole bunch of Murphy standbys, which, if you’ve been following his work since “Nip/Tuck” premiered a decade ago, are starting to seem pretty threadbare.Unsurprisingly, a laundry list of stereotypes are deployed and “abnormals” are mocked throughout “The New Normal’s” first episode; it’s like a season of “Glee” in concentrated form. In the pilot alone, there are disparaging or racist references to Jews, Chinese people, those who aren’t thin and a disabled man; a woman refers to herself as a “whore,” and Leakes’ character comes dangerously close to being a sassy stereotype.There’s no doubt that Andrew Rannells’ character, Bryan, is a compilation of gay stereotypes: He’s fussy, superficial, obsessed with looks, celebrities, dieting, designer clothes, etc. Rannells does what he can with the character, but, in the pilot, the attempts to make Bryan something more than a cardboard cut-out seem half-hearted at best. It’s hard not to fear for Goldie’s potential child, given that Bryan views the acquisition of it as a form of accessorizing.Where “The New Normal” really excels is in deploying questionable or flat-out objectionable attitudes and then (haha! It was just a joke!) “taking them back.” The show gives most of the problematic lines to Ellen Barkin, who plays Goldie’s unrepentant grandmother, Nana. Other characters call Nana on her unpleasant behavior, so it doesn’t matter. Everyone can be bitchy, judgmental and mean, as long as they reveal secret pain later, right?Maybe not. It’s not just that, in the aggregate, all these comments create a mean-spirited tone. Maybe that’s what the show’s creators are after — a cashmere baby blanket wrapped around jungle-red talons. It’s not even that these kinds of moves allow Murphy to both take the underdog’s side and briskly take down the underdog whenever it suits his purposes, which becomes dispiriting over time (and led me to eventually give up on “Glee”).
