Introduction: Theoretical Perspectives on Media, Representation and Violence
1.2 Representation: Media in General
1.2.9 Media Violence: Ever growing concern
Krishna Kumar, a noted educationist confirms that cinema and television have made substantial contribution to the creation of unkind, volatile ethos. Kumar calls this the
‘cult of violence’ (Mishra 2005). Research in the field of media and representation of violence tries to establish links between consumption of media violence and subsequent effects on media consumers including perception creation and behaviour changes. Many experts also believe that violence in the media is also addictive. It is difficult to set down in a definitive way what effect media violence has on consumers.
There are a number of reasons for this, but the main issue is that terms like
“violence”, “conflict” and “aggression” are not easily defined or categorised. As life now has heavily become media information centric and media being the sole source of information among various distant consumer groups, media representations are instrumental in creating the reality perception about the people, place and society. In representing instances of violence often media is even criticised of influencing negative impact on its consumers. Moreover inappropriate representation can cause more harm to the consumers and the society being represented than serve. Thus it becomes essential to look into possible ways to overcome the inappropriate representation of violence in media.
Media Effects Theories
Contemporary theories of representation stress the construction of particular realities, focus on ‘bias’, ‘prejudice’ or ‘stereotypes’ risk implying that there is a single unchanging ‘true’ reality. Racial Representations also include key themes like exotic,
dangerous, humorous, pitied, etc. it needs to be understood what key themes are there in relation to class, age and gender. The research looking at the theoretical mechanisms that link consuming media violence and aggression has resulted in a handful of processes that some scholars suggest may explain any relationship that may exist. Although vocal support for these theories remains in some quarters, particularly among social psychologists, critics have contended that rhetorical support for these theories has generally outstripped largely absent data (Freedman, Guantlett, Savage etc).
The first hypothesis, in the above mentioned area includes Bandura's (1986, 1994) social learning theory, which was observed in Bandura's famous Bobo Doll experiments. This theory projects that media characters serve as models for aggressive behaviour, and depending upon how the model character is treated, whether rewarded or punished, the viewer or the audience either inhibits or rejects imitation of that behaviour. The second theory is priming, an idea formulated by Jo and Berkowitz in 1967, which was then later revised in 1994. The revised formulation of this theory focused on the belief that media violence might prime thoughts of aggressive behaviour and, consequently, make actual aggressive behaviour more likely. But the priming hypothesis has received very weak and inconsistent support by research in the context of media violence (Freedman 68).
Another theory is Zillman's theory of excitation. The theory advances the belief that the media consumer’s behaviour depends a lot on the properties of media violence to which he is exposed to. It suggests that the arousal-inducing properties of media violence are significant for understanding the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of emotional reactions that occur immediately after exposure. Idea of desensitisation is another advocated explaining the link between media violence and aggression.
According to this belief, constant exposure to media violence results in a psychological saturation or emotional alteration. Research does seem to suggest exposure to media violence may desensitize viewers to media violence itself.
However adequate evidences are lacking to confirm this media violence transfer to real-world violence (Savage 51). Physiological activation is another media effect theory, which suggests that when children watch TV violence, the neurophysiology of
a "phylogenetically-old brain system" is mobilised along with activation of limbic and neo-cortical systems that prepare the organism for motor plans associated with the fight-or-flight response. The authors, Murray et al (2006), of this theory suggest that responses to media violence may be preconscious and have long-term implications that extend beyond the period of exposure.
Many have argued evidences supporting these theories have been comparatively very poor. Thus debate on the merits of these theories is likely to continue and gradually newer theories will be developed in the process. One alternate theory the Catalyst Model (Ferguson et al. 2008) has been proposed to explain the etiology of violence.
According to the Catalyst Model, violence arises from a combination of genetic and early social influences, which are family and peers in particular. But media violence is rather considered too weak an influence. Stressful environment circumstances accelerate or influence specific violent acts. This theory is directly at odds with most learning-focused media violence researchers as the Catalyst Model specifically deemphasises media violence. Another theory, expound largely by David Gauntlett is the Moral Panic theory, which suggests that concerns about new media are historical and recurring. Society forms a predetermined negative belief about a new media which is typically not used earlier due to various reasons. Research studies and statements by scholars and politicians are designed to confirm the pre-existing belief, rather than objectively study the issue. Most of the time it is seen that the panic subsides after several years or even decades, but eventually resurfaces when yet another media content with variation or a new form of media is introduced.
Expression of Violence through Media
Media has the capacity to change attitudes, opinions, and behaviours, but to what extent. Empirical research, surveys and experimental methods have proved over time that media-audience relationship is complex and a mediated one rather than simple and direct. Effects can be determined only when primary groups, opinion leaders and other factors intervening between the media and audience were taken into account.
Hence comes into scene the ‘two step’ or ‘multiple-step’ flow of information (Morley and Brunsdon 125). Other than the media and the audience, the intermediating factors are also equally significant in determining the effect of media.
In numerous studies the role of media is found to be more limited and implicit and benign in society with emphasis shifting to active audiences, from ‘what the media do to the people’ to ‘what people do to the media’. Overcoming the impression of media being the ‘ominous persuasive and other anti-social power’ media was found to be just reinforcing prior dispositions and not changing them, not cultivating escapism or passivity but a medium capable of satisfying multiple uses and gratification, not instrument of a levelling of culture but of its democratisation (Morley and Brunsdon 125). Uses and gratification theory states that the media products are designed in a way for the intended users, keeping in mind their needs and aspirations. Thus the media producers concentrate on market audience research programmes to design media texts. And this often results in homogeneity of products with no media wanting to loose on its consumer base. Fights, shootouts, brutality, car crashes and sadistic violence are common gimmicks designed to capture and hold viewers’ attention (Kamalipour and Rampal 153). And moreover economic competition for viewers leads to more and more depictions of violence in media (Prince 237). Thus it can be stated that the increase in violence in media in a way may be linked to its growing acceptance and popularity among the masses.
Representation of violence in media and its effect on individual as well as the whole society is a serious concern. All communicators, media content producers thus need to analyse and understand the consequences before putting forward any content to public. Means and methods are to be thoroughly studied in context specific environment. In fact, the television (media) industry has claimed that media is violent because it is mirror of society (Kamalipour and Rampal 153).
News and Media
While film, television and games provide fictional accounts of violence, disaster and terror; the news media serves the purpose of only representing real life violence, clashes, murder, rapes, killings, abductions, fire, etc violence in all form and intensity, mainly for demonstration. Media moreover are more oriented towards sensationalising stories rather than educating or informing the audiences. As Darrel Pink, a lawyer in Halifax states “if there is no blood, no guts, no sex, the media does not cover it” (McCormick 78). News in particular has the status of being ‘purveyor of
truth’ (Boyle 2005: 61), resulting in most news representations, being broadly accepted by the media consumers- readers and viewers. But referring to the media coverage of War in Iraq in news and its representation as a ‘war spectacle’, Danny Schechter (2003a) makes the disturbing indictment of media to have become
‘purveyor of infotainment’- a mix of entertainment with serious information prototype. This holds true for almost all media productions in today’s context, media work only in an attempt to enhance popularity, attract consumers and increasing revenue generation, and accordingly designs context and context. Something that has become more evident in today’s media is tabloidization of mainstream media (Fox and Van Sickel, 2001: 55). And it has widely come to be believed that most people look to news for their information on crime and criminal behaviour, media arguably hold a level of power in the designation of crime and deviance (Ricson et al. 1987;
Surette, 1992 and Schissel, 1997).