Violence in the media.

Violence in the media

MORAL PANIC

In relation to the media, moral panic can be defined as being an unjustified fear of something, which tends to find expression on a wide scale in the public arena; blaming an object or activity for a wider social evil.

Such controversies in the past have arisen with transcript such as the ‘Penny Dreadful’s, or films, which incorporated crime, as they were seen to promote violence to younger individuals.

A good example of moral panic can be referred to the Jamie Bulger case, which came to the conclusion that after the two accused murders watched a supposed horror film about a psychotic doll, they became deluded and set out to re-create the film, and as an attempt killed Jamie Bulger. As the case went public society, became aware that such films could pose a threat to their younger generation, as they were very easy to get hold of and could cause permanent mental damage to their children. A campaign was set up to abolish the film and to increase the censorship factors on the films with tighter charges given to those who sold such films to under aged persons.

During an experiment done by Donnstein and Linz, which showed how young so called healthy boys could become desensitized to women rape cases. They were given a survey before watching several horror films, to find out how they felt to certain issues. And then were given the same survey at the end of the session to find out if after watching these films could change their opinion on the issues. They were then showed a fake law case on a rape trial, to see if their opinion of women had changed and if they felt remorse for her. The ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

What society doesn’t see is that by blaming the media for such events is only avoiding the real issues, which are the real cause to such problems occurring in modern society. Adults are capable of deciding from right and wrong without the provocation of violent films and its up to their ‘moral’ judgment to which they choose to follow. However in the case of Jamie Bulger, evidence in the case showed there was a slight connection between both the murder and the film. Its for this reason that I believe children below the age of 12 should not be allowed to see such events, as they are still unaware of such confrontations. Even the news has been censored as not to cause yet another moral panic outbreak with the public.

Media doesn’t encourage violence, but does go a bit far with certain graphical details, which could be seen as potentially dangerous to those who are not able to define between right and wrong.

Such individuals may include young children (11 and under), Pedophilias, and others who hold criminal convictions for crimes such as murder. In my opinion the law should still keep records on such criminals, this may even include what films they take out of video shops.

As for children, it’s the parent’s responsibility to monitor what their children watch, as they play an important part when it comes to their mental and physical upbringing.

Censorship can be argued as being both a good and bad form of media constraints. However not everything should be censored as this doesn’t allow people to make up their own minds, but instead propagates what they should and shouldn’t see. The good thing about this may only apply to children as stated above their minds still cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, and hence need to watch programs which stimulate their minds without corrupting them.

By Shana Canaii