Debate on whether or not violent video games cause real violence wages on with strong evidence supporting both sides

Young Adolescence is Incredibly Impressionable

A young teenager's brain is like a sponge, in the sense that they absorb the knowledge and experiences all around them. Teenagers are at a stage of development where their identity is beginning to emerge and their identity is greatly affected by his, or her, environment.

In the wake of recent gun related tragedies by young people, many parents and citizens are up in arms claiming that violent video games are the root of the problem. There is certainly no question that young teens are influenced by what they experience around them, but is it possible that video games are so corrosive to young minds that it is causing them to lash out in extremely violent episodes?  There is strong evidence to support both sides of the argument.

Research suggests no correlation between violent video games and real life violence

In a 2004 US Secret Service Review of school-based attacks, research suggested that only one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, which is less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books and violence in their own writings. In addition, the report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. 

Also, when comparing the US to other countries, such as Japan, young teens are far more violent, despite playing less violent video games. In 2005, the US had 2,279 murders committed by teenagers (27.9 per million residents), whereas Japan had 73 (3.1 per million). On average, per capita video game sales were $5.20 in the US compared to $47 in Japan. This demonstrates that despite being more violent, teens in the US play less violent video games, thus showing there is no association.  

However, much like any debate, there is another side to the argument. Despite the sturdy evidence for the defense of violent video games, anti-violent video game campaigns have established very strong evidence for their case.  

I recently sat down with Dr. Michael Brody, a professor at the University of Maryland. Dr. Michael Brody is a psychiatrist in private practice. He is also Chair of the Media Committee of The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the Celebrity Section of the Popular Culture Association. He is widely published on the impact of psychology on popular culture. He is also the co-author of Messages: Self Help Through Popular Culture. While talking to him about video games, and their violent connotations, he had this to say regarding the matter.





In addition to his expert opinion, a heavy inflow of research supported his claims. 

Link between violent video games and real life violence is cause for concern

CBS News recently sat down for an interview with Dr. Bruce D. Bartholow, a psychologist at the University of Missouri. He had this to say about digital medial influence, specifically video games usage: "Video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior." The problem with this he said is, "Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence." People, especially teenagers, respond to incentives. If there is a reward for killing another person in a video game, people are certainly going to do it, over and over again.

A study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology had 70 young adults play either a violent or nonviolent video game for a short period of time. After the game, the subjects looked at either neutral pictures or violent pictures. The results were quite alarming; the people who played a violent game showed a smaller brain response than those who had played a tamer game when shown violent image. In other words, violent video games essentially numb the brain to real life violence.

But do these violent video games actually cause real life violence?

Dr. Bartholow went on to say "A single exposure to a violent video game won't turn someone into a mass murderer," in his interview with CBS News. "But if someone has repeatedly exposed themselves, these kinds of effects in the short term can turn into long-term changes."

The American Psychological Association stated several studies linking video game violence to fighting at school and even to violent criminal behavior, such as assault or robbery. However, not everyone is convinced that the links really exist.

What this tells us is that it is certainly possible that there is a link between violent digital mediums, specifically video games, and real life violence, but it is extremely tough for scientist to definitively say one way or another. The results over the past few years have been very mixed, yielding results that support both sides of the argument.

However, just because we cannot definitively say violent games cause actual violence, it does not mean we can't take precautions to prevent it. In my interview with Dr. Brody, he expressed his similar concern.





Dr. Brody emphasizes the many flaws of the ESRB. To most of the public, these issues are virtually unknown. Parents buy their kids violent video games without thinking about how damaging they could be simply because someone gave the game a passing rating. 

All video games have a rating system that starts with "EC" meaning "early childhood," and ends with "A"which means "adults only." Despite being part of the rating system, the "A" rating is hardly every used. Violent games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty, which portray very realistic violence, are given an "M" rating, for mature, which is below the adult "A" rating. The reason for this is that video game sales would likely be less if such popular games were given the most restrictive rating. Thus, in accordance with the analysis by Dr. Brody, although there is not conclusive evidence that violent video games cause violent acts, it would be in best interest of the public to make video game ratings more restrictive.

Strong evidence supports both the positive and negative effects of video games on young teens

listen to ‘J150 Final Project’ on Audioboo

Why Teenagers Need Guidance

Good role models set positive examples for teenagers and help counter negative influences they come across in their youth.  While entertainment figures can serve as positive influences, teenagers are more influenced by role models they can communicate and form relationships with. More than 75 percent of children in the United States look to relatives, coaches, teachers and community leaders as role models, according to a 2008-2009 survey conducted by the Horatio Alger Association. Thus, young teens are very influenced by the media they see on a daily basis. 
(I will explain the media's effect on the youth in the following topics)

(Here I will introduce my Expert interview and also show statistics relating to media effect)

Body Image (Negative):
Collectively, the media has a very poor very on body image, both male and female. The standards that supermodels, and male clothing models are held to are extremely unrealistic fro the average teenager, especially at such a developmental stage in their lives. Brands like Abacrombie and Fitch, Hollister, and Victoria's Secret usually cater to as kids as low as 15-16 years old, yet, the models they use are not only much older, but much more developed. People at an age like this see this and want to emulate what they see, but are unable to simply because it is physically impossible. 
(Response to question 1)

Glorifying Bad Behavior (Negative):
Over the past few years, violence and sex appeal have exploded across digital media.  Movies and television programs show people using drugs and alcohol and engaging in violent and sexual behaviors. At a developmental stage when teens look for guidance, the glorification of drugs, alcohol, sex and violent behaviors in the media make it challenging for teens to make responsible choices.  According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry by the time a person is 18, he or she will have witnessed approximately 200,000 violent acts. Teens are exposed to even more violent images when they watch movies, surf the Internet and play video games in which violent acts result in rewards. Commercials for video games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto V display violent acts for children and young teens of any age to see. 
(Response to question 2)

However, despite its negative influences, the media's impact on teenagers can be positive as well. 
Awareness of Political and Social Events (Positive): 
Social media's like Twitter and Facebook, give its young users the ability to gain vast amounts of useful political and news information. Twitter accounts of political officials and news companies tweet positive, factual information everyday for its users to see. In addition, news outlets like as CNN, provide teens with an opportunity to develop a political stance. Exposure to news and information about events occurring around the world allow teens to learn about the world around them in great depth.
(Response to question 3)

Battles between ethical decisions and legal standards make it nearly impossible for the public to have any sense of privacy in the Digital Age

Today’s society is in the midst of a digital revolution, that is unlike any other transition in recent history. Over the past few years, the world wide web, high-speed internet, and social media have exploded making society today heavily dependent on digital media. Because of this, many issues arise on whether or not the new digital age is a private place. Some believe that privacy, like the old technologies people used only a few years ago, is obsolete. 

The main factors in determining whether or not the public can remain safe and private in the new digital age mainly focuses on the battles of media ethics, and media legality. The world today is a place where global news is only a few mouse clicks away. Journalists are under more and more pressure to gain first insight into a story, which causes some of the make decisions that may not be morally acceptable, such as wearing a concealed wire, or camera. 

Federal Laws are easier to get around than one might think

Federal Law prohibits the media, or any individual, from intentionally interpreting, or attempting to interpret, an individual's communication, whether it be orally or electronically. With this in mind, many people would go about their day without giving privacy a second thought. In reality, there could be a serious threat to their security. 

For instance, there are loopholes in some government laws that can be found. For example, The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) establishes criminal punishment for interception of electronic communication. However, consent can be implied to any reading of electronic communications by accepting employment with an organization that practices surveillance against its employees. Many employees accept this term of agreement every day without even knowing what they have said yes to. Whether or not these loopholes are legal or not, it is still a debate of ethical conduct. 

Ethical Battles are just as frightening as defying Federal Law

In addition to the uncertainty about privacy law, privacy ethics are another reason why privacy in the modern digital age is an intangible feat. Intercepting phone calls is not an illegal act, if there is grounds to do so. As for long-distance phone calls, a reason for tapping phone calls is not needed as long as the company says they are doing it before the phone call begins. 

With this in mind, it becomes increasingly frightening to think about how easy it might be for someone to access the things you say or write. For many people, this fear was realized in April of this year when Facebook had a massive privacy scandal. Many people consider social medias like Facebook to be very private means of communicating. People see social media the same way they see a public restaurant or bar. It is a public place, where people can interact, in a social gathering. However, what makes online medias so different, is that the things you say online, can stay with you forever. In many cases, what you say on the world-wide web, is there forever, for the world to see. 

False Sense of Security

For most people, they don’t see this as a problem. Privacy settings give people the false sense of security that everything on their profile is private. Facebook made the tragic mistake of tampering with this false sense of security. In April, Facebook changed the privacy settings on every user’s account so that the default was to make almost nothing private. Personal information like birthday, home address, phone number, friends, family, affiliations etc. were all able to be seen by any average person. 

Facebook is a website millions of people trust everyday with their information. People think it is a secure place to talk and engage in conversation, which is why this scandal is particularly chilling because it establishes physical evidence that shows how unprotected your private life really is. Although this may have not been a legal problem, it was a severe cloud of ethical judgement on Facebook’s behalf. 

In conclusion, the digital era of media has made it increasingly difficult to remain private in a very public age. Many of the privacy beliefs people take for granted can easily be overturned by an individual who lacks a strict moral code. There should be more restrictions on access to personal information, and the punishments for violating such protocols should be more strict because clearly companies like Facebook are not worried about the repercussions of making everyones private information a public matter. People should be conscious about what the say, and where they say it, because you never really know who is listening, and watching what you say and type. 

Media portrays blame for Government Shutdown in very different lights

In recent weeks, one of the most prominent news stories has been the coverage of the “Government Shutdown.” For those who are not familiar with the story, a Government Shutdown is essentially a way for Congress to put everyone on hold for a fews days so they can do their job. Every year different parts of the Federal Government need funding in order to operate, and it is the job of Congress to disperse the proper funds. When Congress can’t agree which funds go where, it closes down. It's very similar to the NHL or NFL “Lockout” that occurred in recent years. The problem is both sides want a lot of money, and there isn’t enough to go around.

The United States is a democratic nation, and by default, people are allowed to have their own opinions, and express them if they choose to do so. In the case of the Government Shutdown, the nation is very divided on who is to blame for the problem. Democrats blame Speaker of the House John Boehner and the Republicans, where as the Republicans blame President Barack Obama and the Democrats. 

However, the media has also gotten involved and has taken its own opinion on the issue as well. Different bias media sources portray the President, in particular, in very different manors.

The image to the left is taken from an ABC News story that headlines: “Government Shutdown 2013: Republicans mostly to blame...” It doesn’t taken much inquiry to see that ABC has taken a very democratic stance on the issue, and it shows in the way they portray President Obama. 

Obama is out of focus, which not only shows that he is not the center of attention, but is also a message to highlight that President Obama is not to blame for the shutdown. Speaker of the House John Boehner is in focus with a befuddled look on his face, thus showing that he, and the Republicans, are responsible for the shutdown. Obama is also mid-sentence, looking very professional and intelligent, as opposed to Boehner who appears slouched over and distraught. This once again is trying to emphasize the strengths of President Obama, thus showing that he is not responsible for what has happened. 

Yahoo News, on the other hand, has taken a much different view on the issue. This article, takes the complete opposite direction and blames President Obama and his poor policy making for the shutdown. It tries to emphasize the struggles and problems President Obama is facing in leu of the recent issues. 

This image, focuses directly on the face of President Obama. Obama is the center of attention; the image is clear and zoomed in right up to his face, and the lights are all aimed at him. The goal is to show a weathered and tired president who appears to have just run out of answers. His expression shows that he is not only frustrated, but confused on how to go about the issue at hand. Yahoo attempts to emphasize the blame on President Barack Obama. 

Essentially, the media is in many cases just as opinionated as the American people, and it only takes a picture to show what side they choose. 

The effects of Visual Media: Television vs. Video Games

In my opinion, interactive mediums like videos games, certainly influence an individual more than a passive activity like watching television. Studying the effects of media have been going on for decades. During the 1920‘s, researchers came up with a model known as the Hypodermic-Needle Model. The Hypodermic-Needle Model states that a message conveyed in media has a profound and direct impact on an individual. With that being said, I believe that watching television has much less of an impact than playing video games. Watching television does not require the user to do anything but sit there, and enjoy the programming. Video games are the complete opposite. Video games convey a message, much more so than watching television. For example, watching a murder drama on tv is much less influential than actually committing a murder in a video game. Games such as Grand Theft Auto, and Call of Duty, convey this type of message all the time. Every action in a video game is in response to an action taken by the player; thus every outcome is a direct reaction to the player’s performance. Since the player controls the actions of the video game, he or she becomes very caught up in the emotional state of the game. When the user does something right, he is happy, but when the user does something bad, he becomes very aggravated. This idea of aggravated video game play is no myth, the American Psychological Association researched the effects of violent video games and found that violent video games begin to change a persons mental state over time, making them naturally more aggressive and agitated for no reason. Therefore, I believe the emotional influence seen from video games makes it very apparent that they are more influential than watching television. 

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2000/04/video-games.aspx

Social Media: Addiction or Smoke and Mirrors?

Dependents on Social Media

By David Antos

Today we live in a new technological age unlike any other. The world wide web is at all of our fingertips, and a call across the world is only a few number dials away. Are we becoming too attached to these new technological devices? Many would argue that is actually and addiction and a serious problem, but I for one don’t believe the hype. Every day I sit through lectures taking notes and trying to stay as focused as I can. Certainly I zone out from time to time, but for the most part I remain very involved. Yet, no matter what class I go to, there are always multiple students on their laptops watching videos or browsing Facebook and Twitter. An addiction is basically the continued use of a psychoactive drug, or the repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences. Does using the internet too much really qualify as an addiction? Sure, most of the homework we do in college is online, take ELMS and Cengage for example, but this merely enhances our use of time and technology. Online media in the right hands is a powerful tool, yet it can be very harmful at the same time if you are not responsible with it. We certainly spend absurd amounts of time on our phones, or on our computers, but its all about managing your time and self control. People have been slacking off, and not paying attention, since the beginning of schools themselves, that’s never going to change. However, the way people preoccupy themselves and distract themselves does change. Just because online media is the newest way to distract ourselves from the real world doesn’t mean we should start opening hospitals for people who overdose on Twitter. My point is, doing work and getting a certain job done, really only comes down to a persons will to do that job. “Addiction” to social media is just an excuse for people not wanting to get their work done. Turn off your phone, and take out a pen and paper because if you don’t do your work, your stay at Maryland will be very short. 

Test

This is my new ePortfolio.