Brad J. Bushman, “It’s ‘Only’ Violence,” Ensign, Jun 2003, 62
Does the media really reflect the level of violence in society? Does it have any effect on aggression? The answers may surprise you.
Not long ago I decided to conduct an informal survey to find out about Church members’ views on television and movies. When I asked members what makes some movies and TV shows objectionable, the most common response was sexually explicit scenes, followed by profanity. Nobody mentioned violence. (That is surprising to me!!)When I asked about specific movies, a common response was, “That movie had only one bad scene.” I asked, “What happened? Did someone get killed?” The answer was always the same: “No. It was a sex scene.”
Sex outside of marriage is a serious sin. In fact, Alma taught that it was among the most grievous of sins. But what did Alma rank as the two most serious sins? Denying the Holy Ghost and “shedding … innocent blood,” or committing murder (see Alma 39:5–6). I was puzzled that many Church members did not feel concerned about watching people being murdered on the screen. And many seemed to consider profanity to be more objectionable than violence in movies and TV programs. This makes me think a lot about videos. I too am at fault of this. Violence doesn’t bother me like sex would.
In my profession as a psychology professor at Iowa State University, I have spent many years in extensive study of the effects of media violence. I have also examined statements of Church leaders on the subject. Both the teachings of Church leaders and the findings from hundreds of scientific studies make it clear that we need to better understand the consequences of violent media on individuals and on society at large.
Spiritual Consequences of Media Violence
The pamphlet For the Strength of Youth contains a statement on media violence that all people, not just the youth, should give heed to: “Depictions of violence often glamorize vicious behavior. They offend the Spirit and make you less able to respond to others in a sensitive, caring way. They contradict the Savior’s message of love for one another.” 1 I also didn’t think of it that way. The Lord does teach us to love one another and how can we when we enjoy watching them be killed?
Interestingly, an examination of the Word of Wisdom helps provide insight into the spiritual effects of media violence. Scientists have shown that tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and too much meat can harm us physically. But the most important blessings of keeping the Word of Wisdom are spiritual, not physical. Our bodies are temples, and when we abuse our bodies by consuming harmful substances, the Spirit of the Lord is restrained in our lives (see 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 1 Cor. 6:19). The Spirit will not inhabit a polluted temple.
Similarly, the Spirit is offended when we pollute our minds with harmful, violent material, whether or not such material causes us to commit violent acts. (Most would think that it is onlt when we commit such acts, but there is that chapter on how when we commit adultery in our minds it is still a sin… hmm.) Consuming violent media makes it more difficult to keep ourselves “unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). It is troubling that so many people consider it entertaining to view violence or play violent video games.
Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles expressed it well when he said: “I believe the entertainment industry cannot portray on film people gunned down in cold blood, in living color, and not have it affect the attitudes and thoughts of some of the people who see it. … I believe that the desensitizing effect of such media abuses on the hearts and souls of those who are exposed to them results in a partial fulfillment of the Savior’s statement that ‘because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.’ ” 2
How Much Violence Do We Watch?
The American public consumes what the media produce as if it were harmless. A U.S. study reported that it is the equivalent of a full-time job for the average American child, who spends about 40 hours per week watching TV and videos, playing computer games, and so on. 3 Children in other developed countries display similar habits.
A recent content analysis of more than 8,000 hours of television programming showed that about 60 percent of the programs contained violence. Only 4 percent of the violent programs contained an antiviolence theme. In most programs, the violence was sanitized and depicted as trivial and glamorous. 4
Over time, the accumulated numbers of violent acts an individual sees on television can be staggering. By the time the average American child graduates from elementary school, he or she will have seen more than 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence, such as assaults, on network television. 5 The numbers are even higher if the child has access to cable television or a videocassette or DVD player, as most do.
Violent video games might be even more harmful than violent TV programs. While television viewing is usually a passive activity, video game playing is highly interactive. Most violent video games require the player to take on the identity of a violent game character, and most of these games reward individuals for behaving aggressively (for example, players get points for killing people). The violence portrayed in these video games is almost continuous. Scientific research has shown that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior. 6 Lamentably, the most popular video games are violent ones. 7
Some Myths about Violent Media
Myth #1: The mass media simply mirror the level of violence in the real world. The entertainment industry often makes this claim. For example, Zev Braun of CBS-TV said: “We live in a violent society. Art imitates the modes of life, not the other way around. It would be better for Congress to clean up that society than to try to clean up the reflection of that society.” 8
However, even in reality-based TV programs, violence is grossly overemphasized. For example, one study compared the frequency of crimes occurring in the real world with the frequency of crimes occurring in reality-based police TV programs. About 87 percent of the crimes occurring in the real world are nonviolent, whereas only 13 percent of crimes occurring in reality-based TV programs are nonviolent. The largest discrepancy between the real world and the world depicted on television was for murder—the most violent crime of all. Only 0.2 percent of the crimes reported by the FBI are murders, whereas about 50 percent of the crimes shown in reality-based TV programs are murders. 9
According to film critic Michael Medved, the claim that the entertainment industry merely reflects the level of violence in society simply is not true:
“If this were true, then why do so few people witness murders in real life but everybody sees them on TV and in movies? The most violent ghetto isn’t in South Central L.A. or Southeast Washington, D.C.; it’s on television.
“About 350 characters appear each night on prime-time TV, but studies show an average of seven of these people are murdered every night. If this rate applied in reality, then in just 50 days everyone in the United States would be killed—and the last left could turn off the TV.” 10
If the entertainment industry is a mirror that reflects the level of violence in society, it is a treacherous funhouse mirror that provides a distorted image of reality. There is far more violence in the “reel” world than in the real world.
Myth #2: Viewing violence actually decreases aggression (I’ve never thought that!) The television and motion picture industries often claim that viewing violence has a cathartic effect. For example, Alfred Hitchcock said: “One of television’s greatest contributions is that it brought murder back into the home where it belongs. Seeing a murder on television can be good therapy. It can help work off one’s antagonism.” 11
Although this idea has been around a long time, dating back to Aristotle, there is virtually no scientific evidence to support it. Six major professional societies have signed a joint statement on the hazards of exposing children to media violence, noting that the research data “point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.” 12 A recent review in Science magazine, written by this author and a colleague, came to the same conclusion. 13 And although media violence is especially likely to increase aggression in children, it also increases aggression in adults. 14
Myth #3: Viewing violence has a trivial effect on aggression. Many people claim that the effect of violent media on aggression is so small that the risk to society is trivial. However, the research evidence indicates that the effect of violent media on aggression is stronger than the effect of calcium intake on bone mass, the effect of asbestos on cancer, the effect of lead exposure on mental functioning, and the effect of secondhand smoke on lung cancer. 15
It may be useful to compare viewing media violence with smoking cigarettes. Smoking one cigarette has little impact on the likelihood that a person will get lung cancer, but repeated exposure to tobacco smoke dramatically increases the risk of cancer. Similarly, watching one violent TV program or film has little impact on the likelihood that a person will behave more aggressively. But repeated exposure to media violence dramatically increases aggressive behavior. 16
Myth #4: Decreasing rates of violent crime prove that media violence does not increase societal violence. Some people think that because violent crime rates in the United States have decreased in recent years, viewing violence can’t cause an increase in societal violence. Such reasoning might be valid if all of the following three assumptions were true: (a) exposure to media violence has remained the same or increased during this time span; (b) violent crime rates among youth are decreasing during this time span; and (c) media violence is the only factor that causes societal violence.
The first assumption is probably true. The second assumption is highly debatable; the rate of self-reported acts of violence by youth rose sharply from 1983 to 1993 and then remained level from 1993 to 1998. 17 Most important, the third assumption is clearly false. Other factors contribute to changes in societal violence and might well account for the recent overall decline in violent crimes in the United States. Four such factors are: (a) the U.S. population was getting older during this time span, and older people are much less likely to commit violent crimes than are younger people; (b) U.S. residents were being imprisoned at record rates during this time span, and therefore some of the most violent people in society were locked up in prisons; (c) unemployment and poverty rates were low during the period of time when overall crime rates were declining; and (d) due to recent medical advances, fewer deaths have resulted from acts of violence, leading to decreased murder rates. 18
Myth #5: One cannot know whether media violence causes aggression. (In certain canses of course you can.) Experimental studies can be used to determine whether violent media in general increase aggression. In a typical experiment, the researcher shows subjects either a violent or a nonviolent program. The researcher flips a coin to determine which program each subject watches; thus, because the subjects are not given a choice, one cannot claim that the subjects exposed to the violent program are more aggressive to begin with. The researcher then treats the two groups of subjects identically, except for the program they watch. After the subjects view the program, the researcher measures their aggressive behavior. The findings from numerous experimental studies conducted in this manner have shown that violent media cause an increase in aggressive behavior. 19
Myth #6: “Media violence doesn’t affect me!” Suppose that a particular violent TV program increases aggression in just 1 percent of viewers. Should society be concerned about a percentage so small? Yes! Suppose 20 million people watch the program. If the program increases aggression in just 1 percent of viewers, then 200,000 people will behave more aggressively after watching the program. Because so many people are exposed to TV violence, the effect on society can be immense, even if only a small percentage of people are immediately affected by what they see.
Even if only 1 percent of viewers will behave more aggressively immediately after viewing a particular program, the cumulative effects are likely to increase the aggressiveness of most, if not all, viewers. Furthermore, experimental studies have shown that merely viewing 15 minutes of a relatively mild violent program increases the aggressiveness of at least one-fourth of viewers. 20
Scientific studies have also found evidence that violent media can be desensitizing—a finding that has been validated by our priesthood leaders. Elder Marvin J. Ashton of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (1915–94) said: “A diet of violence or pornography dulls the senses, and future exposures need to be rougher and more extreme. Soon the person is desensitized and is unable to react in a sensitive, caring, responsible manner, especially to those in his own home and family. Good people can become infested with this material and it can have terrifying, destructive consequences.” 21
As Church members, we are seeking to become like Christ and to cultivate loving relationships with our families and those around us. Consequently, the effects of media violence on our interactions with others should be of particular concern.
The words of the Apostles and of many social scientists converge on this topic—media violence has harmful effects on individuals and on society at large. Let us choose carefully the material we allow to enter our hearts and minds. We must recognize for ourselves the effects of media violence, both temporal and spiritual, and take responsibility for our choices.
What Can Parents Do?
Although media violence affects people of all ages, young children are the most vulnerable. Compared to adults, children are more impressionable, have more difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, and are less likely to understand different motives for aggression. What can parents do to protect their families from the harmful effects of media violence?
• Become educated on this issue. Be sure what you read is based on scientific research rather than opinion. Because the entertainment industry profits from marketing a harmful product, it often claims that violent media are not harmful—much like the tobacco industry used to claim that smoking cigarettes was not harmful. Thus, you may want to look elsewhere for reliable and valid information.
• Monitor the content of the programs your children watch. Have a supply of nonviolent videotapes, DVDs, and computer games, and let your children choose the ones they want to use. If your child is viewing a program you are unfamiliar with, watch with him or her so you can turn off the TV if an inappropriate scene comes on. Explain your standards to your children so they can make appropriate entertainment choices outside of the home.
• Limit the amount of time your children watch TV and play computer games.
• Set a good example for your children by avoiding violent media yourself. When parents and older siblings have a heavy diet of media violence, younger children are thereby exposed to more media violence.
• If advertisers didn’t sponsor violent programs, they would cease to exist. If you don’t like the violence in a particular program, contact the advertisers and inform them of your objections.

This is a powerful talk. Makes me rethink my dad’s idea that since he was in Vietnam he can watch violent movies, only because he has already seen it, but is that true??

part three of the portfolio

Se here's the thing. My first plan was to go into something that had to do with broadcasting however now I am not sure if that's what I want to do! I think that I would be happier somewhere writing a book for teenagers with low self esteem. or unhappy people. But as far as I know my plan will still be to graduate with a degree in communications. I will not graduate until after my mission so closer to 2014, scary thought because that is so far away! But I am excited to serve the Lord and maybe that will give me a more definite idea of what I should do with my life. But so far I will study comminucation, serve my mission, come back and graduate and then hopefully teach. I really enjoy interpersonal communications, so maybe farther on down the road I may get into therapy or recreational therapy. It's a long road ahead buit I just want to help people.

As far as the second part of this goes I plan on keeping up with this week in Google. Everything about that is interesting. They tell all about new types of media and how effective it can be. I also plan to follow apple more closely as things like the Ipad grow and the company gets larger. I am interested to see how apple and google may combine forces? But then again maybe they will not. It will be an interesting few years, listening to these podcasts and watching both sites to see what happens.

This week in google Ep, 28

Feb 27

Why 2010 won't be like 1984? Weird.

Gina in cloudy san diego!

(Grammy's the week before!)

Google is now talking about android 2.1 update one. Weird. What does this mean? She tlaks about a patent issue. Apple asked Google not to make this because it is too much like the apple. They talk about how dolphin was a lot more feasible than the actual update?
Theyalso talk about maps and how it now adds new layers to the land.
Traffic on maps.This is such a helpful thing. I think so too because I use my maps on my phone for traffic so I can avoid it. They talk about how you don't have to go through itunes for htings. It is supposed to be a great update, and it is on the Iphone. I can see why apple gets mad. They need more applications and audio books.. I don't have that phoen so I personally don't really care... I think that so many people don't realize how many different phones come out so often! I mean I swear 4 new phones come out every month. How are we supposed to keep up with this! People have two years on a contract but then new phoones come out right after??

This week in google Ep. 29

Feb. 14th 2010

They had a go to meeting ad. Interesting!

Talks about fear in the Google sphere! (ouch)
Talk about google buzz. I don't really understand what this is or it's system?
They are talking about buzz and how it is new. Like twitter and hwo they have all their own words and kind of a dictionary. Goopgle buzz is a new thing! Apparently it is brand new and has become huge!
Someone on the gmail team came up with it. Google profiles! As everyone knows I am already in love with Gmail! There were projects before that came before buzz. It used to be google source and goole social. These are things that I didn't even know existed. And here is what it is. It is like they said like an arch stone that combines all that google has. It combines maps, profiles and all that. I guess a central place is good. And Jiku? I don't really understand what all the buzz is about this. I just don't really find it interesting. Argh. Too many social networks!
We already have facebook and such, but I guess this is expanding on it...? Eh, not my thing

This week in google Ep. 30

This week in google!

Yay.

Some new people on the episode today!

Expert labs project? What is this?
They talk about legalizing pot...? They are trying to talk about making votes and policies. They say that they assume that policy makers have usually good ideas. Which makes me wonder, so many policies? They are talking about filtering rules. It brings me again to the idea that so many things on the internet are not filtered. I mean we really are allowed to say what we want!
Buzz- better than twitter?? They want to plug it into think tank- Buzz is something that makes you see all of the replies that ask about a certain issue. This is what we are ttrying to do at BYUI is kind of a continuing conversation type thing, so I would say that it is a good thing! It is a way to communicate with people who have differeent experiences. But then it makes me think about who has the power to cancel these types of things? Who is going to moniter that? I mean how much of the internet can you really moniter? So many people can say so much of what they want! It's tough!

Expert Labs. org follwo the thoughts of what's going on.

The guy that works on spam and buzz as well, People try to prevent spam, and get rid of it. I don't really think about this. I mean spam is something we block! So where does it really come from and why is it really allowed? I mean these types of people try to take over the internet!

This week in Google Ep. 31

On show Jeff Jarvis and Gina Gerpanni

This show is still a little dry... But this is what I learned this time around.

They begin by talking about Jersey polotics and orange tans..

Also it talks about google associates and how a video was making fun of a child with down syndrome. It brings up the issue as to whether or not google is responsible for what was posted or if they are simply just a posting. They do make a good point that should we be punished as US citizens for something that was posted in Italy? He said that you would have to have three shifts of 10,000 people at a time to be able to see all the videos that are posted. They make another good point that there really isn't anyhting we can do too much when these types of things happen. How much control do we really have? The internet is now at risk! But they also say that it is a public thing! And it is. It is a place where we have the opportunity so speak freely! But I guess google wasn;t aware of this add! Weird. They also say that they knew for two months! It is a sad thing that they let this video run when it shouldn't have! It is sad to let people mock something. The issue of responsiveness is a good point. They didn't catch it fast enough. Interesting episode! (More liable. EW)

Final thoughts on this class

This class is a powerful part of my education. I learned so much about how in my generation I will juggle so much when it comes to the media. I also have the blessed opportunity to reach out beyond what is already hejre. I have the chance to make a name for myself and use the media to accomplish this. I get to stand tall and make a wiser decision. I think that people forget how much as a society we really do rely on the media! It is a sad thing because media is so important, with all it's negatives it comes with a handful of positives that can help os move the Gospel farther!