Due to the horrible event that happened in Tucson, I have noticed several words floating to the top of the news reports that aren't often used or at least I haven't noticed them. One of the words is "vitriol". Vitriol has several meanings:
As a noun it means sulpheric acid - a highly corrosive stubstance.
As a noun it can also mean abusive or venemous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will.
It appears that across the board (conservative/liberal/others) news reports are using this word. Here are a few of those reports(from Google):
As portrait of Jared Loughner sharpens, 'vitriol' blame fades (The Christian Science Monitor, January 12, 2011)
Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol (ABC News, January 10, 2011)
Vitriol focus of lawmakers after Arizona shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (LA Times, January 10, 2011)
The New Vitriol-Free Cable News Network (Huffington Post, January 10, 2011)
Vitriol first, and now the bloodshed:Gunfire that wounds a member of Congress and kills six people punctuates a poisoning of the nation's political discourse (BuffaloNews.com, January 10, 2011)
Did 'Vitriol' on Airwaves Trigger Arizona Attack? (Fox News, January 9, 2011)
Isn't Vitriol the Same as Passionate Debate?
Not really. It is a step over the line of decorum. It is a personal attack style, it reviles, vilifies, insults, snipes and assaults. It goes beyond passion to become mean-spirited, and as such reduces the value of the argument when value is present at all.
Why Am I Writing about This? So What?
The word just caught my eye - the numerous uses of it and it seems to be widely recognized and perhaps agreed upon that it's becoming common in political rhetoric (or sloganeering as they seem to be doing more of)and that perhaps a more civil discussion has gone the way of what was considered at one time to be a skill that intelligent people used to debate the issues.
This civil discourse has seemed to have left the halls of business, the arenas of sports and definitely the multi-channeled venue for entertainment. We as consumers of vitriol have become complacent and numb to it as it moves into more areas of our lives, spreading insidiously and intertwining itself upon us until we don't recognize it any longer - it is common place.
In addition, as a media psychology doctoral student I am looking at the overall picture of the potential for a cause and effect relationship between vitriol as viewed and or listened to via a media channel and a violent act by a consumer of that vitriol.
A Violent Past
Vitriol and violence (I'm not using this in a cause and effect way)are unfortunately nothing new in American politics. Worthy of remembering and mentioning here are some instances that happened in our past.
In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner gave a speech criticizing pro-slavery southerners. Three days later, he was beaten badly on the Senate floor by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina. He didn’t return to the Senate for three years ("Art & History Home Historical Minutes 1851-1877 The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner," n.d.).
In the 1950s, communist hunter Senator Joseph McCarthy ruined many lives in his quest to "expose" communists in the United States (Miller, 2006).
In 1963, anti-United Nations protesters struck U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson on the head and spit on him in Dallas (a month before Kennedy visited)("Texas: A City Disgraced - TIME," 1963).
When Kennedy arrived in Dallas, handbills were already printed and being circulated with a picture of the President and a caption "Wanted for Treason" (The Warren Commission report: report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy., 1992). And of course the assassination of JFK occurred shortly after.
There is a long list of Presidents who have been assassinated and had attempts made on their lives and if you are interested, you can always visit Wikipedia or this site>.
Media Violence and Violent Behavior
The question often arises if media violence causes violent behavior or those who have demonstrated aggressive behavior tend to consume violent media. Several studies have been conducted in an attempt to answer this question. In a study by Paik and Comstock, aggregated meta-data was used to look at viewing-to-behavior and behavior-to-viewing effects as well as socio-economic statuses (SES) among the test subjects. The results showed that viewing-to-behavior was more likely to cause aggression than behavior-to-viewing (Comstock, 2008). So yes, media violence does cause aggressive behavior in certain consumers and one could possibly include vitriol as media violence. But why does it cause aggressive behavior in only certain consumers, why not all violent media consumers?
To partially answer this, according to Comstock (2008) there are five attributes of a consumer that makes him or her more at risk from the effects of media violence:
1. A predisposition for anti-social or aggressive behavior: surveys (Belson, 1978; Robinson & Bachman, 1972), experiments (Celozzi, Kazelskis, & Gutsch, 1981; Josephson, 1987), meta-analysis (Paik, 1991).
2. Rigid or indifferent parenting; unsatisfactory social relationships: (Chaffee, McLeod, & Atkin, 1971; McLeod et al., 1972b).
3.Low psychological well-being: (D. R. Anderson, Collins, Schmitt, & Jacobvitz, 1996; Canary & Spitzberg, 1993; Comstock & Scharrer, 1999; Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Maccoby, 1954; Potts & Sanchez, 1994).
4. Having been diagnosed or suffering from disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs): (Grimes, Bergen, Nichols, Vernberg, & Fonagy, 2004).
Comstock goes on to say that violent media consumers with a predisposition for anti-social or aggressive behavior are at the greatest risk.
The Persuasive Effect of Media
Finally, in an attempt to analyze this topic quickly, media is a big player when it comes to persuasion. When we view a movie or television program, we inject ourselves into it, it becomes real, we no longer realize we are watching fiction, a talk show, the news, (or a reenactment of an actual event). Why do we do this? “The mass media artfully, skillfully, and adeptly use knowledge of human psychology to get our attention, and yes, even when we don’t necessarily ‘want’ to give it.” (Dill, 2008, p. 24).
References
Art & History Home Historical Minutes 1851-1877 The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner. (n.d.). U.S. Senate. Retrieved January 22, 2011, from http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm
Art & History Home Historical Minutes 1941-1963 "Communists in Government Service," McCarthy Says. (n.d.). U.S. Senate. Retrieved January 22, 2011, from http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Communists_In_Government_Service.htm
Comstock, G. (2008). A Soci0logical Perspective On Television Violence and Aggression. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(8), 1184-1211.
Comstock, G., & Scharrer, E. (1999). Television: What’s on, who’s watching, and what it
means. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dill, K.E. (2009). How fantasy becomes reality: Seeing through media influences.
New York: Oxford University Press
Miller, A. (2006, August 23). Arthur Miller - McCarthyism American Masters. PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved January 22, 2011, from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/arthur-miller/mccarthyism/484/
Texas: A City Disgraced - TIME. (1963, November 1). Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Retrieved January 22, 2011, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,875296,00.html
Images
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7891088/Obama-Hitler-billboard-removed.html
No comments:
Post a Comment