![Moore 2
she believes such as one by the author of Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We
Can Save Them:
James Garbarino states it does not make sense to talk about violent media as the only
cause for youth violence. . . .Media violence is a risk factor that working in concert with
others, exacerbate bad behavior (686).
I can relate to this statement and can understand why the author includes James Garbarino’s
argument to relate to her view. Yet, what are the other risk factors that can cause bad behavior?
Maggie again brings information to explain what other factors in children may add to the
violent behavior. The fact that all children a different and are in different standings in life.
Maggie includes more words by James Garbarino that put together a theory of the “poor
kids”and “rich kids”. James explains that poor kids” are more likely to become aggressive than a
“rich kids”. Although I do not agree with this statement for it relates to my personal experience,
Maggie includes this to show the readers and I that kids rather poor and rich are different and
take in media differently. Why is this so?Maggie informs us of a study by APA called The
American Psychological Association’s Commission on Violence and Youth, Maggie explains:
Inborn temperament, early parental abuse or neglect, poverty, [emotional]
impairment, plus a deficiency of corrective influence or role models [other than
what the children find in the media] in various combinations will put a child at
greater risk for violence both as perpetrator and as a victim(687).
The author defines other reasons for violence and children that do not depend on media that I can
agree upon.Referring tothe author of the New York Times’ article I mentioned previously,
studied a case in Memphis on a large group of pregnant teens. Memphis tried to “blame the
media” for this growth in the pregnant teenagers. However, Memphis found no convicting](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/essay2draft-120803131004-phpapp01/85/Essay-2draft-2-320.jpg)
![Moore 3
evidence. If there is no evidence in the Memphis case, what makes people so certain that media
is causing the problem?
Hence, Maggie’s’ reasoning for including a summary of a study recorded by Stanford.
Maggie explains:
The study team, headed by Thomas Robinson, simply worked with teachers,
parents, and kids to help children lower their overall media use voluntarily. As a
result of the six month program, which involved classroom instruction, parental
support and peer pressure, kids used media about 30 percent less than usual. And
they found, verbal and physical aggression levels subsequently dropped 25
percent on average (688).
This summary of Stanford’s’ studies show that media did have an effect on the children at some
extent. However, as Maggie further explains, “Although the Stanford Study [shows critical view]
is being promoted as a study on media violence, it is really a study of media overuse, self-
awareness, and the rewards of self-discipline”(688). I feel this statement is true and shows
Stanford can also be easily misleading and find it an introduction to ways to solve the
misconstrued “blame the media” problem.
People listen to these studies so they can pin a misguided blame on the media. Yet, isn’t
it the parents or guardians responsibility to know what their children watch or how they percept
things. Maggie includes another summary of a series of studies known as Winick and Winick
that explains something extraordinary. “From [ages] 6 until about10, most –but not all- kids are
learning to deal with the media much as adults do: interactively rather than passively. . . .So a
wise little girl whose parents discuss with her might enjoy Wrestlemania as an amusing guide to
crazy-guys-to-avoid, while an angry, abandoned, slow witted child is more likely to enter its](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/essay2draft-120803131004-phpapp01/85/Essay-2draft-3-320.jpg)
Essay 2draft
- 1. Moore 1 Skylar Moore ENG 101 Professor Alicia Bolton June 19, 2012 Blame it on the Media? Blame Ourselves! “Whodunit- The Media?” An essay published in a liberal magazine in 2001. The author of this essay has a library of works under subjects, as the subtext states, such as politics, the media, sex and women. The author uses an alias in the essay that also has a biweekly column, “The Secret Life of Maggie Cutler”. Maggie Cutler is the name taking credit on the essay, however, her real name is Lynn Phillips. In this essay she displays a critical view on the studies on the effects mass media has on children due to lack of a pure analyzed experiment,supports her argument with evidence of others that explain mass media is not the only factor corrupted youth. I can relate to her view of the situation, as Maggie states, “Any simple statement on the subject obscures another”, and take into consideration how easily the youth can be influenced, however, I believe the media should be censored to an extent. It is true that simple statements can counteract facts. Evenan author of the New York Times’ article, “Behaving like Children” states “statistics are routinely manipulated.”(par. 9) Such asthis example the Maggie gives on Brent Bozell. PTC president Brent Bozell castigates the media for lowering standards of acceptable speech and behavior, he doesn’t mention that juvenile crime rates dropped more than 30 percent” (684). The author uses examples like these to show the reader that even though one person says one thing about the media a lapse in simple information can counteract what the argument states. She includes arguments that support what
- 2. Moore 2 she believes such as one by the author of Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them: James Garbarino states it does not make sense to talk about violent media as the only cause for youth violence. . . .Media violence is a risk factor that working in concert with others, exacerbate bad behavior (686). I can relate to this statement and can understand why the author includes James Garbarino’s argument to relate to her view. Yet, what are the other risk factors that can cause bad behavior? Maggie again brings information to explain what other factors in children may add to the violent behavior. The fact that all children a different and are in different standings in life. Maggie includes more words by James Garbarino that put together a theory of the “poor kids”and “rich kids”. James explains that poor kids” are more likely to become aggressive than a “rich kids”. Although I do not agree with this statement for it relates to my personal experience, Maggie includes this to show the readers and I that kids rather poor and rich are different and take in media differently. Why is this so?Maggie informs us of a study by APA called The American Psychological Association’s Commission on Violence and Youth, Maggie explains: Inborn temperament, early parental abuse or neglect, poverty, [emotional] impairment, plus a deficiency of corrective influence or role models [other than what the children find in the media] in various combinations will put a child at greater risk for violence both as perpetrator and as a victim(687). The author defines other reasons for violence and children that do not depend on media that I can agree upon.Referring tothe author of the New York Times’ article I mentioned previously, studied a case in Memphis on a large group of pregnant teens. Memphis tried to “blame the media” for this growth in the pregnant teenagers. However, Memphis found no convicting
- 3. Moore 3 evidence. If there is no evidence in the Memphis case, what makes people so certain that media is causing the problem? Hence, Maggie’s’ reasoning for including a summary of a study recorded by Stanford. Maggie explains: The study team, headed by Thomas Robinson, simply worked with teachers, parents, and kids to help children lower their overall media use voluntarily. As a result of the six month program, which involved classroom instruction, parental support and peer pressure, kids used media about 30 percent less than usual. And they found, verbal and physical aggression levels subsequently dropped 25 percent on average (688). This summary of Stanford’s’ studies show that media did have an effect on the children at some extent. However, as Maggie further explains, “Although the Stanford Study [shows critical view] is being promoted as a study on media violence, it is really a study of media overuse, self- awareness, and the rewards of self-discipline”(688). I feel this statement is true and shows Stanford can also be easily misleading and find it an introduction to ways to solve the misconstrued “blame the media” problem. People listen to these studies so they can pin a misguided blame on the media. Yet, isn’t it the parents or guardians responsibility to know what their children watch or how they percept things. Maggie includes another summary of a series of studies known as Winick and Winick that explains something extraordinary. “From [ages] 6 until about10, most –but not all- kids are learning to deal with the media much as adults do: interactively rather than passively. . . .So a wise little girl whose parents discuss with her might enjoy Wrestlemania as an amusing guide to crazy-guys-to-avoid, while an angry, abandoned, slow witted child is more likely to enter its
- 4. Moore 4 world of insults and injury with critical awe.”(687-688). Maggie included this into her essay to help the reader, who may be a media hater, see this as a way of helping the real situation. “So, what is the real situation?”, readers may ask. I felt the real situation is people have lost touch with their children or youths in the family. The parents and politicians blame the media but to they see what they put into the lives of children in return. Say the politicians who are so against the media violence, show up on the news as an adulterer or in a glimpse of footage from the war going on in Iraq, what then I ask. We as a society make the media, so are we censoring ourselves. If we explained more to our kids of what is really going on instead of trying to hide it from them we may make some progress. However I find that this isn’t all true even children do need to have something innocent in the world and that is theirs. In conclusion, the media show be censored to an extent say for example kids to have their own channels that have age requirements and adults should take responsibility for how their children see our world. This is what Maggie Cutler wanted us to find, balance of what’s right and what’s wrong with the world and how our youth should find it. So she summarized a many of studies, and interpreted them into her views. I agree with Maggie’s’ views thoroughly and yet I disagree with some of the studies she presented for I have defied them. I am not violent or ever been a juvenile but I was practically raised by the media. I guess that shows children can defy the odds.
- 5. Moore 5 Works Cited: Cutler, Maggie. “Whodunit- The Media?”.The Norton Field Guide of Writing with Readings and Handbook. 2nd Ed. Richard Bullock, Maureen Daly Goggin, and Francine Weinberg. New York:W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 684-689. Print. Males, Mike. “Behaving like Children.” New York Times. 29 Jan. 2011: A.23. SIRS Issues Researcher.Web. 20 Jun 2012.