Political Science // Study the Juvenile Justice System
I. Introduction
Hardly anyone is beyond the reach and influence of the almighty media, as sociologist William Gamson (1988:162 as qtd in Birkbeck, 2017) once commented. The lay theory explains this impact in the correlation between media and the popular mind. The media commands collective attention and mass suggestibility. It both corners the public mind and is its voice, as the common perspective goes. Both systematic research and criminologists have negated the correlation. They both state that a number of social and psychological factors merge and modify the effects that media cause in people. But they have confined their declaration to media as a communication tool. They neglect to give as much attention to the other and more relevant impact that media creates in people. It is media’s power to create a publicness or a popular mindset about anything at all. This includes the revelation or concealment of well-founded results of scientific research for many years. Revelation and concealment have become powers waged by the media in arbitrarily shaping the public mind in whichever direction it pleases to serve its agenda. It can convey true or false, complete or incomplete reports on the impact of media violence on crime, for example, and it will be believed. And that, in fact, is the alarming reality. News misinformation has kept four decades of massive and diligent scientific findings that reveal the link between media violence and aggression and crime from public knowledge.
Research Questions
1. What are the findings of previous research studies on the connection between violence in media and aggression and crime?
2. What are the objections to these findings?
3. In what ways has public misinformation been committed?
4. How has the scientific community neglected its responsibility to the public?
II. Literature Review
New Findings Deviate from Previous Ones
In her methodical review, entitled “Does Viewing Violent Media Really Cause Criminal Violence? A Methodological Review,” Savage (2003:99) commented that the available empirical literature on the on the effects of aggression on television in the last four years are the only scientific source used to validate these effects. Although vast, the collection has not been sufficiently reviewed and published as a convincing source. Savage collected, collated and analyzed four types of studies on the effect of media violence on human behavior. These four types were books, abstracts, biographies, and articles. She worked on these studies for those who wish to explore more deeply into the subject instead of relying on the findings of past studies in the past decades. In the conduct of her review, she collected, collated and analyzed these groups of studies from a major university database, using contemporary standards of research in criminology.
Findings of her review deviated from previous findings that established the strong connection between the two phenomena. They suggest that watching violent television links to criminal behavior but provide very weak support to the findings (Savage, 2003 p 113). While they establish the connection, they also reveal that aggressive children are just as already inclined to such TV content as non-aggressive children are. The lack of control for “trait aggressiveness” in the carefully selected studies cannot validly establish the connection or conclude that violent television causes criminal behavior. Trait aggressiveness is also called violence proneness. Violence proneness and parental neglect or abuse are seen as predisposing to children’s television-viewing habits and violent or aggressive behavior (Savage, 2003 p 113).
While her longitudinal studies strongly suggest the causal connection, the connection is either absent or very weak, at best (Savage, 2003: 120). Her results further imply that violent behavior from peer influence may be associated with viewing violent TV programs, the effect is insignificant (Savage, 2003 p 120).
Unknown Factors, Mild or Exaggerated Effects
She elucidates that children who already possess aggressive behavior or tendencies naturally prefer to watch violent television more than children without these tendencies or behavior (Savage, 2003 p 123). Some studies support this connection. But the connection may be due to unknown or un-addressed factors that were not isolated during analysis. These factors may just be mild or exaggerate their effect on criminal behavior under certain circumstances. Nonetheless, she acquiesces that the dearth of evidence in support of the hypothesized connection does not negate its correctness (Savage, 2001 p 123).
Savage (2003 p 123) ascribes importance to measuring the long-range impact of exposure to violent television and its predictive role in criminality. She sees criminality as rare and complex and needing large samples in identifying numerous factors leading to criminality and predicting it. The effects may only be interactive or indirect. These may be a result of exposure that can change one’s attitude and lead to violence. Savage sees these as difficult to measure. Moreover, parenting or buying a gun and keeping it at home may be another form of exposure. Complex factors like these apparently did not surface in available literature. This may be because violence in previous years was not as strong as it is today. . Violent programs then were not as stringently tested as today. She believes that the adverse effects would be weaker if these previous studies were to be conducted at present (Savage,2003 p 124).
Other Factors May Weigh More Heavily
It is also more likely that a child’s biological status, parenting and parental dealings, the quality of the neighborhood and other important environmental factors may be more influential than just viewing violent television (Savage, 2003: 124). This may also occur to children who do not go through these experiences (Savage, 2003 p 124). If the target effect is confined to a few with trait aggressiveness, the focus should move to underlying causes already present in early childhood. These include parental aggression, abuse or neglect. This finding is specifically relevant and significant to legislators and policymakers who have wanted to curb media violence for four decades now. She concludes that the careful examination of scientific research shows little evidence in media violence in crime and remedying it (Savage, 2003 p 124).
Public Misinformation, Scientific Community’s Neglect
In the past five decades, the media gathered and reported on the experiences and sentiments of both researchers and child advocates on the issue of violence in media (Bushman &
Craig, 2001 p 477). The connection between media violence and crime swung from weak to moderate and back to weak, confusing the American public. Since 1975, however, scientific findings on the link have been consistently found to be positive, valid and increasing. Yet news have not reported the findings and the result has been public misinformation and a discontinuity from scientific findings. The discontinuity is attributed mainly to the commercial interests of the news media, lack of fairness in news reporting, and the scientific community’s own failure to effectively assert and argue its findings (Bushman & Craig, 2001 p 477).
The Profit Motive and the News Business
Publishing or reporting what is true, verified and authoritative is no longer the mission of gigantic news media (Bushman & Craig, 2001 p 486). They are in the business for profit first and foremost. The truth is incidental, modified or disposed of. It has a demanding market. It is involved in cut-throat competition for stories people want to read. It caters to a target audience who must b pleased for continued patronage. Advertisers buy space to reach these markets. Truth is subjected to the profit motive that modifies or cosmetizes unsaory scientifically validated findings to avoid displeasing audiences. A 1995 publication by the New York Times story clearly demonstrated this. It reported that scientific studies did not find convincing evidence linking criminal behavior to watching violence on television (Bushman & Craig, 2001 p 486).
The Fairness Doctrine, a Thing of the Past
A misplaced fairness doctrine in contemporary journalism may also explain the
misinformation trend (Bushman & Craig, 2001: 487). It gives undue focus on the opinions and pronouncements of a few against the scientific authoritativeness of many. Securing both
sides in the issue or any other issue may be the time-honored news reporting procedure. But not any more. The over-emphasis on the self-serving opinions of influential sectors with business interests that the findings can hurt, predominates. The news and these business groups’ sentiments and opinions are written and presented in well-crafted and convincing rhetoric, vocabulary and handling to gullible news audiences. And to assure continued patronage, these businesses hire and highly compensate promoters of their vested investments. They do so with
With sufficient motivation, these hired and well-paid promoters of vested interests can juggle words, phrases and entire stories to make a mere guess sound like a scientific dogma (Bushman & Craig, 2001: 487).
The Scientific Community’s Neglect
A third probable explanation is a lapse on the part of the scientific community itself (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487). It possesses very valuable evidence on the connection between crime and violent media. This is in addition to the scientific community’s mission to disseminate it to the public. That evidence is primarily intended for the public, the audience of news and other relevant information itself. It is not the exclusive property of the scientific community or any other sector. It is unfortunate that scientists today confine themselves to task of merely testing theories and investigating phenomena. They do not feel motivated to disseminate their discoveries. Much less do they believe they need to defend these findings with those who question or seek clarifications. Scientists today view themselves as mere explorers, not
promoters of verified theories or educators (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487).
Keeping Safe behind Scientific Limitations
The scientific community’s neglect is partly explained by their traditional refusal to generalize the results of their experiments or studies (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487). It observes this rule even if the tests support the validity of findings. The claim of limitations protect them from future attacks, especially if the study or experiment is its own (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487).
The Lack of Time to Disseminate, to Explain
The lack of time to educate the public and to defend its stand on a finding with various sectors with vested interest is another explanation (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487). Representatives of these sectors with their respective interests tend to aggressively repudiate opposing but solid information that contradicts those interests (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487).
Information Dissemination is Expensive
Information dissemination also entails cost to the scientific community (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487). Hate mail, for example, incurs additional expense to the scientific community when launching a new but disturbingly contradicting research finding to various sectors. The business community will surely invest in a campaign against the claim made by the scientific community against its products or services (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487).
Going Public Incurs Risks
A scientist or researcher who attempts to perform this heroic act of disseminating an unsavory finding must assume the image of a public figure (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487).
The risks are incalculable and unsavory. The US Senate, for example, does not allot travel expenses for those presenting or submitting scientific information to a particular source of travel
funds. Further, continued debates on the connection between crime and violent media can
become harder to conduct using suspicious volunteers as sample population (Bushman & Craig, 2001 p 487).
The Criteria for Identifying the Cause of Public Information
Bushman and Craig (2001 p 487) point to the likelihood of the first three explanations as
endemic in the almighty media industry. That is so specifically on the issue of the direct link between violent media and crime or criminal behavior. But the scientific community can and
should be able to present its findings more effectively and courageously. The only way this can happen is when it finally realizes its role as a source of valid information. Bt first it must see itself as an inherent part of their task or commitment (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487).
One way of fulfilling this mission and responding to the public need for it is for the scientific community to realize its role beyond researching and experimenting (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487), That ultimate or extra role is public education, which is guided by different rules and norms. Doing so does not require them to make careless pronouncements or generalizations from even a vast collection of studies. Whether pleasant or unpleasant, results of research and investigations, the public and even the business sector must look up to the work and role of the scientific community. The public always needs and deserves to know the findings of the scientific community. Even the subjective opinions and observations of the scientific community will bear the stamp of validity, no matter how bereft of objectivity (Bushan & Craig, 2008: 487).
“Yes” and “No”
To the question of Savage’s article on the connection between violent media and crime or criminal behavior, the dutiful scientist will undoubtedly answer with a “yes (Bushman & Craig, 2008: 487).” He will also say “no” if asked if he will allow his children to watch violent television. The authors believe that the scientific community should not hide behind or coat their findings with confidentiality or the convenience of scientific limitations. Scientists have the duty to share what they discover. The time and cost of the endeavor are all part of their role, no matter how implicit. Their opinions or prejudices will retain their value. This is especially so if they involve the serious impact of violent media on the behavior of children and the population in general (Bushman & Craig, 2001 p 488).
Assailing Savage’s Opinion – Why the Deviation?
Bushman and Craig’s article directly repudiates Savage’s underplay of the direct impact of
violent media on all viewers (Bushman &Craig, 2008: 487). More than in a point –by-point basis, they assail her bases for her study findings. To begin with, Savage downplays the value of of four decades of research findings and deviates into the opposite stand. The immediate response should be a “why deviate?” Why should the products of diligent research of four decades be shelved and disregarded? And what is the motive for the new finding?
Weak Connection, Passing the Buck on to Parents
Moreover, she takes recourse in the veneer of study limitations as described by Bushman and Craig. And more deplorably, she concludes that the connection between crime and violent media is either non-existent or, at best, very weak. That conclusion also passes on to parents the risk and responsibility of allowing their children to expose themselves to violent media content. This is Savage’s proposed perspective, drawn from the multiple databases of a major university, which she does not even name. What parents will take that risk or accept the responsibility?
Causes of Public Misinformation
Bushman and Craig cane up with three explanations to the current prevalence of crime and its clear link to violent media. The link is empirical and common experience in itself. The search for truth is not the first motivation of the vastly resourceful news media industry. It is profit. And for profit’s sake, this industry will sacrifice and relegate the truth to the shadows.
It is committed to the preferences and whims of its patrons – advertisers, more than the reading public. It will cater to the prejudices of its audiences that must be served unconditionally. By hiring the most servile marketers to manipulate the public mind with convincing promotional gimmicks. It can make a complete falsehood look or sound like a thoroughly validated scientific fact.
This initiative is complemented by the lack of an appropriate and honest reporting doctrine. The doctrine strictly seeks the truth. But today’s media conveniently departs from that doctrine.
Instead, it acquires the perspective of “random” volunteers from both sides. From the perspectives, the new media highlights the prejudices of a preferred minority that best serves or fills its profit motive.
The Scientific Community’s Moral Commitment
And the third is the lapse in the scientific community’s view of its proper role and implied moral commitment to spread their findings. Its role includes sharing its perspectives about its findings. The public is the proper recipient of these findings. It needs and deserves them.
Disregard of Previous Findings a Disservice to Society
Bushman and Craig view Savage as part of the scientific community. Presenting a finding of a lack of connection between crime and violent media in lieu of the opposite findings of four decades represents a disservice to society. Her conclusive attribution to other environmental factors is equally unacceptable. She points to these factors as including parenting and early childhood abuse or neglect. She proposes that these be the greater or equal suspects to aggression, criminal behavior and crime rather than violent media in particular. Bushman and Craig, however, stand pat on the clear connection between violent behavior and violent media. Other environmental factors mentioned by Savage are peripheral. Exposure to violent television has been strongly and validly documented as influencing criminal behavior and crime by multiple studies in four decades.
Savage’s Findings Questionable
The public or any rational individual should question the results of Savage’s study instead. ,
Her downplaying of four decades of vigorous studies on the association between violent media and criminal behavior must be objected to. Was she driven by a goal to come up with a soft justification for the prevailing misinformation about violent media? Aggressive video games, movies and TV series are formidable today. Advertisers shell out a fortune to sponsor them to gratify viewers’ demand for these programs as stimuli. Advertisers share the profit motive of news businesses. They sustain each other and target consumers as common markets. They need to please these patrons in order to survive in the cut-throat competition for profit.
Reciprocation and Rousing the Scientific Community to Its Moral Responsibility
The reverse is just as true. Consumer choices and preferences are very strongly – subtly or openly – influenced or even dictated by promotional gimmickry. But consumers will be more influenced by scientific research if the scientific community develops the guts and the moral commitment to make it known though all possible means. Until then, the scale tips in favor of misinformation.
III. Conclusion
Rising mortality and crime rates have never reached a peak higher than in recent years. Alongside, movies and television programs and video games that encourage competition, aggression and destruction are getting more and more popular. Even small children are exposed to these destructive stimuli. Human experience will instinctively point to the association between these two phenomena. Previous studies already provided unqualified evidence of the association.
From 1975, however, there was a deviation from the common perspective and the information fed to the public about the connection. It says that new studies fail to demonstrate the link between violent media and violent behavior. At best, it says that the connection is weak. Other environmental factors, like parenting and peer pressure, may be the predisposing factor or cause. Savage (2008) presents such a conclusion drawn from abstracts, articles, books and biographies from a major university. They assert that criminal behavior may also form from poor parental abuse or neglect, peer influences, and proneness to violence in the individual as likelier perpetrators.
The lay theory supplies the foundation of the connection between violent media and violent behavior. The public is bombarded day-after day and night-after-night with movies and other attention-getting mind and soul stimulants. Violence is a sure-fire approach to attracting movie goers. News media is a business that thrives on profit, it must thus provide patrons with what they want. News misinformation has kept four decades of massive and diligent scientific findings that reveal the link between media violece and aggression and crime from public knowledge
WORKS CITED
Birkbeck, C. (2017). Media representation of crime and criminal justice. Oxford Handbooks
Online: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on August 10, 2017 from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935383-e-15
Bushman, B. J. and Craig, A. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: scientific facts
vs media misinformation. Volume 56 #s 5/6, American Psychologist: the American
Psychological Association, Inc. pp 477-489. Retrieved on July 17, 2017 from https://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ba.ap.pdf
Savage, J. (2003). Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? A methodological
Review. Pergamon: Elsevier Ltd. pp 99-125. Retrieved on July 18, 2017 from file:///D:/My%20Documents/Downloads/Does_viewing_violent_media_really_cause_criminal_
%20(4).pdf
2017/5175
