Tweet
There is a well known Jamaican saying which states, “Who can’t hear will feel.” Whether we choose to recognize it or not, we are already “feeling” what has been sowed over past decades and, even more so, in the last couple of years.
Column below taken from: The Sunday Gleaner, December 22, 2013
(Story link: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...us/focus2.html )
Damion Off-Key On Hate Music
Published: Sunday | December 22, 2013
Ian Boyne
I welcome Damion Crawford's reasoned, rational and respectful response to my criticisms of him. Because he has sought to engage me intellectually, rather than viscerally and insultingly, I will accord him the respect he deserves by engaging him.
Regular readers of my column would be stunned to read Damion's charge that "a journalist of the calibre of Ian Boyne finds it impossible to disagree without being disrespectful", because they know that civility has been my trademark as a journalist, as is my passion for balance. I have never substituted abuse, insults and ridicule for intellectual rigour or sound argumentation, as I have never needed those tools. Insults and mean-spiritedness are not part of my repertoire as a journalist, as my readers know.
Therefore, I apologise unreservedly to Damion for any offence taken, for none was meant. It is a fact that I advised that he should spend some time reading on the matter before making embarrassing statements on the issue of the link between media violence and behaviour. I will justify why I objectively, and not disrespectfully, questioned Damion's reading on the subject before he spoke at the parliamentary committee.
Damion made an astounding statement which would be inexplicable if he had done any reading on the matter before he spoke. Otherwise, he had a terrible lapse of memory. Damion was quoted as saying that this supposed link between media consumption and violence is really a figment of people's imagination.
There is a link
He said, "It starts from the premise that there is no research which shows that the consumption of violent media leads to criminal activities. It is merely an assumption ..." Now, it is one thing to say that social scientists are divided on the subject. They are on a host of matters. But it is intellectually irresponsible - if one knows better - to assert that "there is no research which shows that the consumption of violent media leads to criminal activities". In fact, this is the majority position.
Yes, there is disagreement. But you can't go before a parliamentary committee and not acknowledge that there is a vast amount of scholarly literature affirming a link, even if you point out that there is no unanimity. That is intellectually reckless.
And Damion's own article last week belatedly acknowledges that recklessness. (At least I have achieved something by pulling out that concession for the record). Damion himself quotes a number of scholars who all argue that "consumption of media violence leads to actual violence or to aggression". If he knew that when he spoke before the parliamentary committee, why did he say, "There is no research which shows that the consumption of violent media leads to criminal activities," and that "it is merely an assumption"?
He has misled the parliamentary committee. To help those on that committee and readers taken in by Damion's selective quoting of some contrary studies - which doesn't represent the majority position - let me show the other side. But before, let's acknowledge that Damion, the guest columnist, is more nuanced than Damion, the politician, on the parliamentary subcommittee. I repeat: It is one thing to question the link between media consumption and criminal activity; it is quite another thing not to acknowledge the substantial scholarship which differs.
In a New York Times op-ed just written on August 23 this year by forensic psychiatrists Vasilis Pozios, Praveen Kambam and H. Eric Bender, a wealth of research is adduced to prove that there is a link between media consumption and violence. The authors point to a "growing body of research" which supports the media-violence-actual violence or aggression link.
Hundreds of studies
Say these experts: "In a meta-analysis of 217 studies published between 1957 and 1990, the psychologists George Comstock and Haejung Paik found that the short-term effect of exposure to media violence on actual violence against a person was moderate to large in strength. ... They found 200 studies showing a moderate positive relationship between watching television violence and physical aggression against another person."
They quote the authoritative Lancet journal which, in 2005, published a comprehensive review of the literature on media violence. "The weight of the studies supports the position that exposure to media violence leads to aggression." You would never have believed, from listening to Damion, the politician, as opposed to the more sober Damion, the writer, that the United States National Institute of Mental Health, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association all consider media violence exposure a risk factor for actual violence.
Continue reading: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...us/focus2.html
Column below taken from: The Sunday Gleaner, December 22, 2013
(Story link: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...us/focus2.html )
Damion Off-Key On Hate Music
Published: Sunday | December 22, 2013
Ian Boyne
I welcome Damion Crawford's reasoned, rational and respectful response to my criticisms of him. Because he has sought to engage me intellectually, rather than viscerally and insultingly, I will accord him the respect he deserves by engaging him.
Regular readers of my column would be stunned to read Damion's charge that "a journalist of the calibre of Ian Boyne finds it impossible to disagree without being disrespectful", because they know that civility has been my trademark as a journalist, as is my passion for balance. I have never substituted abuse, insults and ridicule for intellectual rigour or sound argumentation, as I have never needed those tools. Insults and mean-spiritedness are not part of my repertoire as a journalist, as my readers know.
Therefore, I apologise unreservedly to Damion for any offence taken, for none was meant. It is a fact that I advised that he should spend some time reading on the matter before making embarrassing statements on the issue of the link between media violence and behaviour. I will justify why I objectively, and not disrespectfully, questioned Damion's reading on the subject before he spoke at the parliamentary committee.
Damion made an astounding statement which would be inexplicable if he had done any reading on the matter before he spoke. Otherwise, he had a terrible lapse of memory. Damion was quoted as saying that this supposed link between media consumption and violence is really a figment of people's imagination.
There is a link
He said, "It starts from the premise that there is no research which shows that the consumption of violent media leads to criminal activities. It is merely an assumption ..." Now, it is one thing to say that social scientists are divided on the subject. They are on a host of matters. But it is intellectually irresponsible - if one knows better - to assert that "there is no research which shows that the consumption of violent media leads to criminal activities". In fact, this is the majority position.
Yes, there is disagreement. But you can't go before a parliamentary committee and not acknowledge that there is a vast amount of scholarly literature affirming a link, even if you point out that there is no unanimity. That is intellectually reckless.
And Damion's own article last week belatedly acknowledges that recklessness. (At least I have achieved something by pulling out that concession for the record). Damion himself quotes a number of scholars who all argue that "consumption of media violence leads to actual violence or to aggression". If he knew that when he spoke before the parliamentary committee, why did he say, "There is no research which shows that the consumption of violent media leads to criminal activities," and that "it is merely an assumption"?
He has misled the parliamentary committee. To help those on that committee and readers taken in by Damion's selective quoting of some contrary studies - which doesn't represent the majority position - let me show the other side. But before, let's acknowledge that Damion, the guest columnist, is more nuanced than Damion, the politician, on the parliamentary subcommittee. I repeat: It is one thing to question the link between media consumption and criminal activity; it is quite another thing not to acknowledge the substantial scholarship which differs.
In a New York Times op-ed just written on August 23 this year by forensic psychiatrists Vasilis Pozios, Praveen Kambam and H. Eric Bender, a wealth of research is adduced to prove that there is a link between media consumption and violence. The authors point to a "growing body of research" which supports the media-violence-actual violence or aggression link.
Hundreds of studies
Say these experts: "In a meta-analysis of 217 studies published between 1957 and 1990, the psychologists George Comstock and Haejung Paik found that the short-term effect of exposure to media violence on actual violence against a person was moderate to large in strength. ... They found 200 studies showing a moderate positive relationship between watching television violence and physical aggression against another person."
They quote the authoritative Lancet journal which, in 2005, published a comprehensive review of the literature on media violence. "The weight of the studies supports the position that exposure to media violence leads to aggression." You would never have believed, from listening to Damion, the politician, as opposed to the more sober Damion, the writer, that the United States National Institute of Mental Health, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association all consider media violence exposure a risk factor for actual violence.
Continue reading: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2...us/focus2.html