Month: December 2014

This post originally appeared in the Indy Star on December 15, 2014.

The nation struggles to explain why violence is so much a part of its daily experience. Senseless murders. Sports stars committing domestic violence. Perpetrators playing “knockout games” on public streets. School principals dealing with widespread bullying. The causes of violence are many, complex and difficult to assess. One contributing factor to the disturbing culture of violence, to be sure, is the drenching of our society with portrayals of violence through “entertainment” media.

It is impossible to fully quantify how big of a role mediated violence plays in creating real-life violence, but common sense tells us that cultures define themselves by the stories told within those cultures. And the stories told in American culture today are obsessed with violence, often of the most sordid and demented kind. Violence is legitimized through its glorification in broadcast and cable television, movies and video games. America’s cultural “leaders” in Hollywood and the corporate towers in New York are not literally pulling triggers or hitting people on street corners, but their influence in defining our culture is unmistakable.

NFL veteran Ben Watson of the New Orleans Saints held the media industry accountable in a television interview reflecting on the unrest in Ferguson, Mo. “As a culture, in general, we do glorify violence, whether you are looking at Hollywood, whether you are looking at music, or whether you are looking at pop culture,” Watson said. He went on to urge parents to teach children the difference between violence on television and in real life, “While this (violence) may be cool on TV, it’s not cool in real life.”

Prime-time television broadcasts violence every night. Research by the Parents Television Council confirms that a weapon is displayed every three minutes. Psychopaths and serial killers often are portrayed as protagonists. Women are often the targets of sick violence, as evidenced in the CBS drama “Stalker.” That show opened this fall with a young woman being trapped in a car, doused with gasoline and then incinerated while the car careened down a hill and exploded, all while the victim was screaming.

Apologists for the media industry excuse the peddlers of “entertainment” violence by defending the producers’ rights to exercise free expression and artistic license. But this has nothing to do with rights. This has to do with cultural leadership. As for artistic merit, it doesn’t take much creative genius to develop blood-splattered, context-free plots in which people are tortured or blown up.

Those apologists will also point out that violent crime has modestly decreased in the nation over the last 20 years. This reasoning seems to suggest that since rates have declined, the crime that remains is nothing to worry about. The overall decline in crime is, of course, no thanks to the media. It is thanks to policing efforts, school interventions and, quite simply, an aging population.

Then there is the tired argument that parents just need to be more responsible for their own kids’ viewing. True enough, but parents hardly have a fair fight in shielding kids from big media’s relentless violence parade in television, film, music and video games. This red-herring excuse also ignores the impact of mediated violence on rational adults. Recent research by the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows parents themselves become desensitized when exposed to media violence and, consequently, are more willing to allow their kids to absorb such content.

None of this is to say that violence has no place in dramatic presentations. But the violence being peddled as entertainment is too often highly graphic and void of any consequence or moral reflection. As Los Angeles Times television critic Mary McNamara wrote recently about the problematic violence in “Stalker,” “It’s that the violence, creepiness and depravity appear to be the point, because nothing of value is offered in balance.”

Culture shapers in Hollywood like to get on bandwagons to speak out against bullying, domestic violence and other such actions. These celebrities, however, are remarkably quiet when it comes to criticizing the mediated culture that perpetuates violence as an entertainment commodity. Clearly, the money generated by violent programming is more important to them than the creation of a more peaceful society.

As the Ferguson trial unfolded these past few weeks, I couldn’t help but wonder if this was what the great men who built our country foresaw. When they wrote the Constitution, edited the Bill of Rights and boldly sent out the Declaration of Independence, their world was much different from ours. Many of them believed in the benefit of slavery, didn’t see women as strong-minded individuals and they had to live by candlelight. Although these men lived in a different time period, I would like to believe that their core values of liberty, individual rights, and equality would lead them to embrace the societal changes in the 21^st century. So as racism climbs back into the spotlight as a national issue, it makes me think:  How would they want us as Americans to process this trial?

Ferguson brings to light some of the ugly aspects of our judicial system. How juries and courts can make decisions that seem crazy to many Americans, how racism can sometimes unfortunately play a role in those decisions and how a family’s loss can be used as a dinner table topic at Thanksgiving are all things that this trial has made newsworthy. As ugly as this trial was, it has also been beautiful. For me, the Ferguson story has told me that people still care about one another, regardless of race, and that America is not perfect nor will she ever be. We are not a utopia, we are not flowing with milk and honey like the Promised Land; instead, we are changing and actively attempting to be better.  I am thankful for a country where change is okay and citizens have the right to express their displeasure with the government or the judicial system.

When thinking about Ferguson and its impact, I think it’s a good reflective moment for our campus. How can we change in light of the loss of a life? How can DePauw, as a microcosm of the real world, reflect the changes that we want to see in America?  Can we have meaningful discussions about these topics? Our campus is changing and that means something different for every individual. While it’s easy to get swept away in the drama and excitement of Ferguson, I challenge DePauw students to internally think about what this trial means to them and for other students to be okay with the idea that these meanings might differ.  Maybe take the time to intentionally listen to another’s story and instead of judging them for not understanding your point of view, be willing to accept that individual experiences cannot be right or wrong.  Although our student body is diverse in many ways, we all call Greencastle, Indiana home for nine months of the year, we all get late night food from the Hub sometimes, we all spend long nights in Julian or Roy writing papers or studying for tests and we all sometimes get awestruck by how pretty East College is when lit up at night. It is these small everyday similarities that unite our campus and what we should focus on illuminating in discussions.