Analysis of The Link Between Violence in Media and Positive Behavior in Children

The article “Violent Media is Good for Kids” by Gerad Jones argues that violent media can have positive effects on children. Violent media, much like the title already states, can be good for children. Jones gears his paper to an audience of parents, educators, or other adults that generally think violent media is harmful and has negative effects on children. Throughout the paper, Jones discusses success stories of children he has personally worked with.

Violent media is often thought of as deleterious to children. Gerad Jones however, an acclaimed comic book author, begs to differ. Jones’s use of emotional persuasion, diction and establishment of credibility allows him to successfully convince those that believe violent media is harmful to children that violent media does in fact have positive effects on children.

Jones is successful in using diction to create an emotional appeal, which ultimately benefits his argument that violent media is good for kids. Jones begins his article with a narrative on his more formative years as a young boy. Jones explains how his parents believed violent mediums were harmful to children, much like the members of his audience. The narrative continues on explaining that the lack of violent mediums in Jones’s life made him hide his “deepest fears and desires under a nice-boy persona” (par. 1) because his parents “built a wall between [him] and the crudest elements of American pop culture” (par. 1). The beginning of Jones’s narrative employs a strong use of pathos to connect emotionally with his audience. A sense of sadness is conjured when reading that Jones covered up his true feelings under “a nice-boy persona.” It is generally agreed that young children should not cover up their feelings, but it is instead healthier to show how you feel. Therefore reading that Jones hid his true feelings implies that as a 13-year-old boy, Jones was not in a healthy and happy state of mind, thus creating a feeling of sadness. The use of the word “wall” between Jones and violent media is also unsettling because of the images and connotations the word “wall” evokes. A wall implies isolation and imprisonment. The audience will view the word “wall” as Jones being confined against his own good, thus again creating a sense of sadness and pity for adolescent Gerad Jones. This emotional appeal successively forces the audience to re-think if isolating a child from violent media beneficial.

In order for the audience to be receptive of Jones’s argument, Jones establishes his credibility by referencing appropriate sources and narrating his personal success stories. Jones cites a doctor of psychology, Melanie Moore, to support his claim that violent media is beneficial to children. Moore explains that feelings like “fear, greed, power-hunger, rage” (par. 7) are normal human aspects and they can be “experienced vicariously through stories of others” (par. 7) through violent media. Moore continues to argue “children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they've been taught to deny” which ultimately results in a “more resilient self-hood” (par. 7). Referencing a doctor of psychology creates credibility for Jones’s argument because it is generally agreed that a doctor of psychology has vast knowledge and understanding of human emotions and things that can affect human emotions. Moore’s statements parallel Jones’s argument, thus making the argument that violent media is good for children more believable and credible. However, Moore is also Gerad’s research partner. This could cause Moore to have some inherent bias, which would lower the reliability of her statements. A lack of credibility in the argument would create a less receptive audience, thus making the argument unsuccessful. Although Moore is Gerad’s research partner, her statements are still valid, despite the possibility of inherent bias. Jones also increases his credibility by narrating a success story of violent media benefiting a child. It is important to note that Jones uses his personal success stories, which again, has some inherent bias. Jones would not use stories that go against his argument of violent media is good for children. Being able to pick and choose his own success stories decreases the validity of his statements. Nonetheless, they are still success stories, and ultimately do increase Jones’s credibility. Jones goes on to explain how he helped a young girl positively channel her less conventional emotions and thoughts of violence. Jones “started helping her tell stories” that were “sometimes bloody, sometimes tender, always blending the images of pop culture with her most private fantasies.” Through working with Jones, the girl came out of it “more self-controlled and socially competent” (par. 12). This success story backs the argument that violent mediums can benefit children. The audience will cling on to the fact that the girl was able to better control her emotions through violent mediums because it is an example of how violent media can have positive effects. By Jones including a success story of how violent media has benefited a child he further establishes his argument’s credibility because he has evidence to support his claim.

This article was written shortly after the Columbine shooting, where two high school students fired guns during school, causing a deadly massacre. Many adults believed it was violent media that drove these children to violence, so Gerad Jones’s article is controversial in the sense that many adults believed violent media could potentially cause another lethal massacre. However, Gerad Jones was successful in arguing that violent media is good for kids by connecting emotionally with the audience and establishing his credibility. Jones avoided discussing violent mediums that were more grotesque than comic books, like GTA, Halo, etc. It was wise of Jones to do this because his argument would not have been as well received had he began arguing that those forms of violent media were beneficial. Gerad Jones simply wanted to change the way people viewed violent media and for them to begin thinking about its beneficial possibilities. Getting that message across would have been more challenging using extreme violent media, which is why Jones stayed mainly with less gruesome violent media. By doing this, Jones is successful in the fact that audience members most likely re-evaluated their position of violent media for children and were able to understand its positive benefits.