Introduction: Theoretical Perspectives on Media, Representation and Violence
1.2 Representation: Media in General
1.2.5 Realism, Violence and Media
Representation of violence in media can be criticised for being represented unrealistically and also for being too realistic represented at times. There have been attempts to infiltrate a sense of reality into the audiences through means and methods of representation. Media representations of violence do not only reflect real life, but also shape the way we understand and make sense of violence in the context of our own lives (Boyle 13).
Regulations
Violence in media has been an issue of concern and matter of debate for long now.
There are deliberations if authorities should impose restrictions on media content and representation of violence to prevent media consumers to be adversely affected by the exposure. If at all restrictions are to be put in what level and on what categories of violence should be exempted from being represented and in what manner. One hand while there are serious thoughts and actions going on for imposing regulations before releasing media products to the consumers and censorship is seen as a probable solution for severe cases, on the another argument put fore against imposing regulations on the conduct of media is regulations being barrier to the fundamental
right to freedom of expression, which hold true for the media as well. Media practitioners and experts thus are seen opposing stricter regulation laws but encouraging self discipline, ethical practices at individual and organisational level.
There are various rules and regulations laid down by various concerned authorities regarding what and how much can be represented through media content. Many media producers’, broadcasters and media houses have agreed upon voluntary codes governing what aspects of violence may or may not be depicted through their content.
Media in most of its formats like print or electronic media have sets of standards, rules and ethics when it comes to the reporting of facts, including violence. To what extent they are adhered to, is another matter of concern but there actually are governing bodies and set of media regulations that are not supposed to be violated by any media.
Media Violence and Active Audiences
The affected viewers are mostly conceptualised as passive, uncritically accepting what they see on screen, barely media-literate (Boyle 11). Media images do not produce similar, predictable results upon those who consume them. In the process of consuming media products consumers of media products are actively involved in determining meaning of the messages conveyed through media (Jenkins). On one hand where the audience is empowered to decipher any media text depending on various personal as well as social factors, on the other it is equally important to consider the authority and role of producers to communicate the intended message to the proposed target by deliberately placing/slotting it in order to reach the masses and influence consumption and acceptance of the media text.
Media Violence: A Discourse
The discourse on media violence even after much indulgence by scholars of various fields remains riven with inconsistency. While some scholars assert that violence in media and violence in the society are directly related, some feel it affects individuals distinctively depending upon various factors, there are also studies which suggest that violence in media is not at all responsible for violence outside media and that media violence is not universally promoting violence. This discrepancy in the outcome of
the media effect studies relating to violent representations and violence can be said to be due to difficulties in consistently defining the term and concept of media and violence (Trend 3). The direct relation between media violence and real-life aggression is yet to be established clearly, but impact of violence in media on society cannot be ruled out. Social science has gotten itself into something of a scrape in the matter of television, especially in the area of violence; none of the various aspects of the argument about violence permits social science to depart the field (Taller).
Social scientists have concluded that there is a weak association between watching media violence and real life aggression. Organisations like the Canadian Pediatric Society and the American Medical Association have even declared media violence to be public health issue. One among many experts who relate real life violence directly to its representation in media is comic-book creator Gerard Jones, who contends that violent video games, movies, music and comic books enable people to pull themselves out of emotional traps.
However, there is a section which maintains that media violence if restricted would seriously hamper artistic expression. Researchers have argued that media violence is qualitatively different from real violence and is natural signifier of conflict (Hodge and Tripp 217). ‘Mean world syndrome’ a phenomenon coined by communication specialist and media critic George Gerbner, states that violence-related content of media persuades media consumers to believe that the world is far more a dangerous place to live in than it actually is. Numerous scientific researches provide evidence affirming that exposure to media violence harms society (Trend 8). Another study, the 1930s behaviourism models, the Payne Fund Studies, concluded that the mass media considerably influences consumer’s behaviours.
After 2001, a group of media scholars which included notable intellectuals as Jib Fowles, Henry Jenkins, Vivian Sobchack and Richard Rhodes; influenced a research subculture which stressed more on identifying positive aspects of media and game culture concentrating on media violence and its effects on the consumers. Though media violence can be undoubtedly declared unsafe for the society but the outcome of it on the society may not always be the predictable ones, because of the extremely
individualistic ways of people to accept media products and be affected by media;
either “enjoy, transform, reject, ignore, remember or forget the messages they receive” (Trend 39). Symonds demonstrates that the debate on the effects of violence cannot be conducted without recognizing the vast generic and textual variety that characterises the representation of violence in contemporary media. He used empirical audience reception data and discussions of different representations of violence, to look at violence in the media as an art form in itself (Symonds 17,151,157).