[ Summary ] [ Schedule ] [Bibliography] [Assignments]

Walter Dan Stiehl
-If horror movies continually scare us so often, why is the horror film so popular? Why do we like to be scared? Is it part of our development, that by experiencing fear, we are more prepared for it later in life?

Stephanie K. Dalquist
-Before they understand make believe, what does it mean to call something (Peter Pan) make believe?
-Violence issue: Are the perpetrators so young perhaps as to not understand what they're doing is real?
-Because males theoretically develop less empathy (Gilligan), do they experience frightening television differently than women?

Joseph Kaye
-I feel Cantor suffers from a lack of questioning (in this chapter, at least), what adults find scary, why they find them scary - and, perhaps most interestingly, why they watch anyway. There's a Jamesian theory that says that arousal of any form is intrinsically pleasurable, which explains but many don't agree with. It seems that it's only reasonable to view childrens' feelings of being scared in the context of adults' feeling of the same thing - and, perhaps more novel, vice versa.

Char DeCroos
-Have any cross cultural studies like this been done? I would assume childhood fear is a universal constuct, then again I did grow up in this society afraid of the blob for the longest time.

Hilarie Claire Tomasiewicz
-In the cases of "realistic" violence like kidnapping and rape in fiction, who cares if little kids can distinguish between fantasy and reality? Inappropriate is inappropriate. period. I feel like Cantor is somewhat missing the real issue. It seems to me that her article is geared toward determining the youngest age at which portrayal of "realistic" violence can be identified by children as not real! What exactly is the point of this approach?
-She also writes, "in fictional plots, women do not have to be involved in risky activities to become a victim." How is this any different from non-fictional plots, specifically REAL LIFE????

Girim Sung
-Okay, now I'm really confused. Before we read articles that asserted that children can tell the difference between play and non-play (ie fantasy and reality)...that the children even use histrionics to signal one another as they enter play. However, this articles seems to be saying that children cannot maintain the boundary between the two realms. So which is it?

Jennifer Chung
-About the real vs. make-believe in *books*: We read a piece earlier which suggested that chidlren were smart enough to see through "morality tales" which told stories of children who were punished fatally for doing bad things (for instance, the story of the kid who sucked on his thumb so much, they CUT HIS THUMBS OFF, with illustations). Would tv- or movification of stories like that make them more useful in instilling the values they tried to instill to children?

Max Bajracharya
-Horror movies are shown to cause fear in children, even though they may be well aware that the events portrayed are fictional, but don't people also enjoy horror movies? If there is only an element of fear, why are they made? Why do they sell so well? What is the element of the fiction that attracts people to watch these movies (they seem to be popular at slumber parties...why?)?

Christian Baekkelund
-This paper mentions that kids over time begin to understand that what they are seeing on TV is not necessarily happening in the TV, and later that it may be scripted, and so on...but it doesn't explain why kids begin to realize this or how?
-Also, the distinction made between fantasy and fiction is kind of an odd one, in that don't most genre break-downs include fantasy as a subgenre of fiction?...In any case, do other genres hold different levels of "realization" for kids? In other words, is it easier for young kids to realize "comedies" aren't real than it is for "science fiction" or vice versa, and so on?
-Finally, at what point do young kids begin to make realizations regarding format? In other words, at what point do kids start to understand the implications of a "flashback" or of cuts from one scene to another? And how are these realizations made?

Anindita Basu
-When do kids realize that cartoons aren't "real?"
-How would children interact with embodied conversational agents at different ages, since they blur the line between reality and make-believe as one can interact "really" with a life-sized character in a screen?
-What are the effects of believing in magic or Santa Claus? Is it unhealthy or problematic at all? What about the effects of religion and religious beliefs on notions of reality?

Joanne Cantor
-On page 91 Cantor evokes Piaget to support her stance on play vs. reality but everywhere else it's "it does seem" this or "maybe" this. She makes some pretty big claims but there are only individual accounts to support her. I know a few weeks ago we had talked about different types of evidence for various disciplines and I was wondering, who is her target audience and what can be said about her approach?

David Gauntlett, "Ten Things Wrong with the Effects Model"

Walter Dan Stiehl
-Yes, the effects model seems to be incorrect, but are there any occurrences in which the media has affected people in adverse ways? For example, MIT's public opinion has decreased recently due to over media exposure.

Stephanie K. Dalquist
-So lack of engagement with television might be correlated to being an "offender?" Uh oh.
-On children as being treated "as inadequte:" Has the issue of adult violence been considered? ie violence in the workplace? And again there's the distinction between child and adult - is it maturity, numerical age, moral reasoning??

Joseph Kaye
-Well, yes, I agree. But I think there is a point to the effects model that Gauntlett overrides. Let's hypothetically take two sets of kids, raise the identically, and show one set snuff movies every day and the other sesame street. I am so bold to say that just perhaps the latter might grow up better adjusted.

David Spitz
-Obviously not all media effects research falls prey to all the pitfalls Gauntlett mentions. Honestly, does the research that supports his viewpoint avoid all the the same methodological problems? How would he react to the media effects argument that if television can model good behaviour for children, it can also model bad behaviour? Perhaps the real problem with media effects is not the premise itself, but its rampant misuse (eg, for leverage in the various political arenas and "culture wars").

Char DeCroos
-What the heck has Beavis and Butt Head been interpreted as "rationally resistant reactions to an oppressive world which has little to offer?" Also, children can of course "talk intelligently and cynically" aout mass media, but does that mean they can think about it? It's quite easy to parrot out media bashing cynical = intelligent arguments. I think this guys critique could use some critique himself.

Hilarie Claire Tomasiewicz
-It seems as if non-scientific researchers cannot escape the "superiority" and know-it-all-ness that is often seen in clinical/scientific researchers. Does the fact that it is often "educated" people (often psychologists) who are conducting media effects research somehow mask the real goals of media research, ie. to understand the public's perception? Why do some people think they know it all?

Girim Sung
-So I do understand the points made in the article...but then what would be that "right" approach to studying media influences?

Jennifer Chung
-The author seems to be focussed on criticizing studies which attempt to demonstrate that media and violence are a bad influence... would the author have similar points about studies which demonstrate that (some) media (for instance, Sesame Street) can have a *good* influence, or does the author have more the point of view that mediatic influence is nonexistent? How would one actually conduct a "good" study to determine that, say, Sesame Street *did* promote good values, since going backwards from Sesame Street to viewers begins with the assumption that there is a link?

Max Bajracharya
-While the effects model may be flawed, doesn't Cantor show that the media can effect a mass of people in a rather predictable way? While this is not causing a person to go out and murder someone, it is generating fear in people, and that is a strong effect.

Christian Baekkelund
-With all these glaring problems with almost all of the media/violence studies out there, how can any intelligent person say with a straight face that the media undoubtedly causes violence?
-And these studies seem to be being repeated almost daily without any of the holes plugged up...why? How? And are any good solid studies (such as is briefly eluded to in the conclusion) actually being done?

Anindita Basu
-Why blame the media? What forms are most often blamed and why not the others?
-There seems to be a large problem of causality, which the article implicitly states but does not fully develops. It's a chicken or the egg problem--does media violence cause societal violence or does it reflect societal violence and how are the two related? Current discussions seem too reductive and simplistic.

Joanne Cantor
-OK, so the effects model seems pretty flawed. But what can anybody do about it? I mean, our country is pretty reactionary as it is. If men and women who survive only by pleasing special interest groups run the whole show, then how can there ever be a sensible paradigm shift? Will that just happen on it's own?

Brian Stetler, "Video Games Under Fire"

Walter Dan Stiehl
-How is playing army with a group of children different from playing a war video game? Are we seeing the conflict arising from boy culture entering the domestic sphere of the home under the watchful eye of the mother?

Stephanie K. Dalquist
-What can be said about the validity of this report? The URL itself seems to imply that it has been at least in part sponsored by Nintendo, though the front page claims no association. Why jeopardise their credibility in this way? Kent explains that Doom, etc., are popular because "violence appeals," but fails to describe *why* violence appeals. Why? Why now? Why to these audiences? Can violence's appeal be supplanted by other appeals? On the topless Lara Croft calendar: Beyond questioning its placement in a store that attracts kids, we should be questioning the appeal of a topless 100% computer simulated body without a mind female to teens and adults.

Joseph Kaye
-I think it would be interesting to see a comparison between the role of ratings in the video industry and in the video game industry, particularly in terms of legistlation and effectiveness (in reducing number of videos getting themselves into underage hands.)

David Spitz
-What of this question of 'desensitization'? Sherry Turkle writes of how her children are not impressed by the real lions in the zoo because the lions they have already seen on the Discovery Channel were so much more lively. How does this translate to what "killologist" David Grossman says about violent imagery's densensitizing us (especially kids) to real violence, or does it?

Char DeCroos
-In regard the Nintendojo article, have sort of control studies been done to test for negative influence of video games where negative socioeconomic, familial environments don't exist? Could videogames while not causing problems themselves merely exacerbate a bad situation?

Girim Sung
-This is a very cynical take about violence in the media, but one could see that: Television shows a child what violent acts are like; Video games create a space in which to try out these violent acts; Internet teaches a child how to execute the violent act. So how would those that believe violence in the media is not all that bad support their argument against this type of view?

Jennifer Chung
-If instead of the violently realistic graphics in objectionable games such as Quake and Doom (or their game console counterparts), users were presented with the same images but in what could never be interpreted as realistic colours -- for instance, squirting blood is fluorescent green, people are lavendar -- thereby presumably diminishing the objectionality of the images, does that make things better? (Sort of, say, similar to how Larami makes sure its toy guns are NOT gun-coloured.) It feels as if video game violence in things like Super Mario Bros. is equatable to, say, Road Runner cartoons. And as things become more pixelated, does the game-playing experience turn more into "using skill to manipulate the funky characters on the screen" rather than "pretend you're the one holding the gun.."?

Max Bajracharya
-It seems like the reason adults are not involved in video games and children (especially boys) enjoy violent games is because video games provide a sort of new space for boy culture (a domain where the parent must be excluded from). So when the adult is asked to invade this domain by being more responsible and taking an active supervisory role, how does this effect the space? Doesn't this ruin the interest and fun of video games to a degree? How can adults enter the space?

Christian Baekkelund
-Does anyone else find it really ironic that Sen. Kohl referenced "that non-digital arcade favorite, whac-a-mole", which to me seems like one of the most truly violent games made in the last 20 years?
-How does one read an article like this and get through all the pontifications, opinions, agendas, and all the rest of it? It seems like baseless opinion layered on accuasations layered on conjecture layered on ridiculous rhetoric. How does one sift through this to find the FACTS?
-Also, a lot of the actions discussed seem to be removing content that may be "dangerous" to children by completely removing it from existence...what about adults that enjoy such content? Where as seeing ads in magazines such as ""New kids on the block…time to introduce them to your 50-caliber friend'" may be deemed inappropriate for youngsters, is there an alternative outlet for such ads for adults?
-And why on earth/how have the American public been lead to believe the Internet was responsible for the Columbine massacre

Anindita Basu
-So if boys play more video games, are boys significantly more violent than girls?
-What are the criteria for deciding whether something is appropriate for a particular age group? Who decides?
-Senator Lieberman, in the article, is quoted as saying, "Kids playing these games are participants, kids watching television are observers." Using this reason, shouldn't we be more concerned about physical games such as football or hockey in which children participate as themselves, in a "real" setting, violently?
-There's an interesting juxtaposition of notions of childhood inherent in the discussion--children are innocent and must be protected and children must be saved from their inherent attraction to "bad" things. How can both exist simultaneously?

Joanne Cantor
-Getting parents involved in their children's media consumption seems to be a big thing for people on all sides of the issue but how is this being addressed? Oh and now, a year after the Littleton shootings are video games still under as much fire or have the politicians moved onto the next hot topic?