Reflections of Me: Media and Violent Culture Behind Mass Shootings?
On May 27, 2018, CSPAN posted a Social Media question:
"Media & "Violent Culture" are to blame for mass shootings — Agree or disagree?"
Now, I posted my own opinion. Short and sweet. I disagree. That this was the usual political, pro-NRA response to try to put a simple label on a very complex issue. Ensuing comments, mentioning that while not the only reason, these things were a 'large part' of the problem, got me to thinking.
Being somewhat of a history buff ( the subject has always interested me, from my childhood onward ), I am aware of two rather obvious things in regard to this attempt to simplify a complex problem. One, that humans, from their inception, have always lived a culture of violence. Two, that media, from it's inception, has almost always reflected the culture that sustains it.
That humankind has always had a violent culture is fairly easily proved. From the findings of archeologists, the application of science, and how the media of the times portrayed it can all be taken together to illustrate that. Even as far back as to include periods of humanity where there was, literally, no media other than the spoken word, to crude drawings in rock, and the invention of the printing press, and all modes in between. The first ( arguably ) mass produced book, the Bible, is one of the most violent media portrayals ever. There is as much smiting as there is begatting. Did they invent that? No, they were reflecting what the people who might read it understood, and would read.
Not that it was easily understood. Scholars struggled with it. It was meant for a less scholarly audience, one already familiar with superstition and associated violence, as this was a part of their daily lives. Mere survival meant battling the earth, the elements, and war raging around them nearly every day. The instinct of survival is a inherent part of all of Nature's creatures, and often involves violence. Sometimes reprehensible even to those who commit it.
Another instinct is to know we are not alone. Loneliness is a definite source of action, of some sort. If we humans feel we suffer, we like to know we are not alone in our suffering, even if we separate ourselves from the company of other humans. Choosing to be alone is not the same as feeling lonely. That ability to choose is one of the greatest differences between humans, and the animal/plant kingdoms.
It is how we deal with that loneliness that evidences itself in our media. Today, we have a glut of media. The written word, the spoken word, and the visual word. All are available to most of us at the touch of a button. What drives media to exist is a material value placed on it. How much income can it generate? Because to continue, something has to materially support it. Newspapers and television are two of the greatest examples. If one is going to start a newspaper, one needs money to afford to print it. The money comes from subscriptions and advertisements. Circulation drives the media. If no one reads it, listens to it, watches it, it will fade into non-existence.
How does one keep one's media going, then? Simple economics: if you give your audience what they want, they will pay for it, or, others will advertise in it. The big question is, how does one know what that potential circulation wants? Experience has proved: people enjoy hearing about suffering. Humans love most hearing about--from a distance--the violence experienced by others. So, to succeed, the media learns to give the audience what they want. They don't create it; they reflect it.
Some have tried. There are media sources world wide devoted to things simply of peace, and tranquility. They have devoted audiences. Many of those in those audiences avoid other types of media. They prefer to ignore the 'bad' news and search only for the 'good' news. One of the main questions to arise from that is: why? Even better: say, one subscribes to a national news media. One pays for it. Daily, this media has a wide range of information on a multitude of subjects. The main stories consist of one, about a mass killing somewhere in the world, and the other, say, on the joy of planting, cultivating, and growing flowers. Which story will get the most ( in today's parlance ) views?
If suddenly, that media features stories of mass violence as the main stories, and the stories about flower gardening get relegated to afterthought mentions or ignored entirely, we have our answer. As a culture, we are fascinated by the confrontations, the name calling, the arguing, and the violence. The media, wanting to succeed, will simply give us what we want. In that, media simply reflects culture. It has a role, yes, but to blame it for doing what it has to do to survive? Sorry, I cannot accept that.
As to 'violent culture' ; this goes so deep, and is so complex, I won't even try to put my thoughts on it into words. We are a violent culture. We have always BEEN a violent culture. It has been, for one thing, necessary to our survival. There are, though, far too many factors involved as to why that is than I am capable of even considering. Far wiser and better minds than mine have been working on this for centuries. They have reached no definitive answer, so I certainly can't reach one to even satisfy myself. I know fear is one of those factors ; humans seem to have a need to fear something. It's a emotion, like love, or hate. Explaining it is as difficult as explaining those ; there is no one, defining explanation. Passion is human. The level of passion varies by individual.
To sum up, I do not disagree those two things are a part of the increase in mass shootings--or any case of violence--we have seen over the past couple of decades. I see them simply as ingredients, similar to how a chef might create a fine culinary work. A pinch--or more-- of salt might be just the proper addition, but, it is only one ingredient that, by itself, means little. And even within that pinch of salt, there are other ingredients, making it imperative only a certain type of salt be used. It's complex. The dish might be acceptable without it, but, it reaches peak effectiveness with it. I see these factors -- media, and violent culture--as simply ingredients in a far more complex recipe. Their importance in the final product depends solely upon other ingredients.
I've said before, many times, I have no answers. But I do think that such a tragic issue as what we are experiencing now cannot be blamed solely on two ingredients that have always existed. Particularly as one is simply a reflection of the other. As always, if you made it this far, thanks for reading my brain burbles. Only my opinions; your menus will likely have many other dishes.
"Media & "Violent Culture" are to blame for mass shootings — Agree or disagree?"
Now, I posted my own opinion. Short and sweet. I disagree. That this was the usual political, pro-NRA response to try to put a simple label on a very complex issue. Ensuing comments, mentioning that while not the only reason, these things were a 'large part' of the problem, got me to thinking.
Being somewhat of a history buff ( the subject has always interested me, from my childhood onward ), I am aware of two rather obvious things in regard to this attempt to simplify a complex problem. One, that humans, from their inception, have always lived a culture of violence. Two, that media, from it's inception, has almost always reflected the culture that sustains it.
That humankind has always had a violent culture is fairly easily proved. From the findings of archeologists, the application of science, and how the media of the times portrayed it can all be taken together to illustrate that. Even as far back as to include periods of humanity where there was, literally, no media other than the spoken word, to crude drawings in rock, and the invention of the printing press, and all modes in between. The first ( arguably ) mass produced book, the Bible, is one of the most violent media portrayals ever. There is as much smiting as there is begatting. Did they invent that? No, they were reflecting what the people who might read it understood, and would read.
Not that it was easily understood. Scholars struggled with it. It was meant for a less scholarly audience, one already familiar with superstition and associated violence, as this was a part of their daily lives. Mere survival meant battling the earth, the elements, and war raging around them nearly every day. The instinct of survival is a inherent part of all of Nature's creatures, and often involves violence. Sometimes reprehensible even to those who commit it.
Another instinct is to know we are not alone. Loneliness is a definite source of action, of some sort. If we humans feel we suffer, we like to know we are not alone in our suffering, even if we separate ourselves from the company of other humans. Choosing to be alone is not the same as feeling lonely. That ability to choose is one of the greatest differences between humans, and the animal/plant kingdoms.
It is how we deal with that loneliness that evidences itself in our media. Today, we have a glut of media. The written word, the spoken word, and the visual word. All are available to most of us at the touch of a button. What drives media to exist is a material value placed on it. How much income can it generate? Because to continue, something has to materially support it. Newspapers and television are two of the greatest examples. If one is going to start a newspaper, one needs money to afford to print it. The money comes from subscriptions and advertisements. Circulation drives the media. If no one reads it, listens to it, watches it, it will fade into non-existence.
How does one keep one's media going, then? Simple economics: if you give your audience what they want, they will pay for it, or, others will advertise in it. The big question is, how does one know what that potential circulation wants? Experience has proved: people enjoy hearing about suffering. Humans love most hearing about--from a distance--the violence experienced by others. So, to succeed, the media learns to give the audience what they want. They don't create it; they reflect it.
Some have tried. There are media sources world wide devoted to things simply of peace, and tranquility. They have devoted audiences. Many of those in those audiences avoid other types of media. They prefer to ignore the 'bad' news and search only for the 'good' news. One of the main questions to arise from that is: why? Even better: say, one subscribes to a national news media. One pays for it. Daily, this media has a wide range of information on a multitude of subjects. The main stories consist of one, about a mass killing somewhere in the world, and the other, say, on the joy of planting, cultivating, and growing flowers. Which story will get the most ( in today's parlance ) views?
If suddenly, that media features stories of mass violence as the main stories, and the stories about flower gardening get relegated to afterthought mentions or ignored entirely, we have our answer. As a culture, we are fascinated by the confrontations, the name calling, the arguing, and the violence. The media, wanting to succeed, will simply give us what we want. In that, media simply reflects culture. It has a role, yes, but to blame it for doing what it has to do to survive? Sorry, I cannot accept that.
As to 'violent culture' ; this goes so deep, and is so complex, I won't even try to put my thoughts on it into words. We are a violent culture. We have always BEEN a violent culture. It has been, for one thing, necessary to our survival. There are, though, far too many factors involved as to why that is than I am capable of even considering. Far wiser and better minds than mine have been working on this for centuries. They have reached no definitive answer, so I certainly can't reach one to even satisfy myself. I know fear is one of those factors ; humans seem to have a need to fear something. It's a emotion, like love, or hate. Explaining it is as difficult as explaining those ; there is no one, defining explanation. Passion is human. The level of passion varies by individual.
To sum up, I do not disagree those two things are a part of the increase in mass shootings--or any case of violence--we have seen over the past couple of decades. I see them simply as ingredients, similar to how a chef might create a fine culinary work. A pinch--or more-- of salt might be just the proper addition, but, it is only one ingredient that, by itself, means little. And even within that pinch of salt, there are other ingredients, making it imperative only a certain type of salt be used. It's complex. The dish might be acceptable without it, but, it reaches peak effectiveness with it. I see these factors -- media, and violent culture--as simply ingredients in a far more complex recipe. Their importance in the final product depends solely upon other ingredients.
I've said before, many times, I have no answers. But I do think that such a tragic issue as what we are experiencing now cannot be blamed solely on two ingredients that have always existed. Particularly as one is simply a reflection of the other. As always, if you made it this far, thanks for reading my brain burbles. Only my opinions; your menus will likely have many other dishes.
Comments