Negative Effects of Violence Portrayed in Media

Introduction

In modern life it is almost impossible to avoid the media. The mass media encompasses most of what our mind consumes on a daily basis. According to Coleman (2017), the mass media is the point where most people acquire their information or news. The mass media is the tool or technology that is used with the intent of reaching large audiences. There are a variety of platforms which can be considered as mass media, such as; newspapers, television, radio, magazines, books and online media. The global populace relies on such sources as points of information and reference. The mass media can also be a platform which addresses political or social issues and provides entertainment. There are certain trends which can be analysed when attempting

Of course, violence has existed much before the mass media was created. The question is though, to what extent is the media further influencing this culture? Branston and Stafford (2010) question whether violence in the media should be censored, or whether interpersonal violence is more likely caused by external means, such as social and political factors. They address the question of what is actually perceived as ‘violence’ in the media, and question what exactly constitutes as a violent act. In some cases, common gender roles and perceptions allow for the normalisation of violence when the act is carried out between males. Allowances are often made in such instances with phrases in circulation such as ‘boys will be boys’. It is also widely accepted that violence is acceptable in situations where the ‘hero’ of the narrative needs to cease or restrain a negative force. An example of such would be in movies like Superman and Harry Potter. The protagonist is seen in a positive light when partaking in violence against a villain. There exists also portrayals of invisible violence which stem from an official capacity. Examples of such could be when military, police or political forces demonstrate acts such as ‘peacekeeping’ or ‘restraining’. These questions offered by Branston and Stafford are thought provoking. They raise the questions, to what extent can

As explained by Murphy-Jallali (2017), the Hypodermic or ‘effects’ model relates directly to what exactly it is that media do to their audiences. The audience in this case is seen to be almost hypnotized by the media, which is where the power lies. This model assumes that the media effects the audience negatively, which stems from a position of moral panic. The effects model ultimately portrays the media in a negative light. It portrays the media as a predominantly unfavourable entity which either encourages inactivity and laziness, or encourages unsavoury behaviour such as violence and sex. Currivan and Gurevitch (1997) explain that there is controversy in arguments both for and against the effects model. The prospect of media effects can threaten self-respect, as the idea that the audience is a vulnerable, unsophisticated mass. It would also be suggestive that television, games and media in general must be the cause of a variety of social behaviours. Studies undertaken regarding effects have historically been inconsistent. The first popular belief was in powerful effects, then emerged the argument for null effects, then another belief in strong effects