Violent Media as a Tool for Kid’s Self-Gevelopment

In the article, “Violent Media is Good for Kids' Gerard Jones who is a comic book writer. He tries to convince us that letting kids to watch violent imagines, videos games, and tv shows has positive influences for the kids. Jones argues that violent media does not harm kids instead, it helps them to take out inner emotions as fear, rage, and greed that children are depress and it brace kids’ confidence. Jones as well argues that 'the modern kids are far more likely to grow up passive, too distrustful of themselves and too easily manipulated'(201). It is caused by the parent who keep sheltering their kids against violence. Jona’s argument fails for several reasons; his lack of unbiased evidence to support his claims, his unclear definitions, and the lack of real and substantial proves with statistical truths from a reliable research or study to support his claims. 

His unbiased evidence used to support his arguments makes Jone's claims harder to be persuasive by. He surely will gain something out of it. Jones is a former writer of comic books and action movies. Jones says, “In my 30s, I found myself writing action movies and comic books. I wrote some Hulk stories and met the geek-geniuses who created him. I saw my own creations turned into action figures, cartoons, and computer games.” (p5) one can assumes that he needs to positively advertise his products in this case violent books so he suggests that it is good for kids and tries to convince his audience of his beliefs, which could be a big difficulty when convincing parents to trust his advice. It is most likely that concerned parent may not see him as a credible source when he has the potential to personally get something from these parents allowing violent media for their kids. Parents may feel skeptical, so Jones will need support in his argument to deal with possible parents’ distrust.

For one thing, Jones has not a specific definition for what violent media is he exactly referring to. Is He suggesting that parents should allow their children to watch the horror movies? Or within the age specific television and movie-rating guidelines? A suggestion to introduce children to PG-level violence would likely be much more gladly accepted by an unsure parent, but that may not be exactly what Jones meant. Without specifically defined limits of what Jones is suggesting, his argument is already confusing. We all know that there are tv shows or movies with so much killing or even bad languages content, so it won’t positive influence kids who are too innocent and not mentally or emotionally ready to understand such violent or aggressive content.

Another reason is, the lack of real and substantial proves with statistical truths from a reliable research or study to support his claims. In such controversial topic Jones chooses to obtain his credibility from mainly his real examples or opinions. Jones begins telling us about his childhood experiences in which he feels alone and afraid changing to a kid full of strength and courage then through comic books. One can easily argues that it may just be his personal childhood experiences and that this story doesn’t give us a substantial prove that violent media will bring the same results the all or the majority of the kids who are allowed to watch violent media. Later on, he talks about his son’s stories and he explain us how this idea works, and it may definitely bring a positive emotional response for his readers but has not enough evidence to be a successful approach for all. He needs a larger pool of tests. Next, he uses probably his strongest point to convince us when he refers to his 3 year long project with Dr. Melanie Moore, a PhD in Psychology. Jones says, “have been studying the ways in which children use violent stories to meet their emotional and developmental needs” (201). He explains their lookouts based on these studies, but it once again lack backup evidence to support their arguments.

In conclusion, Jone’s claims that violent media plays an important role and positive influences in kids to help them to become mentally stronger and release negative emotions has not enough or sufficient evidences to support it. Jone’s fails to convince his readers in many ways. His unclear definitions, lack of substantial proves with statistical truths from a reliable research or study to support his claims and unbiased evidences makes this article a mainly misleading writing. It’s so clear that there is a lot of bias to most of his evidences or stories to support his claims which makes this article too weak and impossible to be convinced by.

Cited

1. Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Bedau. Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical
2. Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Tenth ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014.