To strike or slap with force using the open hand is the definition of smacking which is the issue that is being debated a lot amongst many people. The controversial issue is weather smacking children is morally right or wrong in the 21st century. Smacking children is an issue, which is very, complicated hence the reason why so many people have opinioned opinions on the issue. Some people are for smacking children as they feel hitting children allows discipline whereas other people feel that smacking children in an ineffective way of discipline and only teaches violence. Therefore In this essay I intend to put across both side of the arguments and then conclude with my own personnel opinion.
She also admits that one of the problems with video games is that there is no standard for rating video games, so any content that is profitable is acceptable. One thing that she states is that the violence in video games has been linked to violence in the lives of the viewers, and that people who play video games naturally have a more aggressive personality. Though TV has also been known to show violence, Wrights says that video games are worse because they’re interactive. She also asserts that though people may like to deny the negative effects of video games, they cannot deny that the media is a manipulative tool that is used to trigger emotions. Wright’s closing statement is a warning to parents; she says that they need to educate themselves to keep their children safe.
Outline and evaluate one psychological explanation of media influences on pro-social behaviour One psychological explanation of media influences on pro-social behaviour is parental mediation. Singer suggested that parents can enhance children’s understanding by watching pro-social programmes with their children and discussing the moral content and reinforcing the pro-social message. By adults explaining the message to their children it enables them to understand much easier and they can take it on board. Morals in pro-social programmes tend to be harder to understand than anti-social behaviour. Age is an important factor for understanding pro-social behaviour.
Think back to time when you were a child watching action filled cartoons such as Sailor Moon or Batman. Would you look at your present self and see that those cartoons brought you the confidence you have now? Gerard Jones the author of “Violent Media is Good for Kids” Tells us that it does have a positive impact in children’s lives. Jones tells us that "Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, complex more resilient selfhood." (197, par.
I support the fact that it has a big influence on Terrorism and riots as well. The banners and many negative things that can be Posted onto face book can influence riots in a negative way and start controversy In countries. In the four reading, “What would happen if you killed your television?” I
4. Evaluate the messages that are behind the ad- what is it really saying? The real message behind this advertisement is that as young age our children are being taught that evil does exist and it around us as well they show that being a god person is better than being a bad
Basically people who want censorship to be more strict want, “protection of minors from pornographic material, protection of information/intelligence of National Security including information regarding the Military (weapons tech, enemy knowledge, etc. ), promotes good morals, prevents grossly violent messages/events from being delivered, prevents spread of harmful information”. (Web pages) The subject most concentrated on is the protection of children but the other four things are taken very seriously. Parents are unhappy with some things their children are watching even on children' TV programs such as Nickelodeon and cartoon network. Not everyone feels like censorship should be more strict, that's why today this topic is a popular one to debate.
Argument: For Jeff Jacoby, writer of “A Desensitized Society Drenched in Sleaze,” violent entertainment indirectly causes real life violence. He states that even with his highly religious and disciplined background he was “jaded” from exposure to violent TV. he thinks that if he can be desensitized, then anyone can be desensitized. With that thought, Jacoby may have a valid point. If exposed to violent TV for an extended amount of time, it may be able to desensitize anyone, especially if they come from an already broken home or bad neighborhood.
Society tells the people that television is destructive; excessive watching of a screen destroys brain cells and may even shorten lives. However, there has been scientific evidence that shows watching TV is actually beneficial for and can maybe even increase the viewer’s intellectual capacities. Two authors, Carolyn Ziel and Steven Johnson, explore this idea in their essays, “Why Watching
In the case of media violence, the media has a very powerful and direct influence that encourages people to become more violent. However, others may argue that it does not. Although there is no proof, media violence is a broad issue that is debatable; which gives us hints of the nature of the media influence. One instance of media influence is the Columbine School Massacre where two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and one teacher. Commenters blamed the two murderer’s violence actions is influence by various form of media text such as, South Park, violent video games (Doom and Wolfenstein 3D) and in particular Marilyn Manson, a rock musician who was chosen as a scapegoat by grief-stricken public who did not know who to blame.