RE: memetics-digest V1 #1020

From: Vincent Campbell (
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 14:01:38 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: media violence"

    Received: by id OAA19845 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:08:05 +0100
    Message-ID: <>
    From: Vincent Campbell <>
    To: "''" <>
    Subject: RE: memetics-digest V1 #1020
    Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:01:38 +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
    Precedence: bulk

            <Why is the idea of violence in the media a non starter.>

            Let me be more exact. That there may be some kind of relationship
    between the media and violence is not a non-starter. What is a non-starter
    is the claim that the media have a powerful causal impact on the incidence
    of violence in society, indeed a causal impact that is greater (as this
    recent study suggests) than things like drug abuse, abusive parenting,
    psychological problems etc.etc. It's a non-starter for a range of reasons,
    but one would be because if the media had the level of power that some claim
    violence would be at extraordinary rates given the high levels of exposure
    to media violence that people in mediated countries like the US and Britain
            To show this, this next bit's from a lecture I give on this topic (I
    don't recall the sources off hand, which is terrible I know, but anyway):

            'One recent study of American television showed that on average, 350
    characters appear in prime-time evening programmes on US TV per night,
    and of these 7 are killed. More extensive research over time has
    shown that in America at least, the rates of violence on television
    are quite high.
                    A study of one week's drama programmes on US TV in 1961 saw
    a dozen murders, 16 gunfights, 21 people shot, 37 hand-to-hand fights
    and so on. A study of programmes during 1967-68, showed that 80% of
    programmes on American TV included violence, and the same researchers
    examined programmes for about a ten year period between 1967 and 1978.
    Although over time the amount of violence on screen did not significantly
    increase, the number of programmes containing violence never dropped below
    60%, and the average number of violent acts per hour was 7.5.'

            So, if the hypodermic model is right- the millions of viewers
    watching such violence should go out and commit similar acts, meaning
    millions of murders every day. Not very likely, and certainly not what
    happens, and the pro-effects lobby don't really deal with this problem.

            < How many die in the name of the Bible, Quran etc or do books not
    count. Marx for those of the non religious persuasion perhaps? What is the

            Now this is an interesting comment because it raises the hidden
    agenda of many violence researchers. Some books are vilified and banned
    etc. etc. precisely because of perceived detrimental effects (Hubert Selby
    Jr, William Burroughs, DH Lawrence etc. etc.). If someone says that reading
    'Catcher in the Rye' made them kill someone, they are believed, but if they
    say the Bible made them do it, they're deemed insane. But now that we have
    the dangers of film, TV and computer games etc., books can rest relatively
    easy after all novels are art, TV is just entertainment.

            The ideational impact of media is not under dispute- as Wade said
    ideas have power. Indeed, studies suggest that print remains a far more
    effective medium for the transmission of ideas than TV say. The emotional
    impact of the media is not under dispute either- Seinfeld makes me laugh,
    reporting of the current events in Israel makes me feel very frustrated and
    angry- but I ain't about to go and become a stand up comedian or a suicide
    bomber, as a result of such things.

            So, overall, the complaint is about a very specific kind of effect
    that is being claimed, not about effects per se. Indeed, it's out of a lack
    of satisfaction in the range of effects theories that are out there that I
    personally was drawn to memetics in the first place. Something's going on,
    but what I dunno.


    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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 14:29:09 BST