In the essay “Do Video Games Kill? ” Karen Sternheimer takes on the subject of the media’s influence on adolescent and adolescent force in America. She focuses chiefly on video games peculiarly the late popular “first-person shooter” games (p. 204 ). With the argument still ramping on, there is a history that reflects the same debatable issues that we face today. Sternheimer follows this argument through many subjects but the across-the-board subject is that there are many implicit issues that are nonbeing addressed due to the acute focal point on a media mercantile establishment such as video games. She leads us on this journey by presenting us to a picture game called “Doom” and how its effects left a major feeling on grownups in the early 1990s ( p. 204 ). “Doom” is a first-individual shooter game that allows a participant to move as the “killer”. The player’s point of position while playing is brooding of the existent vision that a “killer” may hold as they attack their victims. Sternheimer suggests that this game through exposure to the media and other grownups has created a perturbation that has demonized the game and those who play it. She refers to these people as “Folk Devils” ( p. 204 ).
With this feeling left on many Americans, it has become the lone account to why school shots and juvenile force occurs. With the demonization of these pictures games. Sternheimer supports her stance that the focal point on picture games deters us from recognizing the true grounds for this force. She takes a really telling expression at how politicians use the stance against video games to maintain their repute in good graces with electors. “Regardless of whether any statute law base on balls. the senators place themselves as protecting kids and benefit from the mortal terror they help to create” (p.205). Because it is such a passionate subject the imperativeness took full advantage and used this “Folk Devil” to lure readers with originative headlines such as. “Virtual Realities Spur School Massacres” and “Days of Doom” (p. 205). It’s non merely the politicians and media mercantile establishments but this subject has been on the head of columns. intelligence studies and many surveys across the state. “By concentrating so to a great extent on video games. intelligence newsmen downplay the broader societal contexts. ” (p. 206). Sternheimer entices readers to look deeper into this issue and see different and more significant grounds for these random Acts of the Apostless of force. She dives into the societal and behavioral issues that may be the existent cause of these incidents.
Poverty mental issues school organization and place life are all underlying issues that Sternheimer claims to be a much more realistic and appropriate focal point when trying to happen a cause. Sternheimer creatively stays a measure in front as the immediate defense to any of her claims would be the research done throughout the old ages. Looking at many different surveys she concludes by discrediting the full thought of making research on media effects on young people say. “The biggest job with media-effects research is that it attempts to decontextualize force. Poverty vicinity instability unemployment and even household force autumn by the roadside in most of these studies” ( p. 208 ). Her stance on the subject is clear but she is really cautious non to take a supportive stance toward video games but instead chooses to lure the reader to believe more outside the box. She knows her readers are affected in the same manner many Americans are. Readers are passionate about this subject and position this argument as truly one of Good V Evil. With that in the head she ne’er clearly defends first-person taw picture games. Her stance is clearly against faulting these games for juvenile force but her bringing is much more elusive.
While carrying readers to believe about the implicit in issues she leaves them open-minded about why video games are non to a fault. With the readers’ defenses down she finds a manner to discredit all the research studies and political stances go forcing a sense of value to everything she is saying. The reader is left with no other option but to look into the societal issues and compare them to video gambling and do their ain determination. Sternheimer looks to go forth the reader improbably educated on the subject through her point of position and gives no other option but to impute juvenile force to societal issues. It is my return that we as a society can non take this issue and “pigeon hole” its cause into one account. With the complexness of our society today it is improbably naif to believe there is one underlying account to any controversial subject.
Agreeing with Sternheimer I believe that “It is every bit likely that more aggressive people seek out violent entertainment” and the issue of a violent nature may perchance be at that place long before any influence from picture game occurred (p. 207). Equally of import I think it is “too simplistic to asseverate that picture game force makes the participants more prone to force intelligence coverage entirely nevertheless dramatic can non make consensus among the populace that video games cause young person force” (p. 208). Indecision Sternheimer’s article “Do Video Games Kill? ” asks an inquiry that she is traveling to state you the answer to. She opens up readers with her originative nuances and persuades them to hold with her. Without setting up a strong forepart Sternheimer keeps readers unfastened to the possibility that the passion and hatred they have for such a violent and realistic expression at slaying isn’t the cause of these calamities. Her stance is one that I agree with but interrupting through the passion and emotion of our society to do the reader understand the true perpetrator is a tough undertaking that she attractively succeeds in finishing.
Mentions
- Karen Sternheimer “Do Video Games Kill? ”. Positions on Contemporary Issues – Reading Across Disciplines 6th Edition (e. g. 2). pp. 204-210
