The 11 Myths of Media Violence, by W. James Potter

Potter maintains that up to now the debate on violence in the media has largely been confined to blaming others for what seems to be wrong in the media and in society: ‘This context is an arena in which four players – the public, producers, policymakers, and researchers – have grappled with this issue in a largely adversarial manner. The primary conflict is between the public and the producers of media violence. The other two groups – policymakers and researchers – have over time been moved into roles to facilitate this conflict. If all four groups had the same goal and worked together cooperatively, we would likely have seen a movement toward a solution’ (p. 1).

Elaborating on this assumption, he maintains that each of these actors is fighting for their own rights and privileges, all the time blaming others for what is wrong. Potter thinks that it might be an option to change this clearly unproductive strategy. He suggests that we should consider the whole well-being of a nation from a health perspective. We have a common responsibility for the community of which we are a part. Through statistical data he concludes that there is much about which we ought to be concerned. Even if we cannot make conclusions from empirical evidence, there are strong indications from research done in the USA, Canada, and South Africa that the introduction of TV in these countries brought about an increase in murder rates. In each country, 10-15 years after television began providing programming, murder rates doubled. Even if he includes other factors when trying to explain these figures he maintains that influence from TV was a major factor in explaining this great increase(p. 34).

Potter also wonders if the First Amendment to the American Constitution can be referred to as a juridical basis for absolute protection for any type of commercial media productions. He writes: ‘… This is a distortion of the actual wording of the First Amendment, which provides protection of individuals from federal government allowing them to speak out and worship as they please. Using a literal interpretation of the First Amendment, there is no protection for businesses who want to market products exclusively for profit, nor is there any protection from product liability’ (p. xvi).

The First Amendment then, in Potter’s view, is a protection for ordinary citizens that they may have the right to express their thoughts and reflections in public. In today’s information society this means having access to voice their views in the mass media. This is an interesting perspective on the freedom of expression debate. In our modern information society there surely is an abundance of access to the mass media for those with financial power seeking profit through the media. But for non-professional members of the information society it is very difficult to ‘have the right to communicate’ in a serious public debate. Potter’s concern is very much to the point.

Reading Potter’s reflections on what he calls ‘the eleven myths of media violence’ to find easy ammunition for sweeping attacks on the mass media leads to disappointment. Here speaks a man with wide knowledge and insight into the issues he discusses. His balanced reflections make such an impact because his very critical analysis is in no way one dimensional, but multi-facetted and comprehensive in its assessment. All the time he refers to research. He points out what data are fairly well empirically documented and where research suggests certain indications. This is very honest analysis.

Potter includes news programmes as an important part of the violence in the media issue. He does not criticise the presentation of violent incidents as such, but the lack of positive reports on all that is positive and good in the world. Viewers might get the impression that the world is nothing but conflicts and killings. This depressive conclusion makes people as individuals, and nations as a whole, sick and disabled. Mass communication is, therefore, an issue of health and social adjustment. When this becomes the focus of the violence in the media debate, the problem becomes a common concern, calling for mutual efforts towards finding a solution.

Potter’s book does not end up in a gloomy and depressive mood. In a very competent way he has tried to describe the communicative ‘illness’ of our modern society. But he also suggests a possible cure, which is very constructive. The last myth he discusses is ‘There is nothing I can do to make an effect on reducing the problem.’ He completely disagrees with such a conclusion. He envisages a grassroots movement where individuals through education about media can talk to others about the issues in a more competent way. He also refers to resource material from where one can obtain more media critical competence.

Some of his hopes for the future are that we need to be more analytically active during our own television exposure. In order to generate a higher level of awareness, we all need to become more media literate. This means we need to be able to tell the difference between constructive and negative effects, between what looks like reality and fantasy, and between fact and myth. We need to understand better the nature of the problem of media violence so that we don’t ask for changes that are meaningless or that could actually worsen the current situation. We need good information so we can construct informed opinions (p. 208).

I assume that this book will be much used in the coming years. It contains so much factual knowledge and challenging analysis about the media violence issue. At the same time it has very constructive visions for what might be done to encounter violence in the media in a wise way. A very important book.

Review by Gudmund Gjelsten, Bergbo Media, Barstadvik, Norway.