Boom, Headshot: Violent Video games in the Mass MediaA Story by Alex P. An essay for my COMS 201 class. I apologize for any missed editing notes Reports
on video game violence in television provide a unilateral focus on video games;
asserting that they are the main cause of violence in teens and young adults. A
review of scientific studies shows that this is not the case. Television
reports state that video games are the root of violent acts, such as in the
Sandy Hooks massacre last year. This paper’s goal is to expose television’s
unilateral focus on video games and to argue that, while video games may
contribute to violence, they are not the defining factor.
Television
in the 21st century can be a very potent medium. Its influence can
be used to convey reports and interviews dedicated to manipulating our beliefs
by telling viewers what to eat, wear, and even what to put value in. Such
reports are not always supported by scientific evidence, as shown by the example
of video game-induced violence. As seen in the aftermath of violent outbreaks,
the topic of video game violence circulates through television newsrooms as an
explanation for such disasters. Cultivation theory suggests that our
perception of reality is affected by what we see consistently on television, regardless
of whether what we see is an accurate description or not (Wood, 2004, p 245). Television
consumers are endlessly bombarded with images of violence, which in turn make them
think that the world in which they live is dangerous, vicious, and mistrustful.
This is
called “Mean World Syndrome”, a term coined by George Gerbner, and is a
condition that spans across North America (2004). Mean
World Syndrome presents the opinion that because young people are completely
surrounded by violence, such as the violent acts performed in video games, they
become violent themselves. It is suggested that young people who have access to
violent video games are more inclined to be violent in real life because
“violent video games [increase] hostile expectations” and in turn, “hostile
expectations [mediate] the effect of violent video game exposure on aggression”
(Hasan, Bègue, Scharkow, & Bushman, 2012, p. 227). This conclusion is perpetuated by television
through use of repetitive imagery of violent scenes within video games, and
loudly vocalized opinions of the anchors or hosts (M0XNEWSd0Tcom, 2013;
WTLNews, 2013). As described in cultivation theory, depicting violence on television is used to increase interest and gain viewers’ attention (Wood, 2004, p 246). While this tactic provides video game enthusiasts with a heart-stopping preview that generates their interest in buying the game, it also perpetuates the imagery of incessant blood and gore to those unfamiliar with video games. In news reports surrounding the debate of violent video games various strategies are applied in order to perpetuate the stigma of violence surrounding them, such as in a “Keeping Them Honest” interview between Anderson Cooper and (former) FBI profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole. O’Toole was attempting to argue that video games did not cause violent tendencies in all young people, but rather increased already present inclinations. “Keeping Them Honest” pre-set the expectations for viewers by showing a number of clips from other news casts and talk shows, all of which repeated that violent video games were a major factor in youth violence. One clip even went so far as to describe video games as representations of “the corrosive influence of a violent-oriented world” (MOXNEWSd0tC0M, 2013, 0:55) During the interview itself, images of violent kills in a first person shooter game were magnified to fill the screen, the sound of gunfire was played over O’Toole speaking, and Cooper himself would talk loudly over her commentary when he did not agree with what she said (MOXNEWSd0tC0M, 2013, 1:57 " 4:50). As the interviewer, Cooper had control of the direction the interview was going to go, and chose to undermine O’Toole’s credibility. This in itself is an example of 'bullying' tactics exercised in most television interviews, in which drowning out or over-shouting another's information forcefully implies that the louder vocals must reflect the truth of the opposing opinions, even when no supportive facts have been offered (Higgins et al., 2011 p. 502. There are multiple studies which conclude that video games do increase aggressive behaviour in youth (Hasan et al., 2013; Anderson et al., 2003; Jerabeck et al., 2003). Several research articles surrounding video game violence focus on the increase in aggressive behaviour in video game players. Aggression has many forms, and it is important to point out that ‘violence’ is specific to physical aggression. Violence is typically described as “extreme forms of physical aggression that have a significant risk of seriously injuring their victims”, whereas aggression is “any behaviour that is intended to harm another person” (Anderson et al., 2003, p 82 - 83). Within these
studies, there are three main concepts regarding ways in which video games
attribute to aggressive behaviour (Ferguson,
2010 p 379). The first of these refers to video games providing a
learning-platform to youth that increases aggressive tendencies. The second,
that video games draw individuals who are already predisposed to be aggressive
or violent. Thirdly, underlying factors within an individual are the true cause
of such aggression, not the video games themselves.
The main concern surrounding the video game debate, however, is: video games “are
particularly harmful because they are interactive and encourage role playing…”
and that, “these games may serve as virtual rehearsals for actual violence...” (Harvard
Mental Health Letter, 2010, p 01). As
outlined by Anderson, both long term and short term studies have shown an
increase in aggressive behaviour in youth who play violent video games (2003, p
91). He
further describes several of these randomized studies as fostering a higher predisposition
to acts of physical aggression after playing video games in both children and
college students. Most people receive the larger part of their ‘information’
from television. Therefore, the use of vague references to scientific studies
within news reports or talk shows assists in pre-determining the
opinions of viewers, as in the case of talk shows such as “Morning Joe”
(WTLNews, 2013). In an introduction to the topic, the hostess refers to such a study
when she discusses the dangers of video game violence. Although she does
reference the abstract she uses from paper, her points of interest linger on the
more disquieting aspects of the referenced article. Key phrases are repeated
within her introduction, specifically impressing upon her viewers that playing
violent video games will increase violent behaviour Once
the topic is turned over to the panel, and the hostess’ weak attempt at
providing the audience with a scientific background is shattered. The panel’s
two most vocal hosts argue whether it is video games or gun control that is to
blame surrounding the rash of violence in America. One man goes so far as to parallel parents
shielding their children from violent video games to “keep terrorists from
boarding planes and blowing up American citizens” (WTLNews, 2003, 5:50). Not all people who play video games
will become increasingly aggressive or violent. According to the Harvard Mental
Health Letter, a 2008 Pew Research Centre study showed that 97% of youth play video
games (2010, p 01). If the melodrama exerted by the media were true, then every
single person who plays video games on a regular basis (including this author)
would be a raving, bloodlust crazed felon. A
key limitation is that many of the studies about violent video games’ impact on
youth focus on behavioural aggression rather than physical aggression.
Becker-Olsen and Norberg state in their study that “individuals who are
repeatedly exposed to violent media will become desensitized to it, though they
may not overtly engage in violent [behaviours]” (2010). Studies also state that
while video games are indeed a causal factor, they are not the strongest. There
are other dynamics that need to be determined, such as an individual’s mental
health and socio-economic status, before any fingers can be pointed at video
games exclusively (Harvard Mental Health Letter, 2010, p 02). These points are
ignored by televised media, to the point that ‘aggression’ and ‘violence’ are
synonymized. It
is entirely plausible to state that video games cause increased aggressive
behaviour, the media sensationalizes these claims to further their own reports
and to boost the network’s ratings. For every study there is that concludes
that video games increase violent tendencies (Hasan et al., 2013; Anderson et al., 2003),
there are studies
that not only say that video games do not cause increased aggression (Ferguson,
2010; Jerabeck et al., 2003), but rather, that they are positive influences on youth and young
adults. The fast-paced, attention-intensive nature of many video games suggests
that those who play them frequently have stronger concentration skills and a higher
visual-spatial processing ability because of the skills required to play video
games (Jerabeck et al., 2003, p 110). Another study featured on The Cycle, explained that those who play
live action video games find it easier to apply a learned ability to a task,
and that individuals who play first person shooter games are very high preforming
at various mental tasks (politicalarticles, 2013). Video games are training tools; they simulate various scenarios so that the player is immersed in behavioural scripts that push gamers in one direction or another. Playing sports-related games will teach an individual game tactics, just the same as first person shooter games will teach organized and guerrilla warfare tactics. (ChildrensHospital, 2008) However, this still does not mean that these new knowledge-bases will be put to use. Action requires motive, and unless people are motivated to go out and wreak havoc in the real world, they will be quite content to just keep doing it in a virtual world (Ferguson, 2010, p 389 - 390). The debate surrounding video games
is heated and convoluted. The position of television reports’ effects on public
opinion hold more sway than the research articles that hold relevant statistics
and fact... A person allowing a game to control their actions is just as
far-fetched as allowing their actions to be determined by a fictional television
program. Video games are used as scapegoats in an attempt to ignore the other issues
surrounding the debate of modern-day violence. While there has been a clear correlation between increased aggression and video game-playing in youth, there has been no clear link in any of the studies referenced in this paper to determine that there is a link between video games and outright violence in a real-world scenario. As always, when it comes to televised media, or media of any kind, what is viewed there should always be taken with a grain of salt. © 2013 Alex P.Author's Note
|
Stats
959 Views
Added on April 7, 2013 Last Updated on April 7, 2013 Tags: communications, gaming, video games, violence, television, cultivation theory Author
Alex P.AB, CanadaAboutAmateur Herbalist | Feminist | Social and Environmental Justice Activist | Entrepreneur --- The content of this profile and all other associated content are hereby strictly prohibited from disclosur.. more..Writing
|
Share This
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Read Request
My Library
Subscribe
Flag Writing
