( date: 1/5/09)
Who Is To Blame For Violent Children?
The way the media has covered the school shootings, one would think our children were being sent to the middle of war torn Beirut. The fact is school violence has gone down in spite of those shootings. There are many reasons why children go ballistic and act out their rage on the public. Violence is not just school shootings.
Children still deal with the same type of violence we did in school from a school bully to a misunderstanding on the playground. Some kids are just plain aggressive by nature. Others have been abused. Still others have low self esteem. To these children, violence is a quick way to get attention.
What complicates things is the glamorization of death in movies, books, television and video games. Note, I am not saying these are the only problem, but just a small part. A child is not really able to contemplate the reality of death. This is why children do things that are so risky, they feel invincible. The entertainment media just reinforces that belief when they see someone getting shot or stabbed and it is glossed over as just a body on the floor or grossly taken out of proportion to almost comedic death scenes. When death is painted as funny or no big deal to a child with these tendencies, life and death are meaningless.
Part of the complex situation with the media is the lack of instilling the values in the child. This should be a parent's job, but in American society the child is just as much raised by the media as they are their own parents. This is part of the problem - parents not being parents. One must learn from a very early age that all people have value and all people have feelings. This should be the job of the parent. Parents too often let the television raise their children. When children are not taught this or taught to degrade others who are different for whatever reason, they learn that people are disposable if they get in their way. To this type of child who has not learned empathy, if the object of their violence were hurt they cannot comprehend that they did wrong, but blame the victim.
Our society tends to have a "want it now" attitude and to hell with the consequences so as long as we get what we want. If someone is in your way, tear them down as expediently as possible. This also plays in with violent children who do not have the reasoning skills that tell them when they do whatever it takes to get what they want, it results in consequences for themselves and others.
Children need love and attention in order to build self esteem. They need to feel it from their parents. As a parent, if you notice your child starting to behave in antisocial ways from the age of 5, it is time to get some help before the problem becomes worse. Sometimes all that is needed is a change in parenting habits. Other times medication or counseling is required. When caught early enough, you should be able to avoid most problems in the future.
Lack of supervision is another key to violence among children. If you are not watching your child and they are not being watched by someone you trust, do you really know what your child is doing or to what he may be exposed? You may feel it is okay for a 12 year old to go to his friend's house even though the parents are not home. The question is do you know if their parents have a gun in their home. If they have a gun in the home, is it locked up? Does the kid know where the key and bullets are kept? Does this family have video tapes, games or other violent activities you would never let your child watch? If you don't know, then your child is not safe.
I will not debate the right of gun owners to have guns in general, but the fact is if you have children in your home having a gun is a very dangerous thing. Chances are greater the gun will be used to kill a member of the family or a friend than an intruder. This is just one of those things that a parent must consider for the sake and safety of your child. You may think your child does not know where your gun is or how to use it, but you may be surprised when they will find it.
Guns are not the only problem. If a kid wants to hurt someone they can use other methods that are more creative. When I was in second grade I was bullied by another boy who started to hit me. I clobbered him with my metal lunch box until some nuns broke it up. He needed stitches and I had a black eye and some cuts. With the Internet available to kids, they can make their own bombs. They can go the old fashioned route and use knives or razor blades. Outlawing guns will not solve the problem.
First and foremost, it starts with the parent from the day the child is born. A parent is responsible for their child until the age of 18. If a parent cannot control the child it is their duty to refer that child to someone who can help. It is the parent's job to instill values in the child, to know what their child is doing, to know how the child is feeling, what are their interests, who are their friends, how they do in school, if they do drugs, how their moods swing and so on.
Sometimes, a parent has done the best they could, but it seems the child just may be wired wrong. A parent who has done all they can for that type of child cannot be blamed for a bad seed. That is not to say they bare no responsibility altogether, but if they honestly tried everything to help and prevent problems and the system has failed them and the child, it becomes society's problem.
A child must also learn the world does not revolve around them. They must realize other people have the same rights as they do. They must learn how to get along with other people and learn how to cooperate. They must learn respect for themselves and others. They should also know that there will always be consequence for their actions.
A community must respect its children. Many places have a surprisingly hostile attitude to teenagers and pre-teens. These kids have nothing to do and no place to go. An idle child is a dangerous one. Not necessarily dangerous to the public, but more like to themselves. These kids need more community outreach programs. Caring adults without kids could spend time volunteering to supervise safe activities. Kids could use safe places to roller skate, dance, listen to music, or just hang out without being harassed by some cranky adult who can't trust those youngsters.
Local government should have more programs available for problem children. The fact is most parents with a problem child do not have the money or the resources available to help them with an out of control person. The system is mostly set up to do nothing until the child is in serious trouble and locked away in jail. If the legal system will not interfere unless a law is broken and cannot intervene, can we really be surprised when these children go off the deep end when it is too late?
Violence is all attitude. Erase the attitude leading to violence and the problem will decrease. Violence is human nature and will never completely go away, but we must learn to rise above the base tendencies.
Friday, 1 May 2009
poular criticism 2- tv programmes
Adolescents who watch more than one hour of television a day are more likely to commit aggressive and violent acts as adults, according to a 17-year study reported today in the journal Science.The study, which tracked more than 700 adolescents into adulthood, found that young people watching one to three hours of television daily were almost four times more likely to commit violent and aggressive acts later in life than those who watched less than an hour of TV a day.
Girls as well as boys exhibited increased aggression, according to the study, which was hailed by psychologists and social scientists as more evidence of TV's harmful effects."It's a very important study and has a great deal of credibility--it very niftily isolates television as a causal factor," said George Comstock, a researcher on media violence at Syracuse University in New York.It is also the first study, Comstock said, to clearly link TV viewing among adolescents to later, adult violence.
Families Were Selected RandomlyThe study authors, from Columbia University and Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, used data from a wider-ranging survey of the behavior of children in 707 New York state families. The families had been selected randomly--not because their children had any behavior problems.Over the study's 17 years, the children and their parents were periodically interviewed about TV habits, violence and aggression. Interviews began in 1983, when the children's average age was 14; follow-up interviews were conducted at average ages of 16, 22 and 30.The scientists also examined state and FBI records in 2000 to find out if any of those in the study--who by then had reached an average age of 30--had been arrested or charged with a crime.The authors found that 5.7% of those who reported watching less than one hour of TV a day as adolescents committed aggressive acts against others in subsequent years--either by their own admission, a parent's report or legal records. Those acts included threats, assaults, fights, robbery and using a weapon to commit a crime.That figure rose to 22.5% of those who watched TV for one to three hours a day and to 28.8% of those who watched more than three hours daily.The size of the effect was surprising, said lead author Jeffrey Johnson, assistant clinical professor of psychology in Columbia University's psychiatry department.He and his coauthors, who conducted the study with federal funds, believe the findings help cement the link between TV and violence. The authors used statistics to rule out other possible causes, such as neglect, poverty and living in a violent neighborhood.The study did not describe the kinds of programs children were watching, drawing criticism from Jonathan Freedman, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He also said such studies don't clearly demonstrate that viewing programs is the cause of subsequent violence."To suggest that because you get this effect that watching two hours a day causes aggressiveness is going so far beyond the data it's shocking," Freedman said.Critics Say Parents Can Monitor ViewingThe Motion Picture Assn. of America declined to comment on the report until staff members had a chance to read it. Association spokesman Rich Taylor said parents have the technology to easily control what their children watch."The V-chip puts a new level of control into a parent's hands, allowing them to determine and set the level of programming that they wish to allow in their home at any given time," he said.Six major medical groups--including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Medical Assn.--have stated that they believe TV violence is a significant problem.Fears about the negative influence of TV have been voiced almost since 1946, when TV broadcasting began in the United States. The study published today is the latest in a string of investigations aimed at figuring out the link.One study in the early 1960s shocked the public by showing that children shown a TV program of adults beating a toy clown were more likely to repeat the behavior. Other studies similarly showed a rise in aggressive attitudes and behaviors after people watched violent programs. Subjects were more likely to fight in the playground or "punish" people with fake zaps of electricity.Other studies have explored the relationship between violent programming and real-life, serious violence--and have also found smaller, although statistically significant, links.The effects of such viewing pale, by comparison, with the effect of living in an abusive home or hanging out with delinquent peers.But TV watching is far more prevalent, said Joanne Cantor, professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and a longtime media violence researcher."The implications for parents is that unfettered access to television is not good for your child," Cantor said. "It has these negative effects--which affect them personally in terms of feeling more hostile. And it looks like it affects other people too--through expression of that hostility in aggressive behavior towards others."Responding to the study, National Assn. of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton said, "For every study of this sort that finds a correlation between TV violence and real life violence, there are studies that conclude just the opposite."Freedman, meanwhile, said that finding a correlation between TV viewing and violence does not prove TV programs are to blame. Children who are naturally more aggressive may be drawn to watch more violent TV, he said.While this may be true, Johnson countered, this study and others show that even-tempered children also became more aggressive after watching a lot of television.
Girls as well as boys exhibited increased aggression, according to the study, which was hailed by psychologists and social scientists as more evidence of TV's harmful effects."It's a very important study and has a great deal of credibility--it very niftily isolates television as a causal factor," said George Comstock, a researcher on media violence at Syracuse University in New York.It is also the first study, Comstock said, to clearly link TV viewing among adolescents to later, adult violence.
Families Were Selected RandomlyThe study authors, from Columbia University and Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, used data from a wider-ranging survey of the behavior of children in 707 New York state families. The families had been selected randomly--not because their children had any behavior problems.Over the study's 17 years, the children and their parents were periodically interviewed about TV habits, violence and aggression. Interviews began in 1983, when the children's average age was 14; follow-up interviews were conducted at average ages of 16, 22 and 30.The scientists also examined state and FBI records in 2000 to find out if any of those in the study--who by then had reached an average age of 30--had been arrested or charged with a crime.The authors found that 5.7% of those who reported watching less than one hour of TV a day as adolescents committed aggressive acts against others in subsequent years--either by their own admission, a parent's report or legal records. Those acts included threats, assaults, fights, robbery and using a weapon to commit a crime.That figure rose to 22.5% of those who watched TV for one to three hours a day and to 28.8% of those who watched more than three hours daily.The size of the effect was surprising, said lead author Jeffrey Johnson, assistant clinical professor of psychology in Columbia University's psychiatry department.He and his coauthors, who conducted the study with federal funds, believe the findings help cement the link between TV and violence. The authors used statistics to rule out other possible causes, such as neglect, poverty and living in a violent neighborhood.The study did not describe the kinds of programs children were watching, drawing criticism from Jonathan Freedman, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He also said such studies don't clearly demonstrate that viewing programs is the cause of subsequent violence."To suggest that because you get this effect that watching two hours a day causes aggressiveness is going so far beyond the data it's shocking," Freedman said.Critics Say Parents Can Monitor ViewingThe Motion Picture Assn. of America declined to comment on the report until staff members had a chance to read it. Association spokesman Rich Taylor said parents have the technology to easily control what their children watch."The V-chip puts a new level of control into a parent's hands, allowing them to determine and set the level of programming that they wish to allow in their home at any given time," he said.Six major medical groups--including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Medical Assn.--have stated that they believe TV violence is a significant problem.Fears about the negative influence of TV have been voiced almost since 1946, when TV broadcasting began in the United States. The study published today is the latest in a string of investigations aimed at figuring out the link.One study in the early 1960s shocked the public by showing that children shown a TV program of adults beating a toy clown were more likely to repeat the behavior. Other studies similarly showed a rise in aggressive attitudes and behaviors after people watched violent programs. Subjects were more likely to fight in the playground or "punish" people with fake zaps of electricity.Other studies have explored the relationship between violent programming and real-life, serious violence--and have also found smaller, although statistically significant, links.The effects of such viewing pale, by comparison, with the effect of living in an abusive home or hanging out with delinquent peers.But TV watching is far more prevalent, said Joanne Cantor, professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and a longtime media violence researcher."The implications for parents is that unfettered access to television is not good for your child," Cantor said. "It has these negative effects--which affect them personally in terms of feeling more hostile. And it looks like it affects other people too--through expression of that hostility in aggressive behavior towards others."Responding to the study, National Assn. of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton said, "For every study of this sort that finds a correlation between TV violence and real life violence, there are studies that conclude just the opposite."Freedman, meanwhile, said that finding a correlation between TV viewing and violence does not prove TV programs are to blame. Children who are naturally more aggressive may be drawn to watch more violent TV, he said.While this may be true, Johnson countered, this study and others show that even-tempered children also became more aggressive after watching a lot of television.
popular crticism- tv programmes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/30/problem-behaviour-schools-television-programmes (date: 1/5/09)
Television to blame for decline in pupil behaviour
Aggressive behaviour, rudeness and inappropriate language due to shows is on the increase in primary and secondary schools, say teachers
Big Brother and Little Britain are the television programmes that cause the most problem behaviour among children in schools, according to teachers surveyed by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL).
Two-thirds (66%) of the nearly 800 staff surveyed said the reality television programme Big Brother had caused most poor behaviour among pupils, compared with 61% for comedy sketch show Little Britain and 43% for the soap EastEnders.
Asked about their pupils' viewing habits, teachers, support staff and school leaders said the programmes led to general rudeness in the classroom, with pupils answering back, mimicking, using retorts and catchphrases (mentioned by 88%), and swearing or using inappropriate language (82%) after watching them.
Aggressive behaviour among pupils was highlighted by 74% of those surveyed and sexually inappropriate behaviour by 43%.
One classroom teacher at a state secondary school said: "Little Britain caused a lot of answering back when it was on, and the content in any case was not appropriate for the year 7 to 9 pupils who I know watched it."
A classroom teacher at a state primary school said pupils used the taglines and catchphrases from adult programmes. "Girls mimick the body language, conversations and attitudes towards other girls they see on Big Brother. When I asked them where they had ever seen anyone speaking to someone like that I was told they do it all the time on BB."
Another classroom teacher at a state secondary school said: "Programmes like Big Brother make it normal to eff and jeff."
Other shows on teachers' hit lists were The Catherine Tate Show, where pupils used the catchphrases "Whatev-ah" and "Am I bovvered?" as regular retorts.
Teachers also raised concerns about younger pupils playing kicking and fighting games they had picked up from TV programmes such as Power Rangers and Ben 10.
Staff believe that television has the most impact on pupils' behaviour (mentioned by 40% of those surveyed), and more influence than computer and video games (28%).
Most staff (86%) felt that TV programmes containing bad behaviour had a negative effect on the behaviour of their pupils – 85% said pupils in their school watched such programmes either before or after the nine o'clock watershed.
Debbie Cooper, a member of the school leadership team at a Northamptonshire primary school, said: "A year 2 child is being very rough at playtime. He claims he is Ben 10. When asked to stop, he changes it to Power Rangers ... and so it goes on.
She added that girls in year one and two talked inappropriately in the playground as part of a game of EastEnders where one pretended to be the character of Whitney, "the one with lots of makeup who snogs her dad".
Staff blame parents for not supervising what TV their children watch and recommend they take more responsibility.
Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of ATL, said: "Staff report that more and more pupils believe the violence depicted on television and computer and video games is cool, heroic and something they want to emulate. It's not just aggressive behaviour; our members face swearing, inappropriate language and general rudeness on a daily basis, which is frequently picked up from the TV programmes pupils are watching.
"It is worrying that some of the youngest pupils do not know what behaviour is acceptable and when they should use it, and cannot differentiate between what they have seen on TV and real life.
"It's important that the companies that make these programmes think carefully about the role models being portrayed, and the potential effects on children and young people.
She said children increasingly have TVs in their bedrooms, making it difficult for parents to monitor, but they needed to discuss controversial issues with children and make sure they understand the context of what happens on screen.
Television to blame for decline in pupil behaviour
Aggressive behaviour, rudeness and inappropriate language due to shows is on the increase in primary and secondary schools, say teachers
Big Brother and Little Britain are the television programmes that cause the most problem behaviour among children in schools, according to teachers surveyed by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL).
Two-thirds (66%) of the nearly 800 staff surveyed said the reality television programme Big Brother had caused most poor behaviour among pupils, compared with 61% for comedy sketch show Little Britain and 43% for the soap EastEnders.
Asked about their pupils' viewing habits, teachers, support staff and school leaders said the programmes led to general rudeness in the classroom, with pupils answering back, mimicking, using retorts and catchphrases (mentioned by 88%), and swearing or using inappropriate language (82%) after watching them.
Aggressive behaviour among pupils was highlighted by 74% of those surveyed and sexually inappropriate behaviour by 43%.
One classroom teacher at a state secondary school said: "Little Britain caused a lot of answering back when it was on, and the content in any case was not appropriate for the year 7 to 9 pupils who I know watched it."
A classroom teacher at a state primary school said pupils used the taglines and catchphrases from adult programmes. "Girls mimick the body language, conversations and attitudes towards other girls they see on Big Brother. When I asked them where they had ever seen anyone speaking to someone like that I was told they do it all the time on BB."
Another classroom teacher at a state secondary school said: "Programmes like Big Brother make it normal to eff and jeff."
Other shows on teachers' hit lists were The Catherine Tate Show, where pupils used the catchphrases "Whatev-ah" and "Am I bovvered?" as regular retorts.
Teachers also raised concerns about younger pupils playing kicking and fighting games they had picked up from TV programmes such as Power Rangers and Ben 10.
Staff believe that television has the most impact on pupils' behaviour (mentioned by 40% of those surveyed), and more influence than computer and video games (28%).
Most staff (86%) felt that TV programmes containing bad behaviour had a negative effect on the behaviour of their pupils – 85% said pupils in their school watched such programmes either before or after the nine o'clock watershed.
Debbie Cooper, a member of the school leadership team at a Northamptonshire primary school, said: "A year 2 child is being very rough at playtime. He claims he is Ben 10. When asked to stop, he changes it to Power Rangers ... and so it goes on.
She added that girls in year one and two talked inappropriately in the playground as part of a game of EastEnders where one pretended to be the character of Whitney, "the one with lots of makeup who snogs her dad".
Staff blame parents for not supervising what TV their children watch and recommend they take more responsibility.
Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of ATL, said: "Staff report that more and more pupils believe the violence depicted on television and computer and video games is cool, heroic and something they want to emulate. It's not just aggressive behaviour; our members face swearing, inappropriate language and general rudeness on a daily basis, which is frequently picked up from the TV programmes pupils are watching.
"It is worrying that some of the youngest pupils do not know what behaviour is acceptable and when they should use it, and cannot differentiate between what they have seen on TV and real life.
"It's important that the companies that make these programmes think carefully about the role models being portrayed, and the potential effects on children and young people.
She said children increasingly have TVs in their bedrooms, making it difficult for parents to monitor, but they needed to discuss controversial issues with children and make sure they understand the context of what happens on screen.
popular criticism 2- video games (to be analyzed)
http://daniela.supersized.org/archives/42-The-negative-effects-of-violent-computer-games-on-children.html ( date: 1/5/09 )
The negative effects of violent computer games on children
Computer games have a negative impact on the development of children, especially contributing to aggressive and anti-social behaviour. Playing computer games has a greater negative effect because it involves interactivity which impacts on learning processes of the child.
• Numerous studies around the effects of violence in television, movies and video games on children have taken place over the last twenty years. The outcomes of various studies have shown that there is a negative effect of consuming violent media. • When it comes to computer games, however, research by Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson, indicates that violent computer games have an even stronger effect on children’s behaviour because of its interactivity.• The General Aggression Model (GAM) has been developed to integrate recent findings in aggression theory and research with earlier models. In this model, the performance of aggression is based on learning, activation and application of aggression-related knowledge stored in memory.• It suggests that violent media causes short-term increases in aggression. Various studies were performed to prove this statement, involving exposing young adults to violent computer games, and testing their reaction to stimuli. The result was a quantifiable impact on the individual’s ‘internal’ state, the conclusion being that “violent media increases aggressive cognition (including previously learned aggressive scripts and aggressive perceptual schemata), by increasing arousal, or by creating an aggressive affective state.” • The long term effects involve learning processes. The model puts forward the idea that each encounter with violent media, is essentially one more learning trial, since knowledge structures are built on how humans perceive, interpret, judge and respond to events based on interactions in the real (in the family or at school) or perceived (the media) world. • As stated earlier, the impact of computer games are especially influential since:1. the games are highly engaging, 2. children are rewarded by violent behaviour, and 3. children repeat this behaviour over and over as they play. • Psychologists know that these three methods (active involvement, rewarding, and repeating) improve learning. Link this to a psychological term called ‘social learning’, where a child learns by watching or imitating others, as opposed to his/her own experience, and we have a process where a child’s behaviour is negatively influenced by the aggressive, violent nature of computer games. • Now take into account the fact that, according to a study by DeGaetano and Bander, computer games send the following false messages to players:1. Problems can be solved quickly and with little personal investment,2. The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate the source of the problem,3. Problems are clear-cut: right or wrong, black or white,4. Use instinctual rather than thoughtful problem solving,5. Personal imagination is not necessary for problem solving,and we see that the impact is far reaching, not only in terms of reaction to stimuli, but also through the absorption of morals and ethics, and approaches to problem-solving.• Furthermore, it is argued that playing computer games reduces ‘prosocial’ behaviour and sensitivity. Olivier discusses the process whereby players adjust their emotional reactions to acts of violence on the ‘real’ world, based on the internalisation of violence present in the computer games they play. • On a chemical/biological level - studies in brain science show that children’s experiences during their brain’s growth spurts have a greater impact on their brain’s wiring than at any other time of their lives. This has also been proven to continue during adolescence. The latest brain research shows that violent games activate the anger centre of the teenage brain while dampening the brain’s ‘conscience’.• And on a physical level – playing computer games are said to negatively affect the health of players. Research has documented the negative effects of computer games as including obesity and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders.• So, computer games have far-reaching negative effects, and these are heightened by its interactive nature.
The negative effects of violent computer games on children
Computer games have a negative impact on the development of children, especially contributing to aggressive and anti-social behaviour. Playing computer games has a greater negative effect because it involves interactivity which impacts on learning processes of the child.
• Numerous studies around the effects of violence in television, movies and video games on children have taken place over the last twenty years. The outcomes of various studies have shown that there is a negative effect of consuming violent media. • When it comes to computer games, however, research by Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson, indicates that violent computer games have an even stronger effect on children’s behaviour because of its interactivity.• The General Aggression Model (GAM) has been developed to integrate recent findings in aggression theory and research with earlier models. In this model, the performance of aggression is based on learning, activation and application of aggression-related knowledge stored in memory.• It suggests that violent media causes short-term increases in aggression. Various studies were performed to prove this statement, involving exposing young adults to violent computer games, and testing their reaction to stimuli. The result was a quantifiable impact on the individual’s ‘internal’ state, the conclusion being that “violent media increases aggressive cognition (including previously learned aggressive scripts and aggressive perceptual schemata), by increasing arousal, or by creating an aggressive affective state.” • The long term effects involve learning processes. The model puts forward the idea that each encounter with violent media, is essentially one more learning trial, since knowledge structures are built on how humans perceive, interpret, judge and respond to events based on interactions in the real (in the family or at school) or perceived (the media) world. • As stated earlier, the impact of computer games are especially influential since:1. the games are highly engaging, 2. children are rewarded by violent behaviour, and 3. children repeat this behaviour over and over as they play. • Psychologists know that these three methods (active involvement, rewarding, and repeating) improve learning. Link this to a psychological term called ‘social learning’, where a child learns by watching or imitating others, as opposed to his/her own experience, and we have a process where a child’s behaviour is negatively influenced by the aggressive, violent nature of computer games. • Now take into account the fact that, according to a study by DeGaetano and Bander, computer games send the following false messages to players:1. Problems can be solved quickly and with little personal investment,2. The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate the source of the problem,3. Problems are clear-cut: right or wrong, black or white,4. Use instinctual rather than thoughtful problem solving,5. Personal imagination is not necessary for problem solving,and we see that the impact is far reaching, not only in terms of reaction to stimuli, but also through the absorption of morals and ethics, and approaches to problem-solving.• Furthermore, it is argued that playing computer games reduces ‘prosocial’ behaviour and sensitivity. Olivier discusses the process whereby players adjust their emotional reactions to acts of violence on the ‘real’ world, based on the internalisation of violence present in the computer games they play. • On a chemical/biological level - studies in brain science show that children’s experiences during their brain’s growth spurts have a greater impact on their brain’s wiring than at any other time of their lives. This has also been proven to continue during adolescence. The latest brain research shows that violent games activate the anger centre of the teenage brain while dampening the brain’s ‘conscience’.• And on a physical level – playing computer games are said to negatively affect the health of players. Research has documented the negative effects of computer games as including obesity and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders.• So, computer games have far-reaching negative effects, and these are heightened by its interactive nature.
academic criticism 2-video games (to be analyzed)
Do Video Games Lead to Violent Behavior in Children?
Violent video games have been linked to antisocial and aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, although other factors such as family disruption and parental abuse or neglect are more predictive of youth violence and delinquency. Other negative effects, such as reinforcement of racist or sexist stereotypes, have also been associated with use of video games. Conversely, some authors suggest that video games may provide a safe outlet for aggression and frustration. Positive effects on divided-attention performance, developmental issues, and spatial and coordination skills also have been suggested. Bensley and van Eenwyk performed a comprehensive review to see if violent video games are associated with aggression in real life.
The authors note that rates of adolescent violence, homicide, weapon-carrying, and other markers of antisocial behavior fell consistently during the period when violent video games became ubiquitous, more graphic, and more realistic. Furthermore, no consistent theories have emerged to explain a causative relationship between violent video games and antisocial behavior. Theories linking video games to violent behavior include learning and imitating aggressive behavior, arousal by the success or peer status of winning a violent game, and "priming" (changing the threshold at which violence seems acceptable or increasing the likelihood that ambiguous behavior is perceived to be threatening).
An extensive search of literature databases, personal contacts, and other sources identified 29 studies of this topic. The studies varied greatly in design and quality, leading the authors to conclude that a major deficiency in randomized, well-controlled studies prevents firm determinations from being reached. In children of middle-school age and younger, no association was found between video games and aggression in girls. In boys, studies report both increased and decreased aggression. Studies of middle- and high-school students predominately studied boys and often used self-report. Again, both calming and arousal effects were reported, and no consistent relationship was demonstrated between violent games and actual behavior. In college students and young adults, results were again mixed, but studies reporting calming effects were more common, particularly if the prior mood was hostile, angry, or aggressive.
The authors conclude that, contrary to popular impressions, little evidence supports concerns that violent video games are linked to aggressive or antisocial behavior. They caution that this topic is quite complex and not easily studied. The effect may depend on individual characteristics, including age and mood before playing the game, as well as the characteristics and complexity of the game itself. Modern, more realistic games may have very different effects than earlier versions. The authors do not regard violent video games as a significant public health concern.
ANNE D. WALLING M.D.
Bensley L, van Eenwyk J. Video games and real-life aggression: review of the literature. J Adolesc Health October 2001;29:244-57.
Violent video games have been linked to antisocial and aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, although other factors such as family disruption and parental abuse or neglect are more predictive of youth violence and delinquency. Other negative effects, such as reinforcement of racist or sexist stereotypes, have also been associated with use of video games. Conversely, some authors suggest that video games may provide a safe outlet for aggression and frustration. Positive effects on divided-attention performance, developmental issues, and spatial and coordination skills also have been suggested. Bensley and van Eenwyk performed a comprehensive review to see if violent video games are associated with aggression in real life.
The authors note that rates of adolescent violence, homicide, weapon-carrying, and other markers of antisocial behavior fell consistently during the period when violent video games became ubiquitous, more graphic, and more realistic. Furthermore, no consistent theories have emerged to explain a causative relationship between violent video games and antisocial behavior. Theories linking video games to violent behavior include learning and imitating aggressive behavior, arousal by the success or peer status of winning a violent game, and "priming" (changing the threshold at which violence seems acceptable or increasing the likelihood that ambiguous behavior is perceived to be threatening).
An extensive search of literature databases, personal contacts, and other sources identified 29 studies of this topic. The studies varied greatly in design and quality, leading the authors to conclude that a major deficiency in randomized, well-controlled studies prevents firm determinations from being reached. In children of middle-school age and younger, no association was found between video games and aggression in girls. In boys, studies report both increased and decreased aggression. Studies of middle- and high-school students predominately studied boys and often used self-report. Again, both calming and arousal effects were reported, and no consistent relationship was demonstrated between violent games and actual behavior. In college students and young adults, results were again mixed, but studies reporting calming effects were more common, particularly if the prior mood was hostile, angry, or aggressive.
The authors conclude that, contrary to popular impressions, little evidence supports concerns that violent video games are linked to aggressive or antisocial behavior. They caution that this topic is quite complex and not easily studied. The effect may depend on individual characteristics, including age and mood before playing the game, as well as the characteristics and complexity of the game itself. Modern, more realistic games may have very different effects than earlier versions. The authors do not regard violent video games as a significant public health concern.
ANNE D. WALLING M.D.
Bensley L, van Eenwyk J. Video games and real-life aggression: review of the literature. J Adolesc Health October 2001;29:244-57.
popular criticism 1-video games( to be analyzed)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4594376.stm( date accessed: 1/5/09 )
Violent games 'affect behaviour'
Previous research has suggested a link between violence and game playingViolent computer games may make people more likely to act aggressively, a study says.
Previous research has found people who play such games are more likely to be aggressive but some say this just shows violent people gravitate towards them.
But a team from the University of Missouri-Columbia said their study which monitored the brain activity of 39 game players suggests a causal link.
The truth is there are many factors that can lead to violence, such as being withdrawn and isolated, so it is hard to say it is because of one thing
Professor David Buckingham, of the Institute of Education
When shown images of real-life violence, people who played violent video games were found to have a diminished response.
However, when the same group were shown other disturbing images such as dead animals or ill children they had a much more natural response.
When the game players were given the opportunity to punish a pretend opponent those with the greatest reduction in P300 meted out the severest punishments.
Psychologist Bruce Bartholow, the lead researcher of the study which will be published in full in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology later this year, said: "As far as I'm aware, this is the first study to show that exposure to violent games has effects on the brain that predict aggressive behaviour.
"People who play a lot of violent video games didn't see them as much different from neutral.
"They become desensitised. However, their responses are still normal for the non-violent negative scenes."
The findings will back up what many have argued over recent years with the growth in games with scenes of graphic violence.
Killer
But some experts still remain unconvinced of a link.
Jonathan Freedman, a psychologist from the University of Toronto in Canada, said: "All we are really getting is desensitisation to images. There's no way to show that this relates to real-life aggression."
And Professor David Buckingham, an expert on the media and children at the Institute of Education, added there was still no consensus on whether violent games caused aggressive behaviour or were just played by violent people.
"The debate we are seeing is very similar to the one that has raged for years about TV. The truth is there are many factors that can lead to violence, such as being withdrawn and isolated, so it is hard to say it is because of one thing.
"In the absence of any proof, I think we have to be agnostic about it. However, I think there is an argument about the morality of some games.
"Some actually encourage amoral behaviour to win the game and I think parents should be talking to their children to make sure they realise this is a joke. Children are generally good at telling fantasy from reality, but parents should be discussing this."
Violent games 'affect behaviour'
Previous research has suggested a link between violence and game playingViolent computer games may make people more likely to act aggressively, a study says.
Previous research has found people who play such games are more likely to be aggressive but some say this just shows violent people gravitate towards them.
But a team from the University of Missouri-Columbia said their study which monitored the brain activity of 39 game players suggests a causal link.
The truth is there are many factors that can lead to violence, such as being withdrawn and isolated, so it is hard to say it is because of one thing
Professor David Buckingham, of the Institute of Education
When shown images of real-life violence, people who played violent video games were found to have a diminished response.
However, when the same group were shown other disturbing images such as dead animals or ill children they had a much more natural response.
When the game players were given the opportunity to punish a pretend opponent those with the greatest reduction in P300 meted out the severest punishments.
Psychologist Bruce Bartholow, the lead researcher of the study which will be published in full in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology later this year, said: "As far as I'm aware, this is the first study to show that exposure to violent games has effects on the brain that predict aggressive behaviour.
"People who play a lot of violent video games didn't see them as much different from neutral.
"They become desensitised. However, their responses are still normal for the non-violent negative scenes."
The findings will back up what many have argued over recent years with the growth in games with scenes of graphic violence.
Killer
But some experts still remain unconvinced of a link.
Jonathan Freedman, a psychologist from the University of Toronto in Canada, said: "All we are really getting is desensitisation to images. There's no way to show that this relates to real-life aggression."
And Professor David Buckingham, an expert on the media and children at the Institute of Education, added there was still no consensus on whether violent games caused aggressive behaviour or were just played by violent people.
"The debate we are seeing is very similar to the one that has raged for years about TV. The truth is there are many factors that can lead to violence, such as being withdrawn and isolated, so it is hard to say it is because of one thing.
"In the absence of any proof, I think we have to be agnostic about it. However, I think there is an argument about the morality of some games.
"Some actually encourage amoral behaviour to win the game and I think parents should be talking to their children to make sure they realise this is a joke. Children are generally good at telling fantasy from reality, but parents should be discussing this."
Thursday, 30 April 2009
wwe-no way out-2000
The main event was a Hell in a Cell match for the WWF Championship, in which WWF Champion Triple H defended his championship against Cactus Jack (Mick Foley), with the added stipulation that if Jack lost he would have to retire from professional wrestling. The match began inside a structure of metal surrounding the ring and ringside area. Throughout the match, many weapons were employed, such as steel chairs and a 2x4 with barbed wire wrapped around it (the 2x4 was also set on fire later in the match). When the ring steps were repeatedly thrown against the wall of the cell, it tore open and Cactus Jack jumped through it to the outside of the cage. The men fought first on the announcer's table, and later both men wrestled on the top of the cage. While on top of the cell, Cactus Jack attempted to grab Triple H, turn him upside-down, and drive his head into the floor, but the move was reversed and Triple H dropped him on his back. The move broke the cell roof and Cactus Jack fell through to the mat below. After Jack stood up again, Triple H tucked Jack's head between his knees and jumped up to slam his head into the mat, a move Triple H calls a Pedigree. Triple H then covered Cactus Jack for a pin.
Monday, 27 April 2009
South Park-textual analysis
textual analysis:
+ mise-en-scene
-props: teddys,teacups, knives, rope, go-kart,
-costume: jackets, hats, gloves, clothes for a snowy weather
-setting: school, home, streets, train tracks
+sound:
-diegetic sound: background music, james bond music when kenny dies, repitition of romantic music when mother sees another guy in barn.
-non-diegetic sound: birds, characters talking
+editing:
-straight cuts when new character starts to talk
-slow pace editing when mother telling son how she got pregnant
-zooming-in when mother looks for a potential guy to sleep with
+ narrative:
-this episode is about cartaman who is not acting like himself as he is in search for his dad and finds out that his mum has slept with many guys which makes her a slut. when he finds out he has a native american dad he wears native american clothing, for the african american dad he wears gold chains and rings. he tries to blend in with the culture of his dad by wearing similar clothes but then finds out that his mum has slept with a number of guys. he takes a dna test and still the episode leaves us in a cliffhanger as they do not tell us who his dad is.
+language:
-"fat ugly bitch"
-"bastard"
-"whore"
-"son-of-a-bitch"
+ important scenes:
-kenny gets run over by train by as he gets stuck onto a go-kart
-chef and cartaman talk about how to have sex and how a woman gets pregnant
-parents dont care what the children watch
-a kid walking into a bar/pub with no id checked
more to be done
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Academic research
This is one of the books whihc i shall be using for my academic research.
Ill Effects: The Media Violence Debate (Communication and Society) (Paperback)
to be updated.........
popular criticism 3
"South Park" the cultural criticism of our day
“South Park” is probably the best show on television. Obviously a lot of people agree with me because the show is in its 11th season.
What makes the show so great is not that it’s hilarious, but it is also culturally relevant with its surprising stances on many controversial issues in today’s society.
In many episodes from recent seasons, the show depicts the fictional town as being divided between the “red-neck conservative” and “hippie liberal” factions, or the adults drastically overreact when something bad happens.
Every time it’s up to the kids, mainly Stan and Kyle (who are based off of the show’s creators), to provide the level-headedness and logical thinking to fix the situation.
Take, for example, the episode “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow,” made in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
In this episode, a large beaver dam breaks and floods the town of Beaverton, leaving the citizens of Beaverton stranded.
Much like what happened with Katrina, the people of South Park were too preoccupied with trying to figure out who to blame for the flood instead of going in to help save people.
There are more episodes like this one that focus on issues such as gay marriage, hate crimes and religious and racial tolerance to name a few.
They all have the same basic message: people today are ridiculous.
We are too busy fighting each other, trying to reveal each other as idiots instead of doing what really matters and working together to fix our problems.
If anything, this show teaches us to laugh at ourselves and brings us down to earth by helping us realize how ridiculous we can be.
The show has taken a lot of heat in the past because of the way they make fun of people, such as liberals, conservatives, gays, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The way they lampoon everybody and anything just reminds us that no one is perfect.
So next time you’re sitting at home on a Wednesday evening and you find yourself with nothing to do, sit back, relax, grab an ice cold can of Dr. Pepper and flip your television to channel 56.
I promise you won’t regret it.
This source says that this show is the best show on TV, the show is loved so much because of its comedy, but his is not the only reason as the show is culturally relevant with its surprising stances on many controversial issues in today's society. They all have the same basic message which is that ‘people today are ridiculous’. The shows teaches people to laugh at themselves and brings us down to earth by helping us realize how ridiculous people can be.
http://ocolly.com/2008/03/07/“south-park”-the-cultural-criticism-of-our-day/
“South Park” is probably the best show on television. Obviously a lot of people agree with me because the show is in its 11th season.
What makes the show so great is not that it’s hilarious, but it is also culturally relevant with its surprising stances on many controversial issues in today’s society.
In many episodes from recent seasons, the show depicts the fictional town as being divided between the “red-neck conservative” and “hippie liberal” factions, or the adults drastically overreact when something bad happens.
Every time it’s up to the kids, mainly Stan and Kyle (who are based off of the show’s creators), to provide the level-headedness and logical thinking to fix the situation.
Take, for example, the episode “Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow,” made in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
In this episode, a large beaver dam breaks and floods the town of Beaverton, leaving the citizens of Beaverton stranded.
Much like what happened with Katrina, the people of South Park were too preoccupied with trying to figure out who to blame for the flood instead of going in to help save people.
There are more episodes like this one that focus on issues such as gay marriage, hate crimes and religious and racial tolerance to name a few.
They all have the same basic message: people today are ridiculous.
We are too busy fighting each other, trying to reveal each other as idiots instead of doing what really matters and working together to fix our problems.
If anything, this show teaches us to laugh at ourselves and brings us down to earth by helping us realize how ridiculous we can be.
The show has taken a lot of heat in the past because of the way they make fun of people, such as liberals, conservatives, gays, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The way they lampoon everybody and anything just reminds us that no one is perfect.
So next time you’re sitting at home on a Wednesday evening and you find yourself with nothing to do, sit back, relax, grab an ice cold can of Dr. Pepper and flip your television to channel 56.
I promise you won’t regret it.
This source says that this show is the best show on TV, the show is loved so much because of its comedy, but his is not the only reason as the show is culturally relevant with its surprising stances on many controversial issues in today's society. They all have the same basic message which is that ‘people today are ridiculous’. The shows teaches people to laugh at themselves and brings us down to earth by helping us realize how ridiculous people can be.
http://ocolly.com/2008/03/07/“south-park”-the-cultural-criticism-of-our-day/
popular criticism 2
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut
Andrew PulverFriday August 27, 1999
Hard to believe, maybe, but South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut is the most impressively vicious and nasty-minded film satire of the year. Aficionados of the TV show won't need any introduction to its peculiar mix of foul-mouthed hilarity and acid-dipped social commentary, but those unfamiliar with the winsome cardboard cut-outs shouldn't be put off. Since their first appearance, Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny have been harassed by "cultural critics" accusing them of undermining the moral fibre of the planet's youth; but they used to say that about Jim Carrey and The Simpsons, too.
The film cash-in on the lethally popular TV show does its best to make such a transition as difficult as possible by capitalising on its liberation from the strait-jacket of broadcast censorship. First, and most obviously, there's no such thing as a bleep in the movies - a swift count reveals around 140 F-words.
Then, filling 80 minutes of screen time - three times the length of a standard episode - allows co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone the chance to come up with some really chewy story ideas. And they manage to make them cleverly self-referential, too. The four third-graders at the centre of events have favourite TV characters themselves: the flatulence-obsessed Terrance and Phillip. Their spin-off movie, Asses of Fire, is the hot draw in South Park, and Stan and his little buddies perform the time-honoured ritual of the under-age: sneaking into a movie supposedly too mature for them. (As if life couldn't imitate art any more accurately, American cinemas were deluged with complaints that children were finding their way into South Park, despite its R rating - ie, anyone under 17 "requires accompanying parent or adult guardian").
The foursome emerge from the cinema spouting one obscenity after another and, rehashing a plot-line from one of the TV shows, Kyle's mother (the pushy Sheila Broslovski) initiates a political campaign to rid America of Terrance and Phillip's pernicious influence. This results in the installation of a human V-chip in Cartman (which administers an electric shock for every obscenity), and a declaration of war on Canada. Meanwhile, Kenny, the character killed in every episode, duly expires after attempting to imitate a particularly gross stunt from Asses of Fire, and heads off to the nether world to find Saddam Hussein in the sack with Satan.
It's this last plot detail that has attracted the most awestruck gasps from reviewers and audiences alike - but it's also the kind of thing that works better in a script conference than it does on screen. In truth, an hour in, the film shows signs of strain: the effortless hilarity of the opening segment evolves into an occasionally flailing string of sight gags. Be that as it may, the central plank of the South Park mission - that society is idiotic to blame its ills on its cultural products while it refuses to accept responsibility for footling problems, such as guns - shines through. This makes the film sound almost serious - don't be fooled.
This source says that south park is the most vicious and nasty minded program, this program has foul-mouthed hilarity and acid dipped social commentary. Ever since Stan. Kyle, Cartaman and kenny’s first appearance they have been harassed by cultural critics. There is around about 140 F-words in each episode.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,77038,00.html
Andrew PulverFriday August 27, 1999
Hard to believe, maybe, but South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut is the most impressively vicious and nasty-minded film satire of the year. Aficionados of the TV show won't need any introduction to its peculiar mix of foul-mouthed hilarity and acid-dipped social commentary, but those unfamiliar with the winsome cardboard cut-outs shouldn't be put off. Since their first appearance, Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny have been harassed by "cultural critics" accusing them of undermining the moral fibre of the planet's youth; but they used to say that about Jim Carrey and The Simpsons, too.
The film cash-in on the lethally popular TV show does its best to make such a transition as difficult as possible by capitalising on its liberation from the strait-jacket of broadcast censorship. First, and most obviously, there's no such thing as a bleep in the movies - a swift count reveals around 140 F-words.
Then, filling 80 minutes of screen time - three times the length of a standard episode - allows co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone the chance to come up with some really chewy story ideas. And they manage to make them cleverly self-referential, too. The four third-graders at the centre of events have favourite TV characters themselves: the flatulence-obsessed Terrance and Phillip. Their spin-off movie, Asses of Fire, is the hot draw in South Park, and Stan and his little buddies perform the time-honoured ritual of the under-age: sneaking into a movie supposedly too mature for them. (As if life couldn't imitate art any more accurately, American cinemas were deluged with complaints that children were finding their way into South Park, despite its R rating - ie, anyone under 17 "requires accompanying parent or adult guardian").
The foursome emerge from the cinema spouting one obscenity after another and, rehashing a plot-line from one of the TV shows, Kyle's mother (the pushy Sheila Broslovski) initiates a political campaign to rid America of Terrance and Phillip's pernicious influence. This results in the installation of a human V-chip in Cartman (which administers an electric shock for every obscenity), and a declaration of war on Canada. Meanwhile, Kenny, the character killed in every episode, duly expires after attempting to imitate a particularly gross stunt from Asses of Fire, and heads off to the nether world to find Saddam Hussein in the sack with Satan.
It's this last plot detail that has attracted the most awestruck gasps from reviewers and audiences alike - but it's also the kind of thing that works better in a script conference than it does on screen. In truth, an hour in, the film shows signs of strain: the effortless hilarity of the opening segment evolves into an occasionally flailing string of sight gags. Be that as it may, the central plank of the South Park mission - that society is idiotic to blame its ills on its cultural products while it refuses to accept responsibility for footling problems, such as guns - shines through. This makes the film sound almost serious - don't be fooled.
This source says that south park is the most vicious and nasty minded program, this program has foul-mouthed hilarity and acid dipped social commentary. Ever since Stan. Kyle, Cartaman and kenny’s first appearance they have been harassed by cultural critics. There is around about 140 F-words in each episode.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,77038,00.html
popular criticism
South Park: What Are We Watching
Author: Dave Carter
Ever since the advent of the animated series The Simpsons, adults have been watching more cartoons than all the children in their household put together. And in fact with the creativity and poetic license offered by an animated world populated with easily manipulated characters (just try getting a real live actor to perform some of the physical feats that Homer Simpson endures), it might even be argued that cartoons are wasted on the undeveloped psyches of children!
As the popularity of animated shows increased, they became more and more outrageous, utilising their chosen media to create greater shock value and with huge success. Comedy Central's notorious South Park show receives as much, if not more, publicity from the sections of society it has alienated. But still the show continues to appeal to only a significant niche market, pointing toward one simple question why do the creators, writers and animators of South Park bother?
The show is undoubtedly packaged as a comedic one, and is watched by many for the sheer entertainment value it provides. The basis of all humor, it could be argued, is making a joke at someone's expense, so we should not be surprised that singling out individuals, both real and imaginary, for ridicule tends to make us laugh. And while the show may have begun using bawdy humor purely for its own sake, South Park, now in its tenth series, has evolved into something far greater.
While the type of humor displayed in the show might seem like laughing at someone when they're down at its very worst, South Park is, in fact, a supremely intelligent production, using the user-friendly medium of satire to make hugely cogent political and social commentary. With cutting insights laid before us in animated form, it could even be argued that the laughs are almost incidental.
But they probably aren't. There is, they say, truth in jest, and this is so for many a good reason. Comedy makes commentary more palatable, and it changes our perception without us even realising it. We giggle with horror at our own political incorrectness, as we slowly understand that our laughter echoes larger social truths. Because the awful truth is this: South Park doesn't just make us laugh. It makes us think.
This is a article. This source tells me as popularity of animated shows increases they become more and more outrageous. South park is the centre of the animated comedy shows as it receives more publicity than any other show. It is watched by many for the sheer entertainment it provides, south park is a supremely intelligent production.
http://www.winningpearls.com/entertainment/article7484.htm
Author: Dave Carter
Ever since the advent of the animated series The Simpsons, adults have been watching more cartoons than all the children in their household put together. And in fact with the creativity and poetic license offered by an animated world populated with easily manipulated characters (just try getting a real live actor to perform some of the physical feats that Homer Simpson endures), it might even be argued that cartoons are wasted on the undeveloped psyches of children!
As the popularity of animated shows increased, they became more and more outrageous, utilising their chosen media to create greater shock value and with huge success. Comedy Central's notorious South Park show receives as much, if not more, publicity from the sections of society it has alienated. But still the show continues to appeal to only a significant niche market, pointing toward one simple question why do the creators, writers and animators of South Park bother?
The show is undoubtedly packaged as a comedic one, and is watched by many for the sheer entertainment value it provides. The basis of all humor, it could be argued, is making a joke at someone's expense, so we should not be surprised that singling out individuals, both real and imaginary, for ridicule tends to make us laugh. And while the show may have begun using bawdy humor purely for its own sake, South Park, now in its tenth series, has evolved into something far greater.
While the type of humor displayed in the show might seem like laughing at someone when they're down at its very worst, South Park is, in fact, a supremely intelligent production, using the user-friendly medium of satire to make hugely cogent political and social commentary. With cutting insights laid before us in animated form, it could even be argued that the laughs are almost incidental.
But they probably aren't. There is, they say, truth in jest, and this is so for many a good reason. Comedy makes commentary more palatable, and it changes our perception without us even realising it. We giggle with horror at our own political incorrectness, as we slowly understand that our laughter echoes larger social truths. Because the awful truth is this: South Park doesn't just make us laugh. It makes us think.
This is a article. This source tells me as popularity of animated shows increases they become more and more outrageous. South park is the centre of the animated comedy shows as it receives more publicity than any other show. It is watched by many for the sheer entertainment it provides, south park is a supremely intelligent production.
http://www.winningpearls.com/entertainment/article7484.htm
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
3rd text- SOUTH PARK (cartamans mum is a dirty slut)
this is my third text a a huge text this is for the link between verbal violence and the media. children use a great deal of foul language which they either get from other people or watching violent tv shows. one of the tv shows is soutgh aprk which has been running successfully and watched by adults as well as children. it has been running so well that the show has reached to its 13 season and still counting. this show must be liked by people for it to reach its 13 season.
SOUTH PARK: EPISODE-CARTAMAN'S MUM IS A DIRTY SLUT
season number: season 1 episode 13
written by: trey parker
David A. goodman
directed by: Trey Parker
guest star: Jay Leno
Airdate: february 25, 1998
this is one of the episodes of south park, its not the most violent episode but this episode has enough violence which is not capable for children. The episode has foul language which could easily be picked up by children such as "slut", "fucking bastard" and a whole load more. This shows which is animated seems like it is going to be like a ordinary cartoon filled with laughter but this show does make the viewers laugh but with some next level humor. such as kenny dying in each, viewers see this as a funny thing especially children. In this episode kenny gets run over by a train. children laughing at these type of things could mean something for them to try with their mates.
with south park children are mostly effected with the language. they hear words which should not be heard and use them in places where they should be used and to people who they should not say it to. foul language leads to fights which then leads to violent children.
south park is an animated cartoon, which portrays four children who swear at will and get involved in thousands of acts of violence. one character dies at the end of each episode, but is alive again in the following week. This cartoon show follows in the footsteps of "beavis and Butthead", an MTV cartoon that popularized jokes about human bodily functions
Friday, 3 April 2009
wwe
Another one of my texts is wrestling shows- WWE.
world wrestling entertainment is a privately controlled integrated media ( focuses in television, internet and live events). vince Mcmahon is the majority owner and chairman of the company and his wife linda Mcmahon is the CEO. The mchmahons family holds 70% of WWE's economic interest and 96% of the voting power in the company.
Homebase: stamford, connecticut, U.S
Founded: 1952
Type of business entity: Public
key People:
- vince mcmahon
- Linda Mcmahon
- Shane Mcmahon( executive vice president of global media)
- stephanie Mcmahon (executive vice president of talent relations, live events and creative writing)
industry: professional wrestling, sports entertainment
revenue: $526.5million USD (2008)
operating income: $70.3million USD (2008)
net income: $45.4million USD (2008)
This text was chosen as this is a mass media which has a big effect on children. WWE is broadcasted in 12 languages to over 130 countries. The attendances have been increasing in the live events which shows how popular the show is getting year by year. There could be a link between the rise of the attendance and the rise of the violence with children. wwe is known as sport entertainment, children love sport which is why they love wrestling as they see this as a sport without knowing the danger within the sport.
parents blame the media and media blame the parents. so who is it right?
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
textual analysis of manhunt
Synopsis:
This game consists of twenty levels and four bonus levels which could be unlocked. this game is about a convict called James Earl Cash, there are no heroes in this game but all are villains. well basically the game is about cash who is on a death sentence and he is tricked into a city filled with gangs. in order to survive he must kill all the gangs and he has a deal with teh guy who out him into the city that if he kills the thugs then he could get rid of his death sentence.
+ mise-en-scene
- lighting: full of dark spots and shadows
-costume: player in street clothing
-Props used(weapons):
This game consists of twenty levels and four bonus levels which could be unlocked. this game is about a convict called James Earl Cash, there are no heroes in this game but all are villains. well basically the game is about cash who is on a death sentence and he is tricked into a city filled with gangs. in order to survive he must kill all the gangs and he has a deal with teh guy who out him into the city that if he kills the thugs then he could get rid of his death sentence.
+ mise-en-scene
- lighting: full of dark spots and shadows
-costume: player in street clothing
-Props used(weapons):
- plastic bags
- baseball bats
- crowbars
- firearms
- and all sorts of bladed items
- also use bottles,cans and bricks
-Setting:
The game is set moslty in the dark as the player hides behind shadows to kill its enemies.
the game is set in the dilapidated carcer city.
the maker of the game has shot the games scenes in all directions but one thing that i have noticed is that whenever there is a target to kill close by the camera zooms in to a mid-shot so you can get to see very clearly the damage you will inflict on the opponent.
+ sound:
-non-diegetic sound: background music
- diegetic: normal sounds you here within the narrative, everything the characters hear.
+ key demographic:
- 18-29 years old, moslty male,
Monday, 30 March 2009
manhunt-institutional data
Developers: Rockstar north
Publishers: Rockstar Games
Series: Manhunt
Engine: RenderWare
Release dates: November 18, 2003 (PS2)
April 20, 2004(Xbox and PC)
Genre: action, Psychological, horror, stealth
Modes: single player
Ratings:
British Board of Film Classification-BBFC: 18
Entertainment Software Rating Board-ERSB: ‘M’
Office of Film and Literature Classification-OFLC: MA15
Office of Film and Literature Classification-OFLC: RC(RE-RATING)
Office of Film and Literature Classification-OFLC(NZ): banned
Office of Film and Literature Classification-OFLC(GER): banned
Input Methods: game pad
this is the link of the actual website for the game which gives more information about the review of the movie etc:
Sunday, 29 March 2009
manhunt review
Manhunt
The bloodiest, most gruesome game you'll play all year.
The game is rated 8.5 out of 10.
The game is also 'M' rated. The 'M' rating stands for mature( content suitable for people aged 18 and over).
It's M rated because of its graphic like the death by crowbar to the face, wire chokes and machete hackings. But also because it reaches into the wasteland of human life and returns with a quivering piece of rotting meat and makes you taste it. You may have seen this kind of thing in movies, anime or the like, but no videogames to date have gone as far as Rockstar's Manhunt.
Manhunt is going to cause a stir, without a doubt. The game's extremely violent nature shouldn't be seen by young kids. Which is why it's rated M, for mature. Manhunt is a violent videogame, but the only thing that's new about this violence is in the way it's presented. When it comes down to it, the grisly cutscenes are just icing on the cake of a superbly honed stealth and tactical action game. Manhunt is a solid, deep experience for seasoned gamers pining for a hardcore, challenging game this fall. The level of difficulty evolves gradually from basic stealth fundamentals to tactical guerrilla warfare with melee weapons and a variety of guns with nary a hitch in continuity.
Aside from the harsh death scenes, the thing that makes Manhunt stand out as unique is its sound. The audio features here are incredible, from the USB headset addition to the brilliant responsiveness of the AI, to the unmatched level of hilarious and creative voice-overs and the disturbing sonic sounds of the musical score. is a highly polished strategy game of hide-and-seek, kill-or-be-killed gameplay. It's narrow in focus, but deep in its specialty. There is not much of a story nor are the levels terribly varied, but without a doubt, Manhunt is (with the exception of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty) nearly unsurpassed in its unique brand of stealth and tactical combat.
The bloodiest, most gruesome game you'll play all year.
The game is rated 8.5 out of 10.
The game is also 'M' rated. The 'M' rating stands for mature( content suitable for people aged 18 and over).
It's M rated because of its graphic like the death by crowbar to the face, wire chokes and machete hackings. But also because it reaches into the wasteland of human life and returns with a quivering piece of rotting meat and makes you taste it. You may have seen this kind of thing in movies, anime or the like, but no videogames to date have gone as far as Rockstar's Manhunt.
Manhunt is going to cause a stir, without a doubt. The game's extremely violent nature shouldn't be seen by young kids. Which is why it's rated M, for mature. Manhunt is a violent videogame, but the only thing that's new about this violence is in the way it's presented. When it comes down to it, the grisly cutscenes are just icing on the cake of a superbly honed stealth and tactical action game. Manhunt is a solid, deep experience for seasoned gamers pining for a hardcore, challenging game this fall. The level of difficulty evolves gradually from basic stealth fundamentals to tactical guerrilla warfare with melee weapons and a variety of guns with nary a hitch in continuity.
Aside from the harsh death scenes, the thing that makes Manhunt stand out as unique is its sound. The audio features here are incredible, from the USB headset addition to the brilliant responsiveness of the AI, to the unmatched level of hilarious and creative voice-overs and the disturbing sonic sounds of the musical score. is a highly polished strategy game of hide-and-seek, kill-or-be-killed gameplay. It's narrow in focus, but deep in its specialty. There is not much of a story nor are the levels terribly varied, but without a doubt, Manhunt is (with the exception of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty) nearly unsurpassed in its unique brand of stealth and tactical combat.
manhunt murder
one of my three texts is manhunt(video game). This text plays a vital role in answering my question as this game has affected a child in real life which shows how violent this game could be. here is a article on this video game which is about a boy who killed his friend over money, but it is not why he killed but it is how he killed him. This article was chosen as this boy was killed in the same way characters die in the game and that too with similar weopons.
ARTICLE ONE:
Teenager gets life for 'Manhunt murder'
A teenager whose apparent obsession with a violent video game led him to brutally batter a younger friend to death has been detained for life today.
Warren Leblanc lured 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah to a Leicester park armed with a knife and claw hammer before carrying out the horrific attack in February.
The 17-year-old, who was ordered to serve a minimum of 13 years behind bars by a judge at Leicester Crown Court, claimed he planned to rob the younger boy to repay a £75 debt.
But his victim's parents blamed the violent computer game Manhunt, in which players earn points for stealth killings, for the vicious and prolonged attack on their son.
The court heard that despite publicity surrounding the case which linked the murder to Leblanc's obsession with computer games, this had not formed any part of the case.
Sentencing Leblanc, Judge Stokes told him he had "committed a truly appalling crime".
50 separate injuries
Roderick Price QC, defending, said the teenager had been motivated by fear of a gang to whom he owed a small amount of money.
He said: "The reason he killed Stefan is rooted not in video games but in fear - in desperation born of fear.
"Both Stefan and the defendant are victims of a gang culture which creates fear in the minds of young men and in the case of this defendant, a young man who was not a gang member and who was out of the loop.
"He considers that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm and it is against this background that he committed the offence that he did.
"He was wearing a white tracksuit - he had no idea that it would come to this but it did in the blind panic that I have described."
Leblanc lured his younger victim to an area known as The Dumps in Stokes Wood Park before attacking him on February 26.
The 14-year-old victim was left with at least 50 separate injuries to his body caused by his attacker, the court was told.
Judge Michael Stokes QC said: "What happened went far beyond what was necessary to rob him - particularly a 14-year-old boy."
Mother leaves court
Stefan's mother, Giselle, was again forced to leave court as the detail of her son's horrific murder was given to the court.
Mr Price said Leblanc was in a trance when he began to repeatedly hit his victim with a claw hammer.
He said at first the 17-year-old had only intended to overpower the young boy and use the hammer to stun him.
However, he then panicked and hit him repeatedly and then attacked him with a knife.
Mr Price claimed the defendant owed £75 to a member of the Crusaders gang and had received threats from them.
He said: "He was getting messages that something very nasty was imminent.
"He understood that he would be injured and seriously injured and stupidly and criminally and wrongly he thought that an assault and attempt to rob would stop those threats."
Judge Stokes, sentencing Leblanc, said: "You have committed a truly appalling crime.
"You have taken the life of a 14-year-old boy in a most brutal fashion. I do not pretend to know or understand what prompted you to behave as you did.
"One thing is clear - you and you alone were responsible for this prolonged, vicious and murderous attack on someone who thought of you as a friend."
ARTICLE TWO:
Manhunt blamed for UK murder
Britain's top game retailer yanks the controversial Rockstar game after a teenage player kills.
Months after the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City "Kill all the Haitians!" uproar finally fizzled out, Rockstar Games has another controversy on its hands. In the UK, the parents of a teenage murder victim have blamed the crime on the Rockstar game Manhunt. The parents of Stefan Pakeerah, 14, said their son was lured to a park by a 17-year-old player of the game, who stabbed and beat their son to death with a knife and claw hammer.
"When one looks at what Warren did to Stephan and looks at the brutality and viciousness of the game, one can see links," Stefan's mother told the BBC. Stefan's father was more specific, telling Reuters, "Stefan's murder compares to how the game is set out, using weapons like hammers and knives. If games like this influence kids, they should be taken off the shelves."
The uproar has prompted the UK's biggest retailer to do exactly that. The Dixons chain has removed Manhunt from its locations across Britain and has no plans to put the game back on sale. A spokeswoman for Dixons told the BBC, "We are taking it off the shelves with immediate effect." Rockstar issued a statement in response to the removal, saying "We have always appreciated Dixons as a retail partner, and we fully respect their actions. We are naturally very surprised and disappointed that any retailer would choose to pull any game." Rockstar also defended itself by stating, "We reject any suggestion or association between the tragic events and the sale of Manhunt." However, the publisher/developer did offer its condolences to the victim's family.
As was to be expected, erroneous news reports in the wake of the murder have reignited the controversy that surrounded Manhunt when it was first released. Reuters wrote, "It awards extra points to players for carrying out murders in a particularly extreme and bloody way, while victims plead to be spared on behalf of their wives and children." In reality, Manhunt awards no points at all. The stealth survival shooter follows a convict who is forced to kill hired assassins in self-defense with whatever items are on hand. However, the madman/snuff-filmmaker who has kidnapped the convict does offer him rewards based on the grisliness of his killings, albeit in a very unglamorous fashion.
The BBC's coverage of the Manhunt furor was more balanced. Besides quoting Rockstar reps and officials of ELSPA, the UK's primary game-industry trade group, the BBC also talked to a child psychologist about whether or not there is a link between violent games and violent behavior in children. "There's been no longitudinal research, following adolescents over a long period, looking at how gaming violence might affect their behavior," said Professor Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent University, who called for more research.
The BBC also pointed out that Manhunt has an 18 certificate--the equivalent of an "M" rating--and shouldn't be played by minors at all. Rockstar reps reiterated that its games are for adults only. "Rockstar Games is a leading publisher of interactive entertainment geared towards mature audiences, and [it] markets its games responsibly, targeting advertising and marketing only to adult consumers ages 18 and older," said the publisher/developer in a statement.
ARTICLE ONE:
Teenager gets life for 'Manhunt murder'
A teenager whose apparent obsession with a violent video game led him to brutally batter a younger friend to death has been detained for life today.
Warren Leblanc lured 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah to a Leicester park armed with a knife and claw hammer before carrying out the horrific attack in February.
The 17-year-old, who was ordered to serve a minimum of 13 years behind bars by a judge at Leicester Crown Court, claimed he planned to rob the younger boy to repay a £75 debt.
But his victim's parents blamed the violent computer game Manhunt, in which players earn points for stealth killings, for the vicious and prolonged attack on their son.
The court heard that despite publicity surrounding the case which linked the murder to Leblanc's obsession with computer games, this had not formed any part of the case.
Sentencing Leblanc, Judge Stokes told him he had "committed a truly appalling crime".
50 separate injuries
Roderick Price QC, defending, said the teenager had been motivated by fear of a gang to whom he owed a small amount of money.
He said: "The reason he killed Stefan is rooted not in video games but in fear - in desperation born of fear.
"Both Stefan and the defendant are victims of a gang culture which creates fear in the minds of young men and in the case of this defendant, a young man who was not a gang member and who was out of the loop.
"He considers that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm and it is against this background that he committed the offence that he did.
"He was wearing a white tracksuit - he had no idea that it would come to this but it did in the blind panic that I have described."
Leblanc lured his younger victim to an area known as The Dumps in Stokes Wood Park before attacking him on February 26.
The 14-year-old victim was left with at least 50 separate injuries to his body caused by his attacker, the court was told.
Judge Michael Stokes QC said: "What happened went far beyond what was necessary to rob him - particularly a 14-year-old boy."
Mother leaves court
Stefan's mother, Giselle, was again forced to leave court as the detail of her son's horrific murder was given to the court.
Mr Price said Leblanc was in a trance when he began to repeatedly hit his victim with a claw hammer.
He said at first the 17-year-old had only intended to overpower the young boy and use the hammer to stun him.
However, he then panicked and hit him repeatedly and then attacked him with a knife.
Mr Price claimed the defendant owed £75 to a member of the Crusaders gang and had received threats from them.
He said: "He was getting messages that something very nasty was imminent.
"He understood that he would be injured and seriously injured and stupidly and criminally and wrongly he thought that an assault and attempt to rob would stop those threats."
Judge Stokes, sentencing Leblanc, said: "You have committed a truly appalling crime.
"You have taken the life of a 14-year-old boy in a most brutal fashion. I do not pretend to know or understand what prompted you to behave as you did.
"One thing is clear - you and you alone were responsible for this prolonged, vicious and murderous attack on someone who thought of you as a friend."
ARTICLE TWO:
Manhunt blamed for UK murder
Britain's top game retailer yanks the controversial Rockstar game after a teenage player kills.
Months after the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City "Kill all the Haitians!" uproar finally fizzled out, Rockstar Games has another controversy on its hands. In the UK, the parents of a teenage murder victim have blamed the crime on the Rockstar game Manhunt. The parents of Stefan Pakeerah, 14, said their son was lured to a park by a 17-year-old player of the game, who stabbed and beat their son to death with a knife and claw hammer.
"When one looks at what Warren did to Stephan and looks at the brutality and viciousness of the game, one can see links," Stefan's mother told the BBC. Stefan's father was more specific, telling Reuters, "Stefan's murder compares to how the game is set out, using weapons like hammers and knives. If games like this influence kids, they should be taken off the shelves."
The uproar has prompted the UK's biggest retailer to do exactly that. The Dixons chain has removed Manhunt from its locations across Britain and has no plans to put the game back on sale. A spokeswoman for Dixons told the BBC, "We are taking it off the shelves with immediate effect." Rockstar issued a statement in response to the removal, saying "We have always appreciated Dixons as a retail partner, and we fully respect their actions. We are naturally very surprised and disappointed that any retailer would choose to pull any game." Rockstar also defended itself by stating, "We reject any suggestion or association between the tragic events and the sale of Manhunt." However, the publisher/developer did offer its condolences to the victim's family.
As was to be expected, erroneous news reports in the wake of the murder have reignited the controversy that surrounded Manhunt when it was first released. Reuters wrote, "It awards extra points to players for carrying out murders in a particularly extreme and bloody way, while victims plead to be spared on behalf of their wives and children." In reality, Manhunt awards no points at all. The stealth survival shooter follows a convict who is forced to kill hired assassins in self-defense with whatever items are on hand. However, the madman/snuff-filmmaker who has kidnapped the convict does offer him rewards based on the grisliness of his killings, albeit in a very unglamorous fashion.
The BBC's coverage of the Manhunt furor was more balanced. Besides quoting Rockstar reps and officials of ELSPA, the UK's primary game-industry trade group, the BBC also talked to a child psychologist about whether or not there is a link between violent games and violent behavior in children. "There's been no longitudinal research, following adolescents over a long period, looking at how gaming violence might affect their behavior," said Professor Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent University, who called for more research.
The BBC also pointed out that Manhunt has an 18 certificate--the equivalent of an "M" rating--and shouldn't be played by minors at all. Rockstar reps reiterated that its games are for adults only. "Rockstar Games is a leading publisher of interactive entertainment geared towards mature audiences, and [it] markets its games responsibly, targeting advertising and marketing only to adult consumers ages 18 and older," said the publisher/developer in a statement.
Friday, 27 March 2009
MY QUESTION:
Should mass media concern be more critical towards the investigation into the effect of violent media on children and self-regulation of content?
this is my question and the 3 texts which i shall be studying and doing hardcore research on are:
+manhunt
reason:This has been the most violent video game and has been connected to a real life murder.
study areas: Video game:
-Weapons
-The way people are killed
-Ratings and review of the game
-parents views
+wwe- wrestling shows
reason: Children have been affected by this as they use these moves on smaller kids at school.
study areas:
-use of weapons
-wrestling moves
-Ratings and reviews
-mise-en-scene
-parents views
+south park- (episode name: cartamans mum is a dirty slut)
reason:Children these days are using rude language as they learn this from what they watch, this episode consists of a lot of rude language.
study areas:
-language
-mise-en-scene
-Rating and reviews
-parents views
Should mass media concern be more critical towards the investigation into the effect of violent media on children and self-regulation of content?
this is my question and the 3 texts which i shall be studying and doing hardcore research on are:
+manhunt
reason:This has been the most violent video game and has been connected to a real life murder.
study areas: Video game:
-Weapons
-The way people are killed
-Ratings and review of the game
-parents views
+wwe- wrestling shows
reason: Children have been affected by this as they use these moves on smaller kids at school.
study areas:
-use of weapons
-wrestling moves
-Ratings and reviews
-mise-en-scene
-parents views
+south park- (episode name: cartamans mum is a dirty slut)
reason:Children these days are using rude language as they learn this from what they watch, this episode consists of a lot of rude language.
study areas:
-language
-mise-en-scene
-Rating and reviews
-parents views
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)