ADVERTISERS AREN'T STUPID

I personally believe that media images can and do effect public behavior in any number of ways, the easiest of which to quantify is purchasing behavior. It strikes me as farcical that an athlete, getting paid millions of dollars for the simple privilege of associating his name and image with a pair of shoes, can then turn around and claim that he is not a role model. I can more readily accept the assertion that he does not attempt to be nor particularly desire to be a role model. He can even accurately claim that he is perhaps a bad role model. But if he were not a role model at all, why would anyone pay him millions of dollars to use his name and likeness to sell shoes? If nobody was influenced by this personality, we could all rest assured that advertisers would not waste their mercenary affections on him. The simple fact of the matter is that, like it or not, this person does affect the behavior of a group of people. And that influence is worth quite a lot in sheer economic terms.

Similarly, advertisers spend untold millions of dollars each year for the privelidge of airing short messages in our broadcast media. TV, radio, and even print professionals go to great lengths to convince businesses that they do, in fact, greatly influence human behavior - the purchasing behavior of viewers, listeners, and readers. And they are absolutely correct. Media advertising does affect human behavior. If, however, we accept that advertisements affect human behavior, should we have any doubt that the programs themselves have the potential to influence human behavior as well? Some people would be surprised to discover that major films productions are subsidised by companies whose products are shown in the film! Advertisers do this because they know that the program itself also has the potential to affect human behavior.

WE AREN'T PUPPETS (NOR ARE WE PC'S)

Although media programming may affect the things we think about and even influence the things which we choose to do, I cannot fully agree with those who would claim that the computer axiom "Garbage In - Garbage Out" holds equally as true for people and media consumption as it does for computers and data entry. The "Garbage In - Garbage Out" assertion is in my opinion hyperbole at best. I would even go so as far as to question the extent to which those who pledge allegiance to this simplistic principle actually believe it themselves. Do they really think so little of the human free will? Is the media really the Svengali of the 20th Century? Can we, like computers, really be reduced to a set of mechanical processes, however complex those processes may be? If so, then these people have in effect adopted a deterministic position, something I find most social conservatives very reluctant to do.

THE DANGERS OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

While one could accurately describe my position as a "middle ground" on this issue, I am not, however, void of passion and conviction in this regard. There is a popular misconception that the middle of the road is the easiest, and the least controversial path to take. Yet in highly politicized and polarized debates, the middle of the road often succeeds primarily in making itself the shared target of both extremes. And while it is true that often the middle ground is populated by the ignorant and the apathetic, so also are the extremes by the unstable and the misguided. A true faith in the middle ground can require as much devotion and passion as that to either extreme, depending upon the implications of the middle ground, and the personality of the person who holds stands upon it.

WHAT IS A MIDDLE GROUNDER TO DO?

If we believe that violence in media is neither always bad nor always inconsequential, how are we to avoid the inactivity and apathy that so often plagues this middle ground we inhabit? How can we endeavor to deal with this issue responsibly? A good first step is to attempt to discriminate between the benign and the beastly, so to speak. Before we take action, we must separate that which we believe to be good, from that which we consider tolerable, and that which we are concerned may be harmful. While we will not all agree upon which we believe to be which, we can perhaps find a common ground if all sides would take the time to consider the issue more deeply.

THE "GET ME OFF THE HOOK" DISCLAIMER PARAGRAPH

Finally, this discussion is not intended to address the ramifications of free speech and censorship issues. It is an attempt to provide a framework by which we as citizens and parents can consider the influence of media violence upon human behavior without an all or nothing attitude. The sooner we rid ourselves of our predisposition to consider media violence only in aggregate terms, the sooner we will be free to discover which elements of media violence we believe to carry the most destructive potential. Whether we choose to simply regulate our personal consumption, or to limit the freedom of businesses to produce certain products is an entirely different subject - one this essay does not explicitly address.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION #1
What context is the violence placed in?

It is not enough to condemn violence in media. We must concern ourselves with the context in which the violence is placed. History is full of violent stories, none of which need be discarded. Masterpieces of fiction are filled with violence, and yet we heartily condone their consumption. This is not as much hypocrisy as it is simple recognition of the fact that violence, when portrayed within a proper context, is actually a very constructive, healthy subject matter.

Certainly all but a handful of idealists will readily concede that life presents some circumstances in which it is justified, even heroic to engage in acts of violence. Indeed it can be persuasively argued that sitting idly by while a helpless person is trampled could be almost as immoral, if not as criminal, as perpetrating a crime against the person directly, depending upon the circumstances.

Such justified violence, in life or in media, is a necessary means towards accomplishing a goal of stopping great harm and evil. It is best considered as a last resort, to be used only if other more diplomatic means are not possible, or have already been attempted, even exhausted, and have proven themselves woefully inadequate for the task. When considering a work of art or entertainment that depicts violence, we may wish to consider whether the item in question implicitly relies upon or explicitly presents a similar moral framework within which it places these violent acts.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION #2
How graphic and gratuitous is the violence?

Graphic violence may actually be what a majority of citizens intend to denigrate when they grandstand against media violence in general. If so, I believe their concern to be well-placed for I consider this as a critical factor when attempting to separate constructive and even tolerable media violence from that which is irresponsible and detrimental to our national consciousness.

It is one thing to read that someone was killed. Or to be told that someone was killed. It is quite another to read an excruciatingly detailed, step by step graphic portrayal of every moment and emotion experienced by the killer. It is one experience to see someone shot and to later find out that they have died. It is quite another to see a bullet go into a person's head at super slow motion and to watch the head explode larger than life in full color on a screen right in front of you.

The more we expose ourselves to graphic images of violence, the more we become desensitized to it. The more we relate to and think upon the twisted desires of sick minds, the more normal these incredibly abnormal ideas become. And perhaps most dangerously, the more we glean excitement from picaresque depictions of gruesome detail, the more likely we are to develop a taste for such things in real life, or at least to think we have, until we have involved ourselves in something that can never be undone. Consider the woman who corresponded in sadistic violent narrative over the internet and then met her pen-pal only to be murdered by him. Her taste for the excitement of the gruesome ended up leading to her destruction. We would do well to avoid such a path for ourselves.

Like wine, coffee, and any other number of items, we can develop a taste for almost anything. As incredible as this sounds, there is a significant number of people who have even developed a taste for eating mud! (Hardly a vitamin rich food, although I do believe it is low in fat and does have some minerals…) We have free will and are responsible for our actions. But even so, the more we allow ourselves to perceive graphic violence as commonplace or exciting and enjoyable, the more we increase the probability of our psyche actually considering and desiring such actions. In the heated instant in which we make many decisions, who we are on the deepest level will undoubtedly impact the actions we do instinctively. To whatever extent the horrific becomes commonplace, the unthinkable becomes increasingly thinkable, and thus increasingly more doable. In our moments of anger and passion, we are more likely to do that which we have privately enjoyed or condoned in the privacy of our own movies, songs, dreams, and stories.

SECONDARY CONSIDERATION #1
How glorified is the violence?

How glorious and wonderful is the act of violence portrayed? Does the "good guy" seem to savor the chance to beat up the "bad guy" or does he see it as a necessary thing that must be done in order to maintain order, safety, and justice? Admittedly, the more insolent and arrogant a criminal is, the more our human nature enjoys vindictiveness and revenge. To some extent, a sense of justice is derived from seeing a bully himself being bullied so to speak. Even so, is it not better to in general avoid aggrandizing violence, and to not make the act of violence an occasion to enjoy?

SECONDARY CONSIDERATION #2
Is the violence reasonably proportioned?

Is the level of aggression appropriate to the circumstances? When the policeman arrests a criminal, does he slam him extra hard down onto the car or onto the ground just to take out some of his own personal frustrations? If he does so, is this seen as tolerable or admirable? Were there special circumstances which led to this action or is it simply an act of macho bravado that provides a flair of excitement to the scene?

FINAL COMMENTS

If we accept that the modern tradition of storytelling is largely shared through the media of film and TV, and that the inspirational and motivational power of music is now most pervasively wielded by the recording and broadcasting industries, then we implicitly accept that the media now has the potential to effect the way we view our world, our peers, and ultimately ourselves -- at least to whatever extent we concede that legends, stories, histories, and songs have ever done so throughout the ages.

Of course, what deeply impacts one person, means very little to another. Rather than attempt to make your personal decisions for you, I simply ask that we all consider what role media plays in shaping our norms and our values systems (and consequently our and/or our children's behavior). Then perhaps we will be ready to make responsible decisions about what we choose to consume and what we choose to forego in music, films, TV, books, etc.

It is my hope that we can elevate the violence in media debate above the simplistic all or nothing mentality that seems so pervasive. Violence in media is neither always bad nor always inconsequential. Best wishes to you as you personally seek to discriminate between that which is benign and that which is beastly to your own psyche!

Mark Wendt