Violent Media Is Good for Kids
Violent Media is Good for Kids Analysis
From infancy onward, parents and teachers have drilled into the young generation that violence should be avoided at all costs. They have preached cooperation, tolerance, and “using one’s words” as tactics to combat difficult situations. Although those lessons are valid, Gerald Jones claims there is an alternative way. In his essay, “Violent Media is Good for Kids,” Jones argues that “creative violence- bonking cartoons, bloody videogames, toy guns-gives children a tool to master their rage” (Jones). In other words, media violence, used correctly, can serve as an alternative method for powering through adolescence. By reading and writing violent stories, children are able to express themselves safely and even escape from the sometimes harsh reality. Jones effectively supports this stance using the three rhetorical appeals- ethos, pathos, and logos. To affirm his credibility on the matter, Jones employs two tactics. First, he goes into detail about his expertise and past history with media violence to confirm his credibility as the speaker. Then, he uses the powerful tool of rebuttal to show the credibility of his argument. Throughout the essay, Jones discusses his past with violent media. He begins with discussing his professional career as a comic book writer. Later, Jones mentions his three-year long project with Dr. Melanie Moore, a psychologist who works with urban teens. This project produced Jones’s most useful tool in using violent media for good. According to Jones, his program, Power Play, “helps young people improve their self-knowledge and sense of potency through heroic, combative storytelling” (Jones). Discussing his past with the realm of violent media makes the audience feel like Jones is a competent and trustworthy source on the matter. To further contribute to ethos, Jones uses a rebuttal. In his essay, he mentions that many psychologists argue that violent stories breed more violence-
From infancy onward, parents and teachers have drilled into the young generation that violence should be avoided at all costs. They have preached cooperation, tolerance, and “using one’s words” as tactics to combat difficult situations. Although those lessons are valid, Gerald Jones claims there is an alternative way. In his essay, “Violent Media is Good for Kids,” Jones argues that “creative violence- bonking cartoons, bloody videogames, toy guns-gives children a tool to master their rage” (Jones). In other words, media violence, used correctly, can serve as an alternative method for powering through adolescence. By reading and writing violent stories, children are able to express themselves safely and even escape from the sometimes harsh reality. Jones effectively supports this stance using the three rhetorical appeals- ethos, pathos, and logos. To affirm his credibility on the matter, Jones employs two tactics. First, he goes into detail about his expertise and past history with media violence to confirm his credibility as the speaker. Then, he uses the powerful tool of rebuttal to show the credibility of his argument. Throughout the essay, Jones discusses his past with violent media. He begins with discussing his professional career as a comic book writer. Later, Jones mentions his three-year long project with Dr. Melanie Moore, a psychologist who works with urban teens. This project produced Jones’s most useful tool in using violent media for good. According to Jones, his program, Power Play, “helps young people improve their self-knowledge and sense of potency through heroic, combative storytelling” (Jones). Discussing his past with the realm of violent media makes the audience feel like Jones is a competent and trustworthy source on the matter. To further contribute to ethos, Jones uses a rebuttal. In his essay, he mentions that many psychologists argue that violent stories breed more violence-
Cited: Jones, Gerard. “Violent Media is Good for Kids.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 9th Edition. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau, Eds. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s Press, 2011. 195-199. Print.