The 11 Myths of Media Violence challenges many of our commonly held beliefs and assumptions about the relationship between media and violence. Illustrated with examples such as common opinions about the amount of violence on television and the effects on children, the author provides an in-depth review of how governments, journalists and researchers are part of the problem and raises important questions that place the reader at the heart of the conflict.
W. James Potter, professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, holds one PhD in Communication Studies and another in Instructional Technology. He has been teaching media courses for more than two decades in the areas of effects on individuals and society, content narratives, structure and economics of media industries, advertising, journalism, programming, and production. He has served as editor of the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media and is the author of many journal articles and books, including the following: Media Effects, The 11 Myths of Media Violence, Becoming a Strategic Thinker: Developing Skills for Success, On Media Violence, Theory of Media Literacy: A Cognitive Approach, and How to Publish Your Communication Research (with Alison Alexander).
Current Content Myth 1: Violence in the media does not affect me, but others are at high risk. Myth 2: The media are not responsible for the negative effects of their violent messages. Myth 3: Children are especially vulnerable to risks of effects from exposure to media violence. Myth 4: There is too much violence in the media. Myth 5: Violence in the media reflects violence in society. Myth 6: The media are only responding to market desires. Myth 7: Vioence is an essential element in all fiction. Myth 8: Reducing the amount of violence in the media will solve the problem. Myth 9: The First Amendment protects the media from restrictions on violence. Myth 10: Rating systems and V-chip will help solve the problem. Myth 11: There is nothing I can do to make an effect on reducing the problem. Prognosis for Improvement References Index