Everything that a child see or hear will effect their lives in some way. So its up to their parents to guide them in their childhood. If the parents explain to them that violent is not good, their perception regarding violent will change. Parents have more power to influence children than media as children see parents as their role model.
Some people might say that children cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is not. And thefore, they will be effected by the violence in the media. I totally disagree with this. Since children perception is not fixed, is it easier to educate them about violence. Tell them the consequences if violence is used. When the children are educated, media cannot influence them anymore.
Ok its truth that some parents may not have the time to educate their child. However, it depends on how these children were raised.
Early exposure to violence in the family may involve witnessing either violence or physical abuse. Research suggests that these forms of exposure to violence during childhood increase the risk of violent behavior during adolescence by as much as 40%.(Center for the Study of Youth Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1993)
So consiously, or uncosiously, the parents will teach the children by the way the speak or act.
Some ppl might say that its up to the children if the want to be influenced or not. But how can children be influenced if they cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is not? So, there is a need for someone to guide them. So who is responsible to guide them? Definitely their parents. Whenever every couple want to have a child, they should bear the responsibility in developing the child.
Under UK law,it stated 'It is for parents to decide how they deliver home education. They are not required to follow the National Curriculum nor to keep to school hours. Parents are required by law, however, to ensure their child receives an efficient full-time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs the child may have.' This shows that even the government give full responsibility to parents to educate the children.
The law in Wales stated 'All parents, whether married or not, have the responsibility to ensure that their children receive adequate and proper parenting. All parents have the responsibility to promote the best interests of their children in providing for their care, welfare and development.'
So right now, who is responsible for the development of children? Defintly their parents.. Fullstop.
So what if its 21st century. 21st century just means that time have changed and parents are now more busy. But however does a defination of parents change??
Ok. Let me shift the discussion away from parents now.
To the group which is doing this.
Look at the few key words here.
1. Media -- Which kinds of media are we discussing here. You must list these clearly when you begin your discussion cafe
2. Promote -- ENcourage --> does the media enourage juvenile violence?
3. Juvenile violence -- how violent is violent? Your group has to decide. is someone who is verbally abusive being violent? You guys draw the line here
Media itself comes from different sources like tv, video/computer games, cds/dvds, music and many more.Furthermore nowadays violence is seen to be common in all these sources.Just name it.We can watch hardcore wrestling (eg. WWE, TNA) in the television.Through the internet, we can easily find games that featured gore and violence such as The Stickman. These games and entertainment shows are mainly to attract the younger viewers/players which i can easily say the teenagers.So we cannot deny the fact that the media DOES have an effect on our teenagers today because the media is now spreading fast.
hmm.. lets start talking about government playing a role in media. In fact, in singapore, the government governs the media ----> Tv programs. Therefore i can safely says that the government allows programms that are "watchable" to be played on screen. Censorship of vulgar and inappropriate scences and words are imposed. For tv only, i can say that, in singapore, tv programs wont be too much a influence for Juvenile Violence.
For computer games and the rest of the media like internet, its easy to find sources related to violence.
therefore i agree more or less that media do promote juvenile violence.
On the topic about juvenile violence, not only media plays a part. Exposure to violence in the home and/or community, exposure to violence in media, being the victim of physical abuse and/or sexual abuse, having bad temper and lack of self control triggers and promotes juvenile violence.
Also, sometimes, stress complements bad temper. Being in a stressful society one can acually be easily irritated. Sometimes people suppress the anger, but as anger built up, once triggered, will result in unbearable consequences like violence.
juvenile violence also can be due to immaturity and being sheltered from the real world by their families. They thinks they can do anything that they want. And their parents will shield them if things goes wrong. Eg. there had been cases whereby a male teenager got jealous because his girlfriend dumbs him for another guy, got jealous and hit the other guy. There are worst cases where teens just take guns and shoot the other people he doesnt like.
hahas i got out of point.. hahas.. media do promote juvenile violence, but juvenile violence dont just pop out from contact with media. other issues play a part too.
In some society, people strives to be superior to the rest. And once they found out that being aggressive and violent people will make people bow to them, they carry on and do that. They will slowly be addicted to violence and then once hooked they will never stop. They will use violence to solve things.
And things like juvenile gangs, media do have shows related and there are also games related to gang life st fransico if i m not wrong(Playstation 2 game)And sometimes teens feel that being in a large group is cool. and from there they learn other things.
the how violent is violent ermm quite deiffcult to define. i feel that as long as hurting someone, emotionally or physically is considered violence(more to physical violence)
I heard another point of view from my sister, and this is what she says and what i think make sense.
Media does promote juvenile violence. Think about it, what is the nature of the media nowadays? Obviously, most media is a profit driven organisation. So if violence sells, why would these forms of media (esp tv and movies) care aboutt the ethics. Not to mention, youths are impressionable humans, we are easily influenced by the unrealistic yet interesting plots found in such media. what's more, people is agressive in nature, therefore we can easily associate to violence. Therefore, with media as a tool, violence can be promoted especially in inexperienced youths.
to me,WWE is actually a really lame show. The point that it is tryin to get across is really disturbing. It is tryin to tell people if you haf ani differences or conflicts, settle it in the ring. Somemore, WWE has such mass appeal, and tv ratings, we can see how much the message have spread across the globe, not to mention curious youths, will in turn "try" out the moves they see in tv and inflict pain on others. They think of it as fun. So the moral of the story, "pls, dont try this at home." Such lack of disclaimers is not enuff to wean ppl off such acts.
next, Bhutan used to be the last country without Tv, yet after the Dragon King bowed down to popular request and introduced Tv to the country, the once peacful country immediately experienced a sudden crime wave. It then goes to show that media can have extreme effects on the mindset of people especially on the ideas on violence and crimes.
Violence.... Is it good or bad?? In TV, games is the bad guy the only one using violence? hmm.. Good guys also use violence. Take 'mission imposible' as an example. The bad guy use violence to gain power. While the good guy use violence to protect himself and save the day.
Would a TV series or a game be interesting if the good guy do not use violence? (no violence, no thrill). Would the media be attractive??
I think the purpose of media is to entertain us and inform us abt daily things. Therefore it must be interesting and exciting in order to attract us.
Therfore, Media pupose is not to promote violence. Its purpose is to attract us with 'action-pack' things instead of promoting violence.
yew yong. i really agree with your sister's opinion.yes the media(television) does promote violence to our youths.
The media would not really think the effect of too much violent shows towards our teens as all that they want is to sell these shows to the public for entertainment wise.Hence we can blame the media for promoting violence to our teens.
to "promote", according to www.dictionary.com it says "to help or encourage to exist or flourish". hence in other words, the media encourages juvenile violence.
Therefore, i believe that there are other factors that does encourage our teens to be violent like what umar and yewyong had said previously.
therefore i feel that not only the media that has influenced our teens to be violent, there are still other factors that we should see to.
The definition of juveniles is immature; childish; infantile, as quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com.
Though many people would be judgemental towards the media, I feel that the media should be controlled because it pollutes wrong ideas on juveniles. And without a doubt, I refused to acknowledge the statement that these juveniles have the choice of being influenced(negatively, mostly).
Many people may not know this fact: Reality life does contains violence, but the media actually contains many times much severe.
Juveniles are at the junctions of lives where they're uncertain of what they foresee themselves being in the future. So they naturally practice what is protrayed by the media. By repeated practices, they get desensitized to the normal reactions to violence. And when the media rewards certain characters for violence, such as money, authority; fame; or simply highly accepted - juveniles assume that that's the best way to achieve those similar goals. People who had caught the French movie, Irreversible, would completely comprehend my statement.
The above particular principle, alone, tells us that media violence would increase violence in reality. Afterall, these juveniles will be adults years down the road. And by then, fearfully, juvenile violence might have escalated to a level of conventional behavior.
happy that you checked the definition of promote. Good work. Once your group is clear of what exactly you are dealing with, it is easier to build your arguments.
25 Comments:
Media does not promote juvenile violence. Media is just another thing that can influence. Its up to them to be influenced or not.
Everything that a child see or hear will effect their lives in some way. So its up to their parents to guide them in their childhood. If the parents explain to them that violent is not good, their perception regarding violent will change. Parents have more power to influence children than media as children see parents as their role model.
Umar
good point.
Parents do play an important role here in influecing children.
Sadly though, the equation is not so easy in the 21st century.
The media is extremely pervasive now, i.e., it is EVERYWHERE. Even computer games involve killing. Cartoons sometimes also involve bloodshed.
Can our parents be as pervasive? Can they guide our children properly?
Questions that everyone can try to answer here.
Some people might say that children cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is not. And thefore, they will be effected by the violence in the media. I totally disagree with this. Since children perception is not fixed, is it easier to educate them about violence. Tell them the consequences if violence is used. When the children are educated, media cannot influence them anymore.
Ok its truth that some parents may not have the time to educate their child. However, it depends on how these children were raised.
Early exposure to violence in the family may involve witnessing either violence or physical abuse. Research suggests that these forms of exposure to violence during childhood increase the risk of violent behavior during adolescence by as much as 40%.(Center for the Study of Youth Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1993)
So consiously, or uncosiously, the parents will teach the children by the way the speak or act.
Some ppl might say that its up to the children if the want to be influenced or not. But how can children be influenced if they cannot distinguish between what is reality and what is not? So, there is a need for someone to guide them. So who is responsible to guide them? Definitely their parents. Whenever every couple want to have a child, they should bear the responsibility in developing the child.
Under UK law,it stated 'It is for parents to decide how they deliver home education. They are not required to follow the National Curriculum nor to keep to school hours. Parents are required by law, however, to ensure their child receives an efficient full-time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs the child may have.' This shows that even the government give full responsibility to parents to educate the children.
The law in Wales stated 'All parents, whether married or not, have the responsibility to ensure that their children receive adequate and proper parenting. All parents have the responsibility to promote the best interests of their children in providing for their care, welfare and development.'
So right now, who is responsible for the development of children? Defintly their parents.. Fullstop.
So what if its 21st century. 21st century just means that time have changed and parents are now more busy. But however does a defination of parents change??
Time has changed but parents are still parents.
I see Umar has done some research.
Good, good, good!
Keep it for your Discussion Cafe.
Ok. Let me shift the discussion away from parents now.
To the group which is doing this.
Look at the few key words here.
1. Media
-- Which kinds of media are we discussing here. You must list these clearly when you begin your discussion cafe
2. Promote
-- ENcourage --> does the media enourage juvenile violence?
3. Juvenile violence
-- how violent is violent? Your group has to decide. is someone who is verbally abusive being violent? You guys draw the line here
Media itself comes from different sources like tv, video/computer games, cds/dvds, music and many more.Furthermore nowadays violence is seen to be common in all these sources.Just name it.We can watch hardcore wrestling (eg. WWE, TNA) in the television.Through the internet, we can easily find games that featured gore and violence such as The Stickman. These games and entertainment shows are mainly to attract the younger viewers/players which i can easily say the teenagers.So we cannot deny the fact that the media DOES have an effect on our teenagers today because the media is now spreading fast.
hmm.. lets start talking about government playing a role in media. In fact, in singapore, the government governs the media ----> Tv programs. Therefore i can safely says that the government allows programms that are "watchable" to be played on screen. Censorship of vulgar and inappropriate scences and words are imposed. For tv only, i can say that, in singapore, tv programs wont be too much a influence for Juvenile Violence.
For computer games and the rest of the media like internet, its easy to find sources related to violence.
therefore i agree more or less that media do promote juvenile violence.
On the topic about juvenile violence, not only media plays a part. Exposure to violence in the home and/or community, exposure to violence in media, being the victim of physical abuse and/or sexual abuse, having bad temper and lack of self control triggers and promotes juvenile violence.
Also, sometimes, stress complements bad temper. Being in a stressful society one can acually be easily irritated. Sometimes people suppress the anger, but as anger built up, once triggered, will result in unbearable consequences like violence.
juvenile violence also can be due to immaturity and being sheltered from the real world by their families. They thinks they can do anything that they want. And their parents will shield them if things goes wrong. Eg. there had been cases whereby a male teenager got jealous because his girlfriend dumbs him for another guy, got jealous and hit the other guy. There are worst cases where teens just take guns and shoot the other people he doesnt like.
hahas i got out of point.. hahas.. media do promote juvenile violence, but juvenile violence dont just pop out from contact with media. other issues play a part too.
In some society, people strives to be superior to the rest. And once they found out that being aggressive and violent people will make people bow to them, they carry on and do that. They will slowly be addicted to violence and then once hooked they will never stop. They will use violence to solve things.
And things like juvenile gangs, media do have shows related and there are also games related to gang life st fransico if i m not wrong(Playstation 2 game)And sometimes teens feel that being in a large group is cool. and from there they learn other things.
the how violent is violent ermm quite deiffcult to define. i feel that as long as hurting someone, emotionally or physically is considered violence(more to physical violence)
I heard another point of view from my sister, and this is what she says and what i think make sense.
Media does promote juvenile violence. Think about it, what is the nature of the media nowadays? Obviously, most media is a profit driven organisation. So if violence sells, why would these forms of media (esp tv and movies) care aboutt the ethics. Not to mention, youths are impressionable humans, we are easily influenced by the unrealistic yet interesting plots found in such media. what's more, people is agressive in nature, therefore we can easily associate to violence. Therefore, with media as a tool, violence can be promoted especially in inexperienced youths.
to me,WWE is actually a really lame show. The point that it is tryin to get across is really disturbing. It is tryin to tell people if you haf ani differences or conflicts, settle it in the ring. Somemore, WWE has such mass appeal, and tv ratings, we can see how much the message have spread across the globe, not to mention curious youths, will in turn "try" out the moves they see in tv and inflict pain on others. They think of it as fun. So the moral of the story, "pls, dont try this at home." Such lack of disclaimers is not enuff to wean ppl off such acts.
next, Bhutan used to be the last country without Tv, yet after the Dragon King bowed down to popular request and introduced Tv to the country, the once peacful country immediately experienced a sudden crime wave. It then goes to show that media can have extreme effects on the mindset of people especially on the ideas on violence and crimes.
Violence.... Is it good or bad??
In TV, games is the bad guy the only one using violence? hmm.. Good guys also use violence. Take 'mission imposible' as an example. The bad guy use violence to gain power. While the good guy use violence to protect himself and save the day.
Would a TV series or a game be interesting if the good guy do not use violence? (no violence, no thrill). Would the media be attractive??
I think the purpose of media is to entertain us and inform us abt daily things. Therefore it must be interesting and exciting in order to attract us.
Therfore, Media pupose is not to promote violence. Its purpose is to attract us with 'action-pack' things instead of promoting violence.
Yew Yong
A very good attempt to explore the questions I have posed.
And yes, your sister makes sense. :)
Zunairi
Good attempt at listing the different forms of media.
NOw, your group has to narrow your focus. Which media are you looking at?
Umar
is violence good or bad? Hmm...I though violence is bad, regardless of what it tries to achieve?
Nevertheless, as long as you agree/disagree that the media promote violence, it does not matter if the violence is bad or good.
Yew Yong
You have also looked at the contributory factors of juvenile violence. Good.
But take note, do not get distracted by all these.
YOur job is to agree OR disagree that the media promote violence.
aiyoo... i agree arhs.. i agree that media promotes violence... i agree together with my sisters point of view arhs..
OK lah.... After much thinking, I think Media does promote violence..
Hehe.....
yew yong.
i really agree with your sister's opinion.yes the media(television) does promote violence to our youths.
The media would not really think the effect of too much violent shows towards our teens as all that they want is to sell these shows to the public for entertainment wise.Hence we can blame the media for promoting violence to our teens.
to "promote",
according to www.dictionary.com
it says "to help or encourage to exist or flourish".
hence in other words,
the media encourages juvenile violence.
Therefore, i believe that there are other factors that does encourage our teens to be violent like what umar and yewyong had said previously.
therefore i feel that not only the media that has influenced our teens to be violent, there are still other factors that we should see to.
Absolutely.
The definition of juveniles is immature; childish; infantile, as quoted from http://dictionary.reference.com.
Though many people would be judgemental towards the media, I feel that the media should be controlled because it pollutes wrong ideas on juveniles. And without a doubt, I refused to acknowledge the statement that these juveniles have the choice of being influenced(negatively, mostly).
Many people may not know this fact: Reality life does contains violence, but the media actually contains many times much severe.
Juveniles are at the junctions of lives where they're uncertain of what they foresee themselves being in the future. So they naturally practice what is protrayed by the media. By repeated practices, they get desensitized to the normal reactions to violence. And when the media rewards certain characters for violence, such as money, authority; fame; or simply highly accepted - juveniles assume that that's the best way to achieve those similar goals. People who had caught the French movie, Irreversible, would completely comprehend my statement.
The above particular principle, alone, tells us that media violence would increase violence in reality. Afterall, these juveniles will be adults years down the road. And by then, fearfully, juvenile violence might have escalated to a level of conventional behavior.
Zunari
happy that you checked the definition of promote. Good work.
Once your group is clear of what exactly you are dealing with, it is easier to build your arguments.
Zunairi's group
Remember, the key word is not CAUSE; it is PROMOTE.
Post a Comment
<< Home