I respectfully contradict

     This week I read an article named Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence written by Sissela Bok. In this article Bok tries to raise awareness on the correlation between media violence and real violence. I believe that Bok’s audience is anyone who is a parent and/or middle age society or older since she is making references to youth violence, John Grisham and Oliver Stone. Youth violence is becoming mainstream news and parents are beginning to worry more about their children’s safety. Grisham and Stone are known well to an older generation who can appreciate the works they created.
     I believe that Bok is trying to persuade the reader to rethink the television currently aired and take a stand to have rules placed on media violence. I do feel that the execution was flawed. I found myself contradicting Bok more than agreeing with her. Bok’s statistics were contradictory and left much room for the reader to form doubt. She notes that since television was created, the rate of violence has risen in the 1990’s but then contradicts her point by saying that actual violence has now decreased even though no action has been made to curb media violence. This contradicts the point that media violence is directly effecting violence.
Bok also calls the reader to take a stand and asks the reader to think of other areas that have been censored such as smoking and drunk driving. In my opinion, this is a really bad comparison because there is concrete evidence that links smoking to cancer and drunk driving to car accidents but there is no direct link regarding media violence and real violence. Not to mention that smoking and drinking are addictive substances which causes death and glamorizing them in the media destroys the attempts to remove it from society. Watching media violence is not addictive nor does it cause anybody physical harm or impairment. The example of the couple that copycatted Natural Born Killers had underlying issues that contributed to their choices to reenact the movie. By using such poor examples Bok did not effectively convey logos. Her use of inductive logic was flawed since she was comparing apples to sailboats.
     With Bok’s inconsistencies regarding her examples and comparisons she was not able to effectively create ethos either. This is because she could not establish credibility. Bok also makes the comment, “No reputable scholar accepts the view expressed by 21 percent of the American public in 1995, blaming television more than any other factor for teenage violence.” (Bok, 87) This sentence completely undermines the beliefs of the average American.
     I think that Bok has a great point to make about media violence and the need for it to be monitored but not completely restricted. I believe that it’s the job both of the television networks to gear their programs to the audiences that watch it and also the parent’s or caregiver’s responsibility to monitor what their children are watching. This point was only brought up in passing and was not retouched. I found myself shaking my head when I was done reading the article because, as a mother of two boys, I question other parents or care providers who do not take the time to educate children about what it is they are watching. I can easily compare it to guns. A child who is never taught the impact of guns or the dangers associated with them is more likely to pick one up and hurt either themselves or someone else badly. A child who has grown up learning about guns, the proper use for them and the harm they can cause have a respect for them and are less likely to pick one up and hurt anyone. Children are impressionable and without the proper guidance when it comes to things such as media violence, how are they to know any better?
     Do you believe there is a need to remove violence from our media?