Violence On Television Causes Violence Among Children Sample College Essay

Violence on TelevisionWe hear a great deal about violence on television thesedays. Nearly everywhere you turn there is something beingwritten about it, or a program dealing with the issue of it, or anews story about a child somewhere who was influenced by it to dosomething harmful. The subject permeates our collectiveconsciousness. Maybe this is due to the ever-increasing numberof gangs in our urban centers. Maybe it’s due to theever-increasing crime rate that we hear about almost nightly onthe news. Whatever the reasons behind its being such a concern,the fact remains that violence on television is a very realproblem that is quite definitely a contributing factor toincreasing violence among children and, yes, even among adults.

Cartoon violence has been around as long as cartoons have -and that’s a long time. The first animated Disney cartoonsfeatured a rabbit named Oswald back in 1928 and the cartoonindustry grew from there. So for seventy years now we’ve beentreated to the antics of various characters, either through theopening Looney Tunes at the movies or the five hours of Saturdaymorning cartoons that were a ritual with us all growing up.

There was Tweety Bird always getting the best of Sylvester theCat, Bugs Bunny always outsmarting Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck,Foghorn Leghorn constantly getting bruised by the awkward anticsof his little chicks, Yosemite Sam getting his head blown off atleast once a week and of course, the memorable Wyle E. Coyotewho never, in all his forty-odd years of pursuing the Roadrunnerever bought anything from the Acme Co. that ever worked right(Siano, 20).

They were truly funny and, in some respects, cathartic forus and it is this writer’s opinion that cartoon violence is quiteprobably the least of our worries as far as what is corruptingthe minds of our children today. We grew up on it and there isnot one single documented case of a violent criminal who everclaimed that he ended up the way he did because he ingested asteady diet of Roadrunner episodes. Let’s get serious. Most ofthese violent criminal types weren’t home with the familywatching Saturday morning cartoons when they grew up. They wereout tying cats’ tails together and throwing them over somebody’sclothesline so they could watch them kill each other. Or theywere torturing the neighbor’s new puppy while Mom was at work,Dad was non-existent, and all 3 or 4 or 5 kids were left to raisethemselves. Or they were busy learning violence first-hand fromtheir alcoholic father whose chief mission in life seemed to beusing them and their siblings and their mother for a punchingbag.

The difference, I would submit, is that even the smallestchildren understand that these are cartoon characters, that theyare not real, and that the violence depicted in cartoons is sounrealistic that even small children realize that it’s purelymake-believe.

Is television really toxic to children? (Chidley, 36). AsDavid Link says, “The problem isn’t that people pay too muchattention to the violence that appears on television; the problemis they pay too little,” (22). Mr. Link proposes thatfictional violence is not at the root of the problem, but thereal violence that is depicted daily on television that should beour biggest source of concern. In this, he has a very validpoint. Does a rabid, demon-possessed little doll named Chuckiereally influence anyone as he stabs people ten times his sizewith a little knife barely long enough to break through all ofthe layers of a person’s skin? Is that ghoul riding in thebackseat of the car, with his face falling off all over the placeas he strangles the teenage driver really believable?In fiction, there is a thing called “willing suspension ofdisbelief.” This must be achieved in order for the personreading, or viewing, a fictional story to be able to participatein the story. It’s what holds the reader’s attention. It’s whatcauses us to cry when the heroine dies; or when we find out theboy’s dog really wasn’t dead after all and he comes running homeat the end; or when the ghost of the woman’s husband finallymakes contact with her and gives her one last kiss followed by,”I will always love you.” Willing suspension of disbelief iswhat keeps all those Harlequin Romances selling; it’s what madeDanielle Steel rich and Ernest Hemmingway famous. And it’s whatmade Arnold Schwarzenegger a star.

But is it what makes murderers out of 12-year old boys? Orarsonists out of 10-year olds? There are certainly those whowould have us believe that it does. According to a 1996 surveyof television violence the following statistics were cited.

Programming Violence on Television, by Network TypePublic Broadcasting Systems (PBS) 18%Broadcast networks 44%Independent broadcast 55sic cable 59%Subscription television, premium cable 85%Source: Mediascope, Inc., February, 1996 (Women, 11).

The argument, as women’s groups have set forth goessomething like this: it is children’s programming that is of themost concern. Why? Because of two reasons. The first is thatvery often violence (in 67% of programs surveyed) is portrayed ina humorous context. The second is that in 5% of programs,violence is not portrayed with any associated consequences to it.

Those opposed to television violence claim that it isresponsible for the rise in violence in schools and classrooms(Feigenbaum, 2). In particular, educators claim that if violenceon television were curbed, children would be less violent inschool, that children are mimicking what they see acted out onthe television screen. In 1995, the V chip bill was introducedinto Congress. It’s purpose was to impose a rating system upontelevision programs so that parents could monitor the types ofprograms their children were watching a bit more closely. That’snot a bad idea, since there are times when one turns on aspecific program thinking it will be all right for viewing byone’s 3rd grader, only to find, part way through it, that there’sgoing to be a bedroom scene that doesn’t leave a lot to anyone’simagination. However, no matter what bills and legislation areintroduced and actually made into law, that does not preclude thefact that parents must have the will and inclination to instillin their children the values necessary to respect themselves andothers and if parents are doing their jobs with regard to this,nothing that comes across in television will affect that.

Yet even with this, one has to ask some very importantquestions: If people are watching television with their children,how can those children not know or understand that this violenceis not real? How can they not understand the difference betweenreality and make-believe? And if they don’t, is it because theirparents are letting the television raise the children for them?In actuality, the biggest problem that occurs as a result ofrepeated exposure to violence on television is desensitization toscenes of violence (Hough, 411). This is very real and occursfrequently. For example, consider the woman who did not feelthat her son was watching enough television (or televisionviolence) to affect him, and yet when driving past an automobileaccident one day was appalled when her young son excitedly askedher to turn around and go back so he could see the person lyingon the side of the road again.

As David Link further states, it’s not the fictionalviolence on television that we need to worry about, but thefactual violence that is causing problems. When the kids sitdown with Mom and Dad while they watch the news at night and getto see real-life scenes of death and dismemberment, violence forthem takes on an entirely different meaning.When Dad andJohnny spend Sunday afternoon watching the football game and fourplayers from the two teams end up duking it out on the playingfield because of a bad call by one of the referees, there’s amessage that gets sent to the kids that should be of much moreconcern to us than the fact that Daffy Duck just got his beakblown off for the four thousandth time.

When Dennis Rodman falls out of bounds during a Bulls game,kicks a cameraman in the crotch for no reason, gets up laughingabout it, and we all get to watch it on the news, something isterribly wrong. What does this teach our children? This is NOTmake-believe. This is the real world and kids know it.

When the Undertaker gets insulted by another wrestler and hepicks the guy up and throws him out of the ring – and they aren’teven having a match yet – there’s a message that comes across tothe kids that it’s okay to use violence when you get mad atsomeone.Wrestling, particularly WWF wrestling, is probably oneof the worst things for kids to watch due to the fact that,although almost all of it is stuntwork, kids don’t realize that.

And when Mom or Dad tries to explain that to the kids, they don’tbelieve it. There is no way for the kids to understand that it’sall show. And heaven help it if someone actually starts to bleedwhile in the ring because that only adds to the realism that muchmore and completely convinces the kids that this is, indeed,real.

Legislation is not the answer to this however. The answerto this lies in those who are icons to children takingresponsibility for their behavior in front of the camera so thatthey are not giving the wrong message to these children. Rodmanis a case in point. Young boys, in particular, look up to probasketball players and when they see someone intentionally hurtsomeone else for no reason other than they are angry atthemselves, or angry at their circumstances, the message that itis all right to take your anger out on whomever has themisfortune to be in your way at the time comes through loud andclear.

David Link is absolutely right. Fictional violence is notthe problem and, if more parents paid attention to the true,real-life, up-to-the-minute violence their kids were experiencingevery day, they would realize just how harmless all thoseRoadrunner cartoons really are – and just how serious a problemwe are creating through media sensationalism.

Words/ Pages : 1,648 / 24

Celiac Disease – Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

What part of the GI tract do they affect?

Celiac disease is a digestive disease that damages the small intestine andinterferes with absorption of nutrients from food. People who have celiacdisease cannot tolerate a protein called gluten, found in wheat, rye, andbarley. Gluten is found mainly in foods, but is also found in products weuse every day and even some medicines.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD, occurs when the lower esophagealsphincter (LES) does not close properly and stomach contents leak back, orreflux, into the esophagus. Lactose intolerance is the inability to digest significant amounts oflactose, the predominant sugar of milk. This inability results from ashortage of the enzyme lactase, which is normally produced by the cellsthat line the small intestine.

How does the disorder affect nutritional status/nutrient absorption?

When people with celiac disease eat foods or use products containinggluten, their immune system responds by damaging the small intestine. Thetiny, fingerlike protrusions lining the small intestine are damaged ordestroyed. Called villi, they normally allow nutrients from food to beabsorbed into the bloodstream. Without healthy villi, a person becomesmalnourished, regardless of the quantity of food eaten. When refluxed stomach acid touches the lining of the esophagus, it causes aburning sensation in the chest or throat called heartburn. The fluid mayeven be tasted in the back of the mouth, and this is called acidindigestion.

Lactase breaks down milk sugar into simpler forms that can then be absorbedinto the bloodstream. When there is not enough lactase to digest the amountof lactose consumed, the results, although not usually dangerous, may bevery distressing.

What are some common misconceptions about these disorders?

Sometimes celiac disease is confused with irritable bowel syndrome, iron-deficiency anemia caused by menstrual blood loss, Crohn’s disease,diverticulitis, intestinal infections, and chronic fatigue syndrome. As aresult, celiac disease is commonly under diagnosed or misdiagnosed. Occasional heartburn is common but does not necessarily mean one has GERD.

What kinds of medications/treatments are recommended?

Recently, researchers discovered that people with celiac disease havehigher than normal levels of certain auto antibodies in their blood. Antibodies are protective proteins produced by the immune system inresponse to substances that the body perceives to be threatening. Autoantibodies are proteins that react against the body’s own molecules ortissues. To diagnose celiac disease, physicians will usually test blood tomeasure levels of Immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-tissue transglutaminase(tTGA) or IgA anti-endomysium antibodies (AEA).

If you have had heartburn or any of the other symptoms for a while, youshould see your doctor. You may want to visit an internist, a doctor whospecializes in internal medicine, or a gastroenterologist, a doctor whotreats diseases of the stomach and intestines. Depending on how severe yourGERD is, treatment may involve one or more of the following lifestylechanges and medications or surgery. Dietary control of lactose intolerance depends on people learning throughtrial and error how much lactose they can handle.

 

Writing Style And Fluency

I noticed that i enjoyed most of the storys not only for the obvious reasons such as good characters, mood, and imagery but also because of the writing style and fluency. I noticed some storys I enjoyed reading even thought nothing in it really interested me too much, while other stories that were about topics I usally enjoy reading about I had to put down because I would end up going over every sentence two or three times each. So on that note I believe the most important part of writing is making it fluent and easy to read. The three storys I will compare and contrast are: “The Jade Peony”,”Horses of the Night”, and “The Masqe of the Red Death.” I intend to fine wether o not the author of these storys was sucessful in making it readable in the sence of comprehanceability and fluency.

The first story i will be discussing is called “The Jade Peony” by Wayson Choy. I did not enjoy what this story was about nor did I enjoy reading it. Luckly it was short, If It wasnt I doubt i would have made it throught the whole thing. The main problem with this story was the inconsistance of the sentences, some sentences were too long while others were very short. The only way to truly fix this story would be to re-write it.

The second story I chose to write about is called “Horses of the Night” by Margaret Laurence. I did enjoy reading this short story dipite the fact it seem to jump around alot; it would talk about somthing fairly in-depth then just suddenly jump to a different subject or time-era of the story. The author seem to show very good writing ability however so I think perhaps she did this on purpose either just for something different or maybe to give you a break from what she was currently writing about.

And finally the third and personal favourite story i chose to include in this paper is called “The Masqe of the Red Death.” This story is nice and easy to read even though it uses fairly large words and complex sentences. This story just happens to be writen by one of my favourite writers aswell: Edgar Allen Poe. I enjoyed this story mainly because like i said it was easy to read and it was actually challenging to figure out, like much of Poe’s work. The fluency of the story gave you time to just think of what he ment by it. As you can probibly see the short storys seem to very when it comes to writing fluency and writing structure when it comes to this paticular short story book. One may dissagree with some of my opinions toward these storys but i think to the average novice reader like myself these opinions will stay fairly consistant.

error: Content is protected !!