Forum documents
World Violence, Media Violence
Moderator: Denise Epoté Durand
9 December, 2003.
Do the media cause, mirror or contribute to resolving human conflicts? Often criticized for their triviality and violence, electronic media can also play a major part in education and social cohesion.
Content
- Summary
- Notes for a Broadcasters' Action plan
- Input from viewers and listeners
- Keynote address
Ravi Shankar Prasad, Indian Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting
- Statement
Markus Schaechter, Director-General, ZDF
- Statement
Serge Tisseron, Psychiatrist, University of Paris at Nanterre
- Statement
Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, UNESCO Adviser to the Director General
- Statement
Armin Walpen, Director General, SRG SSR idée
- Statement
Mohammad Honardoost, Vice-President, communications International Affairs, IRIB-Iran
- Statement
Serge Théophile Balima, University of Ouagadougou
- Resources
^top
Summary
The session was introduced by moderator DENISE EPOTE DURAND who highlighted the principal issues, notably whether the electronic media causes or mirrors human disorders of violence; whether the media contribute to the growing brutality of our world; and to what extent, if at all, do violent images, such as those embraced by certain types of video games, accentuate violence in everyday society. Notwithstanding these important notions, and although the electronic media are often criticized for their triviality and violence, she also pointed out that they can play an extremely important role in education and in the fostering of social cohesion.
Panellists and participants from the floor noted that the issue of violence in society remains a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. Many focused on the problems of limiting violence in the electronic media, particularly television, and stressed the need to avoid the use of violent imagery simply as a means of attracting better ratings. Others, such as RADHWAN ABU AYYASH (Palestine Broadcasting Corporation) suggested that the violence depicted in day-to-day reporting was actually a legitimate reflection of the predicament of those portrayed. Several, however, questioned the extent of the influence such violence might have on human actions.
In a speech prepared for the WEMF, RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD focused on the role of the media in reporting violence and other threats to peace and stability, notably terrorism. “In each of the past two years,” he said, “more than 50 journalists have been killed while covering violent conflicts. Increasingly, such deaths are not the results of war’s accidents but the outcome of a deliberate targeting of journalists by those seeking to prevent media exposure of their criminal, corrupt or terrorist activities.” He also stressed the problem created by the manner in which media violence is presented. Superficial, distorted and exploitative portrayals can lead to the desensitizing of viewers to “real life violence,” he said. “Depiction conveys the impression that violence perhaps is an acceptable way to resolve conflict. In some cases it is perceived that others are enemies and only the violent survive.”
The first part of the session examined violence in media entertainment. FRANK DIETER FREILING of ZDF expanded on the debate by reading a paper by MARKUS SCHÄCHTER (CEO of ZDF), who was unable to be present. This outlined seven key areas regarding media and violence. Violence, Schächter said, must always be placed into context. It should never be speculative, nor should it be presented as pivotal to successful problem solving. Nevertheless, he added, the widely publicised claim that media violence leads directly to heightened aggression among recipients is not confirmed by empirical studies. “On the other hand, studies have refuted the hypothesis that media violence has no impact at all. It is probable that media violence - depending on the recipients' family and social setting, their specific personality and the type and context of the violence being shown – can have a negative impact, especially among problem groups in society.”
SERGE TISSERON shared some of the results of his research into the impact of media violence on children and young people. Young people, he argued, protect themselves from violence images by asking how they are made. He called for more behind-the-scenes reportage explaining such procedures. Tisseron also stressed the importance of adults showing that they, too, are affected by violent images. “Children need to be protected from certain images in day-to-day reporting. It would make sense to create two types of news shows; one at eight o’clock at night which could be watched by the family as a whole, and the other at ten pm. The freedom of information would lose nothing; it would only gain,” he urged.
HENRIKAS YUSHKIAVITSHUS explained that Russian television had taught his grand-daughter verbal violence. Commenting on the brutality depicted in a two-minute segment from a 12-part television series, he disagreed with opinions that maintain there is no correlation between what is shown on television and the behaviour of viewers. “It is not true,” he said. “American Psychological Associations’ studies supported the conclusion that mass media contribute to aggressive behaviour. Many experts think that violence in video games that develop the instinct to kill is particularly dangerous.”
Interacting from the audience, JAVAD MOTTAGHI (AIBD, Kuala Lumpur) underlined the responsibility of the media to perform and broadcast an analysis of the roots of violence, such as poverty and lack of education. Other participants, such as K.S. SARMA (Prasar Bharati, New Delhi) further elaborated on means to deal with the issue, stressing media responsibility rather than outside controls.
The second part of the session pursued the theme of violence in information. ARMIN WALPEN pointed out that there is no need for the media to show violent images simply because they are available. “It is the information value which is crucial. Media professionals need to make use of their experience and sensitivity to decide what should be shown or not.” MARCEL GRANIER used his own country, Venezuela, as an example to illustrate how certain governments manipulate violent imagery to support their own political causes. “This is another form of violence but for political means which is far more dangerous,” he said. “They use it to promote hatred. They also appropriate air time on a regular basis, with both public and private stations, manipulating the media as a witness.”
MOHAMMAD HONARDOOST argued that there was no doubt that violence was a growing phenomenon within the electronic media. “Information without communication can only lead to a decline in human feelings,” he said. “We need to develop programming that promotes more humanitarian attitudes among audiences.”
As part of the wide-ranging debate, PETER ACKERMAN of the International Center on Non-violent Conflict, USA said that media tend to report on violent confrontation but show little interest in non-violent resistance. Other participants raised the issues of gender-based violence and the under-reporting of certain conflicts. Commenting on the types of images that have emerged from wars such as in Rwanda and Liberia, SERGE THEOPHILE BALIMA reflected on how the western view of Africa is biased through constant images of conflict and underdevelopment. This creates a perception divide, he maintained, that only contributes further to the already existent North-South divide. “These images cultivate the horror of indignation which only encourage extremists to increase their visibility on the international scene,” he said.
Finally, a television report from Sri Lanka gave the example of Young Asian Television, a production group that works to promote peace and better understanding of the human consequences of war. By assuring quality broadcast segments specifically aimed at young people regardless of ethnicity, the producers were successful in prime time slots on any available station within their target area. SHARMINI BOYLE stressed the need to focus on quality - targeted programming for use by all potential broadcasters rather than developing a television station whose impact was limited. “This way we can buy broadcast access at the right time of day in order to ensure the broadest impact possible and not limiting ourselves to a particular region or viewing group.”
Overall, the theme of media and violence remains a controversial one. The debate left open the question as to the extent to which the electronic media is indeed responsible for current levels of violence in today’s society. There was no clear consensus on possible counter-options. Nevertheless, certain action points did emerge, such as the need for more research and discussion to explore the link between media and violence, and also for more practical means at preventing prime time violence from reaching children.
Proposals put forward in formal presentations and comments from the floor included:
- Presenting family news programmes at certain times (e.g. eight o’clock in the evening) with more candid shows, which might include violence, broadcast at later hours
- Penalising companies sponsoring television programmes or video games with excessive or gratuitous violence
- Presenting more non-violent programming for both children and adults
- Explaining to children how violent images are produced as a means of de-dramatizing the impact
- Producing more quality (and non-violent) programming aimed at young people
- Encouraging news directors to use more discretion in their selections of violent imagery, including refraining from using violent images if there was no particular information message
- Encouraging broadcasters to adopt a code of ethics with regard to the portrayal of violence on their stations.
^top
Notes for a Broadcasters' Action plan
A world broadcasters’ Action Plan must address the issue of media violence, which is central throughout the world, for the general public as well as for civil society organizations and political circles.
A viewer/listener from India suggests that broadcasters adopt “an international code of ethics”. Such a documentwould have great social significance. It could be drafted on the basis of the WEMF statements and discussions, particularly on violence in entertainment.
As to violence in information, some guidelines emerge from the WEMF.
During the View from the Bridge sessions, Greg Dyke emphasized the need to redress the balance between news and current affairs. In recent years, instant news has so much taken the lead in information that viewers and listeners do not get the proper context. “Take the coverage of Aceh”, says a viewer/listener from Malaysia. “If all that is seen is violence between GAM and TNI, it doesn’t tell you anything about the complexities and grey areas in the conflict. Little space is given to serious peace efforts”. It is indeed worrying that the work of Young Asia Television, Sri Lanka – complementing the news by programmes providing context and advocating peace,– remains an almost unique example.
A world broadcasters’ Action Plan might include a commitment to dedicate more space to programmes “analysing reasons for conflict and discussing peace initiatives”, as a listener/viewer from South Africa suggests.
Guillaume Chenevière, Executive Director of the WEMF
^top
Input from viewers and listeners
Several hundreds of viewers-listeners registred on the WEMF website as "interactive participants". As of October 2003, the website included a questionnaire which recieved responses from 21 countries.
Questionnaire
1) Do you think radio, television, and/or the Inter net are making the world we live in more or less violent?
2) By reporting violence day by day, hour by hour, do media trivialize violence, making us oblivious to it? Can they motivate us to go on fighting violence around us at the local and national level and/or in the world at large?
Sample of answers
From Russia: Media make the world less violent. By viewing the news clips on TV, it alerts me to my own roots of violence and helps prevent violence on my part and my family's part. (...) Yet the media shows only the tip of the iceberg. There is peace out there. Media fools the gullible public.
From Iran: Each victim of violence is a potential person to commit an act of violence and therefore a cycle starts. Reporting can be useful in making the people rethink their activities and see if they are part of a violence circle.
From Colombia: Having images of massacres on the television and listening to the alarming statistics by radio makes people get more used to violence and finally they adapt to it. People don't need to see or hear more traumatic documentaries about people suffering or kids starving. The viewer needs a way to be motivated to help.
From South Africa: Media can definitely motivate us to counter violence - by analyzing the reasons for conflict and by discussing peace initiatives. I am creating a MA in Global Journalism. One goal is to encourage journalism for democracy. One important module will be War and Peace Journalism.
From Malaysia: Style is more to blame than content. Problems are not given context. Issues are oversimplified. Take coverage of Aceh. If all that is seen is violence between GAM and TNI., it doesn't tell you anything about the complexities and grey areas in the conflict. Little space is given to the serious efforts for peace.
From UK: Media professionals argue that it is their job to reflect what is going on in the world. We need to question the motivation and interests of the media owners. We need to be able to relate to the humanity of those affected by violence by hearing their voices and opinions as people- instead of being the silent voyeurs of their pain.
From Nigeria: Violence is an attractive component of the information technology.- it creates the necessary alarm that brings curiosity and enables dull media to pick up economically. (...) The best way of fighting violence in the developing world is to create the basics of life - shelter, food, and necessities of life.
From India: Media is playing a role in violence. In Gujarat riots, major regional newspapers are competitors and in this competition both papers spread the wrong news.
From Brazil : Les médias sont aussi responsables de la désensibilisation des gens face à la violence, mais les sponsors sont les principaux responsables; ils paient pour avoir leurs publicités pendant les heures où les émissions trash sont diffusées. Si l'argent était utilisé pour combattre la violence et les injustices, nous aurions des sociétés moins inégales et plus justes, plus sûres.
From Nigeria : Since individual access to information has been tremendously articulated by traditional media, nay the Internet, violence is like curry in the stew. Life, I am sorry to say, seems to taste better with violence these days…
From Ireland : Exposing the realities of war and violence could be a deterrent to some violent actions. You can never show enough of what is happening.
From Uruguay : Tal vez la dificultad mas grande hoy sea el poder diferenciar los hechos reales que se viven en diferentes partes del mundo de los hechos ficticos que se muestran en peliculas. Es fundamental que exista un soporte de discusion a nivel de la familia, la escuala, y la societad en general que posibilite el analisis de los hechos. Trabajo en la Educacion Media de un pais en desarrollo que no cuenta actualmente con medios de informacion o comunicacion en las escuelas que possibiliten esta tarea.
From Canada: Violence is initially getting worse. However, I think the Internet and media will eventually have a positive effect. Things get worse before they can get better.
From Germany : Jugendschutz und Verhinderung von Mediengewalt sind bekannte E infallstore für antiliberale Massnahmen und Gefährdung der Medienfreiheit durch Zensur.
From Azerbaidjan: The globalization of information demonstrates how close are the horrors of violence to our homes. Without television and Internet, one can only imag ine... Through mass media such countries as US establish public opinion on struggling against source of terrorism.
^top
Resources
^top
|
