Does Violent Media Make a Violent Viewer?

The media effects debate is a discussion concerning how influential and penetrative the mass media is towards the people who are exposed to it and is becoming more relevant as the media’s audience grows wider. A question stemming from this general idea that is concentrated on in this blog is whether the viewing of violent movies makes the viewer themselves violent? The answer to this is important to society, because of the impact it could have on regulations towards what we are shown in broadcasting and on the Internet, which could easily cause a slippery slope leading to an unethical degree of censorship regarding information that is spread to the general public. Largely, the strongest points raised in the blog are those that argue that the influence of any media on people is down to the circumstance in which it is used and the person themselves, as each person will respond differently to what they see onscreen and some individuals might be more susceptible to influence than others. 

In Martin Baker’s ‘Ill Effects’, he describes the allegations made against violent media as ranging from “the daft to the mischievous”. He compares the violent effects of movies to the archaic ideas of misfortune being caused by witchcraft. This analogy is not valid as the witchcraft that he describes is fantastical, a matter of fiction, which is not something that can be so easily said when it comes to the effect of a stimulus - in this case violent movies - on a person; this subject ventures more into the realm of psychology than mythology. As complex organisms, each human perceives and responds to things differently: no two people see colour the same nor will they experience anything else in exactly the same way. To overlook the personal effect of violence in the media to an individual would be a mistake. However, Baker’s argument that how violent media is used is what defines its penetrative quality and influence is more compelling, especially in terms of movies, because if a person sees somebody in a movie commit a violent action, they can interpret when, where and in what context it was committed and should be able to figure out from that if it is appropriate to reenact those decisions. Even if an individual related to the life and hardships of a character in a movie who acts dangerously, it would be up to that person to distinguish between fiction and reality and acknowledge the consequences that they would face if they replicated the actions that they saw onscreen. 

Alternative to Baker, there are people who insist on a correlation between what is seen in films and the choices people make in real life. An example of this is the movie ‘Natural Born Killers’, which has been blamed for a number of violent acts including “at least eight murders” (Stone. O, 2002, ‘Natural Born copycats’, The Guardian). Most notably amongst these murders, a case that seems to illustrate this point is the mention of a Texan kid who decapitated his classmate and justified his actions, saying he “wanted to be famous, like the Natural Born Killers”. In situations like this, restrictions and guidelines set by film companies become evident in their necessity. Without the implementation of rules like age ratings, people who are at risk of being influenced by criminal behaviors' depicted in movies desensitized to immoral actions and are more likely to repeat them as a result. When such events occur, it is not the fault of the movies themselves, but the authority figures - be it parents, carers, teachers, etc. - who should have ensured that they were never exposed to such graphic materials. 

Of the two conclusions that David Gauntlett argues can be drawn from this debate - 60 years of research has not been able to clearly identify the direct effect of media, because there isn’t one or because the research has been taking the wrong approach - the latter seems a much more likely scenario. Media has an obvious effect on us, as a society and as individuals. It evokes emotions and has the power to change political views; it can start a war and end one. Nevertheless, the research that is undertaken surrounding the effects of media on people, especially the work that circulates the most frequently, centres disproportionately around the small number of extreme cases that rise from violence and breed the desire for censorship. When all that anyone is discussing is the needless brutality in any of the ‘Grand Theft Auto’ games or in the ‘American Psycho’ movie, so many of the potentially beneficial uses of the media’s influence are overlooked. There aren’t nearly as many stories about how movies have inspired people to make a difference and change someone’s life, which it should just as easily do if it is influencing people to murder. 

In conclusion, violent movies do not make violent viewers. This idea has stemmed from a collective need for something to blame when dark things happen and responsibility needs to be taken by individuals for their actions so that such notions are forgotten, which will allow us to take full advantage of all the positive things that the media has to offer. 

Written by Jacqueline Heldmann