Violent Media: a Misunderstood Ally

In the thought-provoking essay "Violent Media Is Good for Kids," Gerard Jones posits that violent media offers more benefits than harm to children. Jones's central thesis is that children need channels to express their emotions, such as rage, power-hunger, fear, and greed, rather than suppressing them due to societal norms that label such feelings as atypical. He argues that violent media provides a medium for this expression, thereby contributing positively to children's emotional development. While Jones makes a commendable effort to highlight the advantages of violent media, his argument is weakened by a lack of clarity in defining "violent media" and his blanket assertion that it benefits all children.

Jones begins his essay with a personal anecdote from his childhood, illustrating how violent media helped him navigate his feelings. He reflects on how his family instilled a belief that violence was wrong, leaving him feeling isolated as he repressed his fears and desires under a "nice-boy" image. This account effectively appeals to the reader's emotions, establishing Jones's credibility and engaging the audience through pathos. By sharing his personal journey, Jones sets the stage for his argument that violent media can serve as a healthy outlet for children.

Furthermore, Jones extends his use of pathos by recounting experiences with his son, who overcame various fears through exposure to violent media. He uses vivid metaphors, describing his son "transforming into a bloodthirsty dinosaur" to muster courage for preschool and adopting the persona of a Power Ranger to tackle a social challenge in kindergarten. These examples resonate with parents who may have witnessed similar transformations in their children, reinforcing the potential benefits of violent media. However, Jones's insistence that violent media is universally beneficial weakens his argument, as it overlooks individual differences among children.

Jones attempts to bolster his argument with an appeal to ethos, citing Dr. Melanie Moore, who asserts, "Children need violent entertainment to explore the inescapable feelings they've been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood." While Dr. Moore's expertise lends credibility to Jones's claims, the absence of concrete evidence or statistics leaves this point underdeveloped. Incorporating data or studies that support Dr. Moore's statement could have enhanced the argument's persuasive power, demonstrating a broader, research-backed perspective rather than relying solely on anecdotal evidence.

Expanding on the Definition of Violence

A critical shortcoming of Jones's essay is the ambiguous definition of "violent media." The term is left to the reader's interpretation, which raises questions about the scope and nature of the violence Jones advocates for. Is he referring to the stylized, moralistic violence seen in superhero narratives, where justice prevails, or does he include the unrestrained, often graphic violence depicted in games like Grand Theft Auto? Clarifying this distinction would strengthen Jones's argument by addressing concerns about the potential negative impact of media violence on children’s behavior and moral development.

Moreover, Jones's argument would benefit from a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the diverse reactions children may have to violent media. While some children might find empowerment and emotional release, others could become desensitized or develop aggressive tendencies. Exploring these nuances would present a more balanced view, recognizing that violent media might be beneficial for some children but not universally advantageous. This shift in perspective would enhance the argument's credibility and align more closely with individual differences in children's temperaments and developmental needs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Gerard Jones's essay on the benefits of violent media for children presents an intriguing argument but falls short in several areas. The lack of a clear definition of "violent media" and the absence of empirical evidence to support his claims weaken the overall persuasiveness of his argument. Additionally, his assertion that violent media is beneficial for all children overlooks the complexities of individual differences. By incorporating a broader range of evidence and acknowledging the diverse ways children may respond to violent media, Jones could strengthen his argument and offer a more compelling case for its potential benefits. Ultimately, a balanced perspective that considers both the positive and negative aspects of violent media would provide a more comprehensive understanding of its role in children's emotional development.

Did you like this example?

935

39