• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I think violence in media is discussed all wrong.

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
In discussion, especially in the West, violence in the media is talked about in terms of a clear black and white dichotomy. Which I think is unhelpful.
For clarity’s sake, personally I fall down on the side that says media is a mirror rather than an arbiter of society.
Meaning media reflects our culture rather than dictating it.

But the wider discussion is always focused on either media causing problems or it being absolutely neutral. And I don’t think either is necessarily 100% accurate.

Do I think media can influence people? Of course. We wouldn’t have advertising if it didn’t. In saying that, it’s not like advertising is a mathematical formula. The result is not guaranteed. One can increase the chances of the outcome being the case, but you can’t guarantee it will be the case every single time.
Media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It requires a broader culture for it to exist in the first place. But neither are humans born in a vacuum and media is influential for people to a certain extent. But I think that both sides are essentially taking their position to their logical extremes from the onset.

Thoughts? Opinions?
 

leov

Well-Known Member
In discussion, especially in the West, violence in the media is talked about in terms of a clear black and white dichotomy. Which I think is unhelpful.
For clarity’s sake, personally I fall down on the side that says media is a mirror rather than an arbiter of society.
Meaning media reflects our culture rather than dictating it.

But the wider discussion is always focused on either media causing problems or it being absolutely neutral. And I don’t think either is necessarily 100% accurate.

Do I think media can influence people? Of course. We wouldn’t have advertising if it didn’t. In saying that, it’s not like advertising is a mathematical formula. The result is not guaranteed. One can increase the chances of the outcome being the case, but you can’t guarantee it will be the case every single time.
Media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It requires a broader culture for it to exist in the first place. But neither are humans born in a vacuum and media is influential for people to a certain extent. But I think that both sides are essentially taking their position to their logical extremes from the onset.

Thoughts? Opinions?
They do what they created for - to create and maintain enmity and splits among people.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The media is to me a reflection of society. And it also influences people as you pointed out. There has been a valuable analysis of media outlets that chart their bias and honesty. I see this in how outlets on the right and left choose words in reporting an event or even what to cover.

Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_Standard_License-min-700x540.jpg
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
In discussion, especially in the West, violence in the media is talked about in terms of a clear black and white dichotomy. Which I think is unhelpful.
For clarity’s sake, personally I fall down on the side that says media is a mirror rather than an arbiter of society.
Meaning media reflects our culture rather than dictating it.

But the wider discussion is always focused on either media causing problems or it being absolutely neutral. And I don’t think either is necessarily 100% accurate.

Do I think media can influence people? Of course. We wouldn’t have advertising if it didn’t. In saying that, it’s not like advertising is a mathematical formula. The result is not guaranteed. One can increase the chances of the outcome being the case, but you can’t guarantee it will be the case every single time.
Media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It requires a broader culture for it to exist in the first place. But neither are humans born in a vacuum and media is influential for people to a certain extent. But I think that both sides are essentially taking their position to their logical extremes from the onset.

Thoughts? Opinions?

The problem with media is it is a business. The way they make money, the way they stay in business is by influencing the rest of us. Media that isn't influencing someone won't stay in business long.

Of course that being said, media has to take its core audience into consideration. We are going to watch the media we want influencing us.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I recently read a study that suggests it's not the genre of game that provokes "violent" responses in a lab, but the difficulty of the game. Easy violent games were not getting the responses previously observed in labs (it was mentioned in previous studies they were made difficult), while a difficult yet non-violent puzzle game was agravating enough to prompt responses powerboat only seen from violent game groups.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I recently read a study that suggests it's not the genre of game that provokes "violent" responses in a lab, but the difficulty of the game. Easy violent games were not getting the responses previously observed in labs (it was mentioned in previous studies they were made difficult), while a difficult yet non-violent puzzle game was agravating enough to prompt responses powerboat only seen from violent game groups.
That makes sense.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That makes sense.
Yeah. We have plenty of research to show that regardless of what and how, any sort of success, even if it's underserved, even if the game is Monopoly the winning player can get arrogant and even crappy with the other player. We have plenty of research to know when someone is frustrated they are more likely to act out in anger. We also have a world of observation to know this lab generated "violence" is not translating to real world violence on the scale we should expect if violent media makes people violent, not even in America but especially not in places like Japan, Canada, or Norway.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah. We have plenty of research to show that regardless of what and how, any sort of success, even if it's underserved, even if the game is Monopoly the winning player can get arrogant and even crappy with the other player. We have plenty of research to know when someone is frustrated they are more likely to act out in anger. We also have a world of observation to know this lab generated "violence" is not translating to real world violence on the scale we should expect if violent media makes people violent, not even in America but especially not in places like Japan, Canada, or Norway.
Well of course it doesn’t translate. Even the people blaming figures like Tarantino conveniently forget that he watched very violent schlock and instead of going out and killing people, decided to become an artist. (Insofar as movies are an art form.)
 
Top