Introduction
The article Gun Violence and Media Effects: Challenges for Science and Public Policy by Malte Elson and Christopher J. Ferguson is intended to challenge the view on media as the strong factor causing violence. The article provides an impressive argument based on accurate information. The authors are researchers in psychology. The article is a response to the claims of the US government that media triggers gun violence.
Summary
The authors start their work with giving an extensive context that allows readers to understand what the argument is about. Next, they analyze the present state of research in media and violence. The scholars demonstrate that psychological studies have not identified the presence of a strong link between media and violence. The authors then reflect on the reasons that make people believe that the portrayal of aggression in media makes people violent.
Elson and Ferguson state that the real reasons for violence are social factors, such as poverty, but these reasons are intangible, which makes media “the boogeyman.” Finally, the authors propose solutions for this problem, such as closing the gap between researchers and policymakers and studying the media preferences of criminals (Elson and Ferguson 322-324).
Evaluation
In the article, the authors present accurate information; their claims are properly referenced. Elson and Ferguson use credible psychological studies, as well as the official information provided by the American government, as the source of evidence. The scholars have written their work in such a way as to make it clear and understandable even for non-professionals, excluding professional terms from the work and keeping their language professional but relatively simple.
The article is based on the assumption that media is mistakenly identified as the factor causing violence. The work is logically organized. It is divided into sections devoted to the background, different aspects of the problem, and possible solutions, which makes it easier to read and understand.
The links between sections are maintained properly, and the flow is perfect. The authors managed to avoid such fallacies as name-calling, oversimplification, unnecessary generalization, emotional language, and “black and white” assumptions. They talk about the biases that exist in the American society in a calm, professional language without any contempt towards the individuals who consider media a source of violence.
Response
Overall, I agree with the assumption of the authors of the analyzed article that media is not the only serious factor that causes violence, and other factors such as poverty are also influential. To my opinion, the authors have supported their claims with a sufficient amount of credible evidence, and I do not believe that anything inaccurate can be found in the article. The ultimate merit of this article is that it provides a strong argument, properly placed in the context of the American gun debates, that clarifies the problem for a reader. I would recommend this article to anyone interested in studying the connection between media and violence.
Conclusion
The examined article presents a detailed and well-supported argument properly placed in the relevant context. The work is organized in a logical way and written in a professional but simple language. These facts compose the ultimate success of the article.
Addendum: I will use this article as a source of a point of view that differs from the traditional understanding of violence in media. This work also gives me an opportunity to learn about the American context of the problem of media and violence.
Works Cited
Elson, Malte, and Christopher J. Ferguson. “Gun Violence and Media Effects: Challenges for Science and Public Policy.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 203.5 (2013): 322-324. Print.