Critical Response to Gerard Jones- Violent Media is Good for Kids-- Written September 2015

Critical Response to Gerard Jones- Violent Media is Good for Kids

            In the year 2000, Gerard Jones wrote an article for the Mother Jones magazine, entitled “Violent Media is Good for Kids”. He leaves no doubt where he stands on the issue and makes it quite clear throughout the essay that in his experience, violence has done nothing but good for the children exposed to it. His words are perspicuous; not only is violence okay, children need it in order to be balanced, productive and honest individuals. Notwithstanding this perspective, increasing media violence in our community, while not the cause of our problems, stems from and adds to the overall violence we see daily throughout the world.

            Jones supports his standpoint through multiple examples. As a child, Jones “suffocated [his] deepest fears and desires under a nice-boy persona”, freeing himself only through the violence of the Incredible Hulk. “Suddenly”, he relates, “I had a fantasy self to carry my stifled rage and buried desire for power” (par. 4). While this story of Jones’ own self-discovery gives evidence for the validity and importance of violence in comics, the perspective from which it comes brings some question as to the soundness of the reference. As an emotionally unstable child, he would have been incapable of viewing the situation from all angles, and simply jumped at the solution that was immediately available and attractive to him: that is, Hulk. This childhood memory, it seems, has shaped his opinions on multiple subjects as well as provided him with his career-- it’s no great wonder it is important to him. 

            In another emotionally attached example, he references his son and a girl whom he calls Emily. His son, he says, used the violent images of strength and capability to help him overcome real-life obstacles. In a situation in which the boy was afraid to climb a tree, Jones reports, “I… read him old Tarzan comics, rich in combat and bright with flashing knives. For two weeks he lived them. Then he put them aside. And he climbed the tree” (par. 6). Emily, on the other hand, was in a tough family situation and used violence to give vent to her otherwise inexpressible pain and frustration. She drew, wrote, and acted out fantasies of violence and anger, presumably in a reflection of the chaos she perceived in her own life. When allowed to do so, she exhausted her emotions, and was then able to channel them into real-life, productive activity (par. 13-14).

            In both examples, violent media is used as a tool for expression, honesty, and growth; however, it seems that the solution was not the violence itself, but the personal application of the violence. For Jones’ son, the value came from seeing heroic Tarzan do what he was afraid of. His motivation did not come from Tarzan’s knife; it came from Tarzan’s apparent strength and tree-climbing prowess. For Emily, it came from her being allowed to feel and express her negative emotions. Eventually, in being unfettered in her honesty, she channeled these emotions more productively of her own accord.

            Jones does pause to address the concerns circulating around his claims, if only briefly. “I’m not going to argue,” he says, “that violent entertainment is harmless.” He argues that although media has inspired real-life violence, it has “helped hundreds of people for every one it’s hurt” (par. 16), and that our error is in neglecting to learn how to use it well. According to his statements, the fear the society fosters is greater cause for alarm than the violence society is afraid of (par. 16).

            While there is logic to this argument, it gives pause. Jones’s words fail to refute the arguments against him, simply by reason of their lack of support. Jones gives no scientific evidence for the refutations he makes; their intended impact is greatly diminished with this lack of foundation. Were there greater evidence for his statements, readers might be more likely to ponder them for a moment.

            Jones argues that in suppressing our children’s natural tendency towards frustration and violence, we squash their ability to express their emotions. He states, “We send the message to our children in a hundred ways that their craving for imaginary gun battles and symbolic killings is wrong, or at least dangerous. …When we try to protect our children from their own feelings and fantasies, we shelter them not against violence but against power and selfhood.” (par. 17).  To support this statement, Jones turns to Melanie Moore, Ph.D., who gives this bold statement: “Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood.” (par. 9)

            Jones’s statements, coupled with those of Moore, seem irrefutable, especially with the addition of the title of Ph.D. However, ‘power and [more resilient] selfhood’ are not the only results of the freedom to be violent. Allowing emotions to be expressed can be a freeing and empowering experience indeed; but self-control is equally important. The increasing violence in media does not even begin to solve the issue of violence in our community, as seen in the news: In June of 2015, Dylann Roof murdered an entire congregation of worshipping Christians (CNN).  In May, Christopher Carrillo killed himself and his entire family (The Huffington Post). Just last month, two news reporters were murdered on-air in alarming circumstances (The New York Times). The list goes on, with 281 recorded incidents thus far (Mass Shooting Tracker), and three months to go. In addition to these startling events, the Media Education Foundation, or MEF, published a disturbing list of statistics detailing the increasing violence in our media. This was in 2005; it is only logical that these statistics have increased. Despite being surrounded by these questions and stories, Jones offers no prove that the violence in media and the violence in society are unrelated.

            While Jones makes a thought- provoking case for the good of violent media and its freeing potential for the children of the world, he fails to give concrete evidence of the safety of this approach. His examples, though compelling, are not enough to stand on their own, and he has done little to calm the fears of society. His argument is flowing and easy to relate to, but it is chock-full of controversial ideas and overflowing with the bias of childhood, family and profession. I stand firm in the opinion that media violence and real-world violence will soon prove to be connected. Jones has established an argument indeed- but those willing to study his works are left, nonetheless, unconvinced.

Works Cited

“Media Violence and Children: Statistics”. Media Education Foundation. Media Education            Foundation, 2005. Web.

“Shooting Suspect in Custody After Charleston Church Massacre”. Cable News      Network. Cable News Network, 2015. Web. 18 Jun 2015.

“Tuscon Shooting Leaves 5 Dead Inside Home; Police Suspect Murder-Suicide.”    The Huffington Post. Huffpost Crime, 2015. Web. 13 May 2015.

“Mass Shootings in 2015”. Mass Shooting Tracker. GrC Community, 2015. Web.

“Ex-Broadcaster Kills 2 on Air in Virginia Shooting; Takes Own Life”. The New York            Times.The New York Times, 2015. Web. 26 Aug 2015.

Jones, Gerard. “Violent Media is Good for Kids.” Practical Argument: A Text and   Anthology. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Boston:     Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014, 2011. 58-61. Print.