January 27th Homework

Article One: Violence in video games
Summary: The main idea in this article is that playing violent video games does in fact cause more aggressive behavior, and not necessarily that those exposed to the game will become physically violent, but that they have a higher risk of acting in such ways. The structure of the essay was very logical and ethical. This paper showed how misleading other studies are, and how misleading the ESA is with the contradiction between their own ratings and statements that do not seem to follow accordingly; which is unethical on both account. This paper was also written using valid, clear research that was very precise and defined rather than vague and misleading. It was set up using logos as well because by the end of the paper, one would agree (at least I did) that there is enough evidence to support the claim that violent video games do in fact affect children (or any player) in a negative way, and that it causes a higher likelihood of physically aggressive behavior and within the thought process of the player of violent video games.

Article Two: Movie Violence
Summary: The main idea in this article seems to be that the author hates Harvey Weinstein. Not really, but anyway, the main idea is that he believes there isn't enough evidence to support the claim that media violence causes negative effects, and even provides one study that's ending sentence states: "extreme conclusions are to be avoided" (Report of the Media Violence Commission). The author believes that violence is good in moderation; small doses are fine, too much is unhealthy. The structure of the article seemed to compare and contrast the evidence for and against whether or not media violence causes violence of the viewers, and is written in the first person point of view. The author presented quotes from reputable sources, and links to interviews/papers of which they were excerpted from.

Article Three: Columbine: Who's to blame?
Summary: This article is very obviously written in first person by Marilyn Manson. It asks a lot of open-ended and rhetorical questions about life in general, and who/what truly inspired the Columbine massacre. His main idea is that not one single person is to blame, but that we are all to blame, because the media seems to revolve almost completely around horrendous events, and we, as a society, cannot get enough of it. There isn't much evidence seeing as this article is an opinionated response to the media's blame of Marilyn Manson's role in Columbine, besides the small blurbs about how there was no media during biblical times or even during the Civil War, yet people still committed terrible acts of violence (which I'm not sure would even be classified as "evidence"). 


REACTION:
I found the first article to be the most convincing, because the source of information is very reputable, and even points out flaws in other related research. The only new information I learned is that violence in the media or video games doesn't cause violent actions, rather it causes a greater risk for violent actions. The article by Marilyn Manson seemed to line up closest to my beliefs, because I agree that although many people preach that violence in any outlet is wrong and causes a higher likelihood of violent behaviors, we still crave stories, movies, or games heavily coated with violence. If the news never consisted of a violent story, I don't think many people would be interested in that specific news station and it would likely go out of business. My beliefs on the topic of exterior things causing a greater risk for violence stayed the same, in that they do seem to cause a negative mental health and put whomever at a higher risk for aggressive behavior.