Robert Peters singled out as being consistently and always violent in his article “Censorship Of Violence in Popular Entertainment is Justified”. In this article, there is one large factor missing, evidence supporting his claim that there is too much violence in the media. Peters shows little to no support for his four reasons that media is too violent, he doesn’t name how much is “too much”, and he misses many opportunities to use prime examples as if he hasn’t done much research into the subject himself.
In the article “Censorship of Violence in Popular Entertainment is Justified” y Robert Peters, he claims that there is too much violence in the media nowadays. Peters works for a company called Morality in Media that are a non-profit organization that works to “uphold standards of decency in the media”. According to Peters, the four biggest problems with violence in the media is; that there is too much of it, it can be easily imitated, the manner that it’s depicted, and that there’s too much gun use. The ending problem with Peters article is not that he has no support for his own reasons, but it is that his solutions are not feasible.
He says that one of his solutions would be o pass a law that would be punishing to the ones distributing media violence to minors. There is already a law in effect for that, and Peters even names the exact law in his article, he just doesn’t agree with the way it is or is not being enforced. Peters may name four main reasons of how there is too much violence in the media but he shows no support for his reasons. Before naming his first main point, he names off a few movies that he believes to be violent but contradicts himself by saying that it is okay for them to be violent because these movies could be used for educational purposes.
Private Ryan” is a movie that Peters mentions as being okay because it could be used educationally but he misnames the title of the movie, which to me says that he has not done much research into violent movies. Another point he makes which does not help his case is that he goes on talking about how when he and his brother were younger, they played cowboys and Indians, which does not have anything to do with the violence that is in media today. Back in the day, was that the equivalent to the violence that children see today?
He goes on and on about how there is “too much” violence in media and bout the way it’s depicted and that he specifically thinks there is too much gun use in Hollywood nowadays, but he never specifically mentions how much violence is too much. He tells us what he does not like about the violence in media these days but he does not tell us what his limits are. We do not know what the minimum amount of violence in a movie or W show is, or if it is okay for shows on stations like HOBO or Showtime to show more violence or if he is okay with the law that a certain amount of violence can be shown after 10 PM on normal TV channels.
Wrongly naming one of the few violent movie titles that Peters does mention, he says that it gets a pass because they are used for educational purposes. He also singles out one genre of music and makes an incredibly broad statement by saying that any and all rap music is violent when what he should have done is given examples of certain Snoop Lion songs where he talks about shooting up Crisps because he is a member of the violent Blood gang. He sets himself up for a great argument throughout this article. He named off his first three out of four main points in the article but doesn’t show any evidence after the claims to support his points.
He takes us back to is childhood in an unnecessary time to tell us that back in the day, he and his brother played an outdated version of cowboys and Indians. Which could show how violence in media is easily imitated by anyone but to connect with his more recent audience, he should have a bit more examples under his belt to show the modern, violent world how violence is being effected by media today. He could use Columbine as an example for violence in media being easily imitated because it was a shooting where young kids went to their high school with guns and everyone believed that they were imitating video games hat they had been playing.
If Peters wants to accurately depict the violence in media today, he should be using examples everyone can relate to. Robert Peters may have gone to prestigious schools and may work for a big company that are working to make the world a better place, but with the argument that there is too much violence in media, he does not have the right sources and does not have the right arguments. He uses outdated examples, he does not share his specific standards and he uses generalizations that are unfair.
So many people have tried for so long to keep ids hidden from the violence that is in the world today, but kids have their ways of getting what they want and it also does not help if a parent or elder is condoning the children. It is nice that he is trying to make the media less violent but there will always be an audience for violent movies or television shows and even music. Violence in media is not going anywhere anytime soon and Peters is not helping the process go any faster with his faulty examples and faulty arguments. He should do his research and come up with his own solution, not try to remake a law that already exists.
