Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA15244 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:53:08 +0100 Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FC20@fillan.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: media violence report in Science Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:35:40 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<I don't know. I have a lot of respect for 'Science'. It is one of
the most
> respected scientific journals in the world. I don't think they publish
> 'bogus' research.>
>
One shouldn't believe what you read just because it's in a highly
regarded journal. Judge an argument on its evidence. These researchers
assume that level of TV viewing equates to watching "violence", yet they
neither actually measured this, nor even define it. New Scientist carried
an uncritical piece on this piece of research, and I wrote them a letter
outlining these problems (whether they'll publish it or not I don't know. I
put my hat on as a member of the Stirling Media Research Institute to try
and give a little impetus to my submission but we'll see).
< And it makes perfect sense to me. See violence. Do
> violence.>
>
There you go you see- they claim the public don't have this view,
and you do at least. When do you last see violence on TV and then go out
and commit a violent act? Never? Why- is that because you are abnormal?
No, it's because that is not how it works at all. Violent people commit
violent acts- they may also watch violent TV shows, but so do 10s of
millions of other people without committing violent acts. If it's all
see/do then why this state of affairs? Reactionary writers speak of the
multitide of violent acts on US TV per hour, yet why don't the crime rates
reflect that? How come we're not all murderers etc.? _Because it doesn't
work like that_.
<Memetic transmission at its most basic. Especially when the more
> repellant results are censored.>
>
Even if this were true, the problem of this kind of "research" and
the ultimate reason I get so worked up about such views is that the only
consequence that results in censorship, and censorship is anti-democratic,
and undermines the very basis of the societies we live in (that is those of
us in democratic states). There's a reason that freedom of speech comes
before the right to bear arms in the US constitution, and why the former is
enshrined in the UN and European declarations on human rights and the latter
is not.
Vincent
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 14:04:31 BST