Is the ideology of media blame really justified in present day society?

For generations the media has been unfairly seen as the catalyst of violence and crime with in society. The Media, particularly television and film have been blamed for many atrocities over the years; some of these can be indirectly related to the media’s involvement on people’s lives. But some cannot. As a Media and Psychology student I have different views on the debate of media blame. As a psychologist I can understand the connection with the media and violence, i.e. violence is a behaviour, which in theory, is learnt and repeated on another. Therefore this behaviour must derive from a source. Which it can be argued, could be a media text. But as a media student I can deconstruct a text and assign different theories to it. Such as the encoding/decoding model. Stuart Hall and David Morley centred on the idea that audiences vary in their response to media messages. This is because they are influenced by their social position, gender, age, ethnicity, and occupation and also life experience. Therefore an individual will decode a media text in a different way to another. Creating various interpretations of the same text (i.e. preferred reading).

The American senate office has concluded that the media, in particular television “…influences children perception of the values and behaviour that are common and acceptable in society”. A study carried out by the U.S. Senate office and the F.C.C. (Federal Communication Commission) on television and the effect it has on children noted, “… Children exposed to violent programmes at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behaviour”.

To counter-act the violence seen within television (and its viewers), the U.S Government have introduced the controversial ‘V’ Chip (‘V’ stands for violence). This is an electronic device fitted within a television, which allows the operator to block out programmes, defined as violent or sexual explicit. This in turn has raised a lot of questions about cultural competency. In order to understand the issues surrounding cultural competency first we must define it. The French Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu penned the theory that social class and gender carry with them different cultural competencies. And these affect the ease of understanding and hence the enjoyment of different media and art forms. Therefore it follows that some media formats may exclude sections of society who do not possess those required competences.

The ‘v’ Chip can be seen to automatically define and exclude members of society based on what a panel defines as violent or sexual explicit. Consequently it could be argued that violence or sex may be needed in order to get a certain agenda across to the audience. For example the violence seen within Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Reservoir Dogs’ can be accepted and justified because it is shown to be painful and in a suitable context to the plot and the characters. As a result with out the violent climax to the film, the plot would not be able to achieve its aim, as a fictional view of murderous crime.

This is a preview of the whole essay

President Clinton has been quoted saying “The ‘V’ chip puts the remote control back in the hands of the parents”. Instead of empowering parents or strengthening their influence in America's cultural landscape, the v-chip challenges parental authority and places them in an untenable position, fighting a war to suppress their child's innate desire to experience the ‘forbidden’ world of television and film. The Parents are being drafted into the front lines, fighting it out in the private trenches of their living room. The government can be seen to use the ‘v’ chip as a way of shifting responsibility to the parents. Thus. The ‘v’ chip exclusively relies on the parental unit to recognise the suitability of a television programme for their children. But as I noted earlier, the encoding and decoding process can be seen as the deciding factor in categorizing a text into a certain rating. Therefore what one parent may find expectable for their family may be completely different to another. With the introduction of the ‘v’ chip comes a new set of ‘v ratings’ these are as follows:

TVY = for young children 2 and under.
TV7+ = for seven year olds.
Tv7fv = may include fantasy violence e.g. ‘Power rangers’
TVG = general audience i.e. ‘countdown’
TVPG = suggested parental guidance e.g. ‘The Simpson’s’
TV14 = strongly cautioned.
TVMA = mature audience only 17+ e.g. ‘Sex and the city’

The History of ‘rating’ television or film is not a new one, ever since the 1950’s we have been subjected to ‘recommend’ ratings. The Hegemonies (or the dominant power) have told us that certain texts are ‘out of bounds’ because they are considered to be violent or sexual explicit. This, I feel only strengthens the desire to watch the television programme or film. The great Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud once said that ‘…We want what we don’t have, and we have what we don’t want…’ a good example of this can been seen within and surrounding the film ‘The Exorcist’. This film, by today’s standards is seen as being ‘toned down’ and less controversial then when it was released (in 1973). The film has only recently been lifted from a twenty-seven year ban, and allowed to be seen in full and uncut on video. When the film was first released, millions of people went to see it mainly because of the hype, which surrounded it. I.e. the ‘Anticipation of fear’ leads them to the cinema screens. Watching the film was widely seen as a way of releasing your fright or (‘exorcising your demons’). Twenty-seven years later when the film was released to a new generation of viewer’s (in 2000) people again flocked to buy the film (myself included). This wasn’t because it’s a half decent film, but because it is seen as a ‘rite of passage’, which we (the viewer) must and to want to endure.

For that reason my argument is that if a rating is given to either a television programme or film, this will only reinforces the desire to watch it. For example if you tell a child not to do something they are going to want to do it even more (this is known as reverse psychology). Hence the ‘v’ chip is only creating a stronger desire to rebel against the censors. For that reason I feel the ‘v’ chip unfairly suppresses imagination, creativity and realism because of the vulnerability of a minority of the population. Instead of shifting the blame on the media, the American Government should look at other areas of society which influences crime. One of the major and obvious influences on crime is the American Gun Law. A majority of Americans have an innate desire to own a gun. Guns surround everyone, it is seen as common and accepted to own or carry a firearm. Surly this can been seen as the malfunction in the system?

The N.R.A (national rifle association) not surprisingly are for the ‘V’ Chip because it takes the blame away from the ownership of their prised possessions, guns. Of all the lobbies in America, none is better known outside the nations capital than the N.R.A. and few are more influential. The possession of firearms enjoys Constitutional protection under the Second Amendment. “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Although when the Second Amendment was passed in 1791, most who supported the Amendment were concerned with invasion from other countries, therefore is the second Amendment really justified in present day society?

There are an estimated 200 million legal Firearms within America, Gary Kleck, a Criminologist discovered that one in every four households has one or more handguns (‘Targeting guns’, 1997). He also discovered that “people who use guns to defend themselves are more likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other methods of protection or do not defend themselves at all”. This fact begs the question “why do people still want to own guns?” the answer is obviously very complex and controversial. Even though I still feel it an important question to ask in order to understand gun ownership. There are many Critics who see the expansion of gun ownership and consequently violence within American society due to the media’s involvement. I.E violent television shows and films, Michael Moore author of the best seller ‘Stupid White Men’ and recently the director of ‘Bowling for Columbine’ take’s a different stance on media blame. He claim’s that the News Media who often escape the long debated effects theory are very much at fault for gun ownership and violence.

The social acceptance of firearms in America is firmly set in the sociology and psychology of America and its citizens; the induction of weapons is a celebrated aspect of being a citizen. From a young age, particularly in the southern states, people are taught that a gun is a tool used for defending yourself from the evil’s of this world, I feel it is important to try and Identify these supposed ‘evil’s’ which threaten peoples existence, to gain an insight into the gun owner’s psyche. Professor of Sociology and author of ‘Culture of Fear’ DR. Barry Glassner, as Michael Moore, has also centred on the theory that our “worst fears are based on cultural myths”. Glassner argues that the reason why the citizens of the U.S have an innate desire to own a Gun is because of the mythology of crime and its criminals. He believes that the Ethnic minorities, such as blacks, Hispanics etc, are unfairly represented within the news media as being the sole cause of crime within society. He feel’s that the reason is because of the way the news institution deliberately chooses to show a crime committed by an African-American, rather then a crime committed by a white man, therefore it seems from the viewer’s perspective that the minorities commit more crimes than anyone else. Glassner supports his polemic with very convincing evidence, for example the crime rate in America has dropped 30% over the last few years. But the crime shown on the news media has risen to over 600%.

It’s this unfair representation of the minorities, and the ‘fear provoking’ by the news media, which Glassner believes is the sole reason behind the ownership of many firearms in the United States. A good example of this theory can be seen in the film ‘Bowling for columbine’; during the film Moore shows very interesting footage taken from American news channels and compares these to the news items from another heavily armed country Canada. Canada has 10 million Families and 7 million guns, but the gun related deaths in Canada is about 165 a year, whereas America had a staggering 11, 127 in 2002. Its fair to argue that America has a lot more citizens then Canada but the difference is still phenomenal. During the film we are shown news items from American television, which Moore argues can be seen to create fear or moral panics. This argument is juxtaposed with news items from Canada, which seem less provocative. There is a very strong difference in the news content, but it could be debated that we the audience are only seeing what Michael Moore has chosen for us.

The famous French media critic, Roland Barthes explains that a “Myth hides nothing and flaunts nothing: it simply distorts…” he also comes to the conclusion that “ the very principle of a myth transforms history into nature”. Therefore we read a situation how we want it to be seen, creating our own desired reading of society and its inhabitants. This is argued is what the news media creates on a massive scale. Although the arguments put forward by Glassner and Moore are very well executed with substantial video footage, I still find the idea of media blame difficult to comprehend. From the beginning of the film Moore sets out to discover the reason behind many school shootings in America, in particular the reasons behind the columbine massacre. The massacre, which resulted in the killing of 12 students and 1 teacher on April 20th 1999, was a great shock to the nation, many people asked themselves “how could this happen?” as with the majority of terrible events there must be a underling reason for why they occur, the ‘reason’ or scapegoat in this case for the columbine massacre was blamed on music. In particular Marilyn Manson’s ‘shock rock’. It was discovered that Dillon Thomas one of the two boys who committed the murders happened to own a copy of Marilyn Manson’s ‘Mechanical Animals’ (an album I myself own). Many people came to the conclusion that Manson’s music must be responsible, what the news media failed to mention was that Dillon Thomas also owned an array of Nazi Memorabilia and had easy access to his grandfathers firearms. The media also ignored the fact that both the boy’s parents had been divorced and they under went bullying from many fellow school pupils for years. The simplistic idea that music is to blame is created to make it easier to comprehend such a terrible event. The moral panic created by the media was staggering, a moral panic is created when the news media responds to the concerns put forward by public figures. These concerns might be about the behaviour of certain individuals or certain fashions or events. Theses behaviours in turn are perceived as threatening to social order and hence receive an extensive amount of media coverage, which is completely out of proportion, and thus a moral panic is born. This is exactly what happened after the Columbine massacre.

For days and weeks after the event the news media responded with a bombardment of anti ‘shock rock’ items. Encouraging parents to look out for music, which may ‘influence’ their child to commit evil deeds. The notion that music had any part to play in the killings I feel is very naïve and unjustified. At the beginning of ‘Bowling for Columbine’ Moore comically argues “ Why isn’t anyone blaming bowling for those evil deeds?” this question is asked because it was discovered that both the killers went bowling at six am on the morning of the massacre. This humorous argument I feel conveys the stupidity of blaming Marilyn Manson.

The debate of media blame is long, controversial and equivocal. Not only is the ideology behind the effects theory ever changing in a media saturated society. Our beliefs and values are also undergoing a major shift in opinion. Many people such as Michael Moore have jumped on the anti effects theory bandwagon. This may be because of the government initiated campaign to link media formats to the problems within society. Rather then to admit that many problems cannot be simplified to suit the nations citizens. The events of present day life leads us to question our society, and the implications of doing so can create theories, which to some may seem hard to comprehend. But in doing so we come one-step closer to understanding contemporary sociological living.

Bibliography.

Film.