Regarding the matters of media violence, first of all, it is necessary to mention, that this term is usually regarded in two senses:
- Information that is provided without any will or determination by the recipient (advertisement, spam, etc)
- Scenes of violence showed on the screen (movies, news, video games), or described in press (web pages, newspapers, etc.)
As it is mentioned in the paper, just 0.2% of the FBI reports are murders, but more than 50% of the TV news is murders on various grounds. The following outcomes should be made:
- Watchers are attracted by the scenes of violence.
- People are interested in thrilling videos.
As it has been stated by the psychologists, the violent video, or information that describes some violent scenes originate emotional flow, and emotions are known to be a drug: if one lacks emotions and impressions, he/she starts looking for it in the surrounding world. Mass media provides the most available satisfaction of these requirements. Thus, TV channels, newspapers, and other visual sources gain their auditorium, by binding it to the screens and pages. It is necessary to agree with Bushman and Anderson, that violence is an essential part of mass media.
As for the video games, containing violence, a separate paragraph may be devoted to it. It is closely linked with the latest psychological finding: it states, that being killed on the screen, gamer experiences psychological alleviation. The research held by Finnish scientists showed, that killing of the main character of the game originates much more positive emotions than the elimination of the negative characters. Researches also stated that gamers are less subjected to emotional experience. It is closely linked with the full devotedness to the process, which is the reason of interest to the gaming process, the desire to win, to solve the quest, upgrade the character, etc. The indifference to mass media violence is not so crucial for psychology from the angle of emotions.
Surely, violent scenes may cause depression, suicidal thoughts, but all these take their origin, not in the image of blood, murder, raping, etc. These thoughts are genetically defined, and the violent scenes just accelerate the process of their appearing. Ass media is not to blame for this, as sooner o later suicidal determination appears itself, as raises and falls are inevitable in our life. The clear evidence is stated in the paper, and it can not be disagreed with: There are at least six instructive parallels between the smoking and lung cancer relationship and the media violence and aggression relationship. First, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker. Similarly, not everyone who watches violent media becomes aggressive, and not everyone who is aggressive watches violent media.
In the conclusion, it would be necessary to mention, that violence in our everyday life is viewed as something common and routine. It is not the fault of mass media. Its task is just to give trustworthy information. It is the fault of humanity, who more than 65% of the history spent on wars.