Is the entertainment industry the primary reason for massacres?s?

[Bogan]

The mid-60's saw the liberalisation of the censorship laws throughout the world, and there is a strong connection between this liberalisation, and our spiraling rates of violent crime. According to the Sydney Daily Telegraph, Friday Nov. 1997 incidence of violent crime generally in Australia, has increased 400% since 1964, armed robbery 700% since 1964, and rapes 1400% since 1953.

Between the years 1900 to 1970, England and Wales, achieved a significant milestone in the peaceful advancement of the human race. They achieved the lowest murder rate ever recorded for any industrialised, urban society in the world. This murder rate, 0.5 per 100,000, is even lower than the much vaunted (official) murder rate of gunless Japan, 0.6 per 100,000.

This great achievement was attained, not because the English enacted strong firearms laws in 1930, because prior to 1930, England and Wales had gun laws that were extremely liberal, and private citizens could legally possess handguns and even Vickers machine guns. Citizens could even carry a handgun in public if they had bought a tax stamp at the post office. The laws of 1930 were not enacted in response to any rising crime rate, but because the ruling class feared that British workers might embrace a Communist revolution. Similarly, the murder rate remained unchanged during the war years, when millions of servicemen and home guardsmen, openly carried around all manner of lethal military weapons and even kept them at home. It was achieved because of their culture.

In all of their novels, radio plays, dramas, newspapers and movies of this period, violent criminals, especially murderers, were portrayed the way that any police officer or prison warder will tell you that they really are. Weak, stupid, impulsive, morally bankrupt, entirely selfish, immature, and objects of scorn and pity. The media and entertainment industry exercised scrupulous social responsibility, providing the public, especially the young, with admirable and adventurous role models .

Models like Robin Hood, King Arthur and his Knights, Biggles, Sherlock Holmes, Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Wolf, Cochrane, Wellington, Baden Powell, Douglas Bader and the pilots of Fighter Command. These role models were esteemed as the quintessential Englishmen. They were depicted as being unflappably cool in tight situations, loyal, adventurous, chivalrous, brave and with impeccable manners They were dismissive of mortal danger by means of an understated sense of humour and "a stiff upper lip." Violence committed by these men, was never on a personnel level, but only on behalf of the King, the Parliament, or the Empire.

These role models, idolised by generations of adolescent boys, nurtured a national character of the English Gentleman, that was openly admired, not only by Great Britain's many friends, but oddly enough, even by their most bitter enemies. The constant reinforcement of societies values and expectations by the entertainment and media industries of Great Britain was so strong, that much to the amazement of other Western industrialised societies, the British police had no need to carry sidearms. Even the criminal underclass had been conditioned to believe, that the use of violence was for "nutters", and a tacit "gentleman's agreement", between professional criminals and police, limited violence to the criminals traditional cosh and the policeman's baton.

But today this powerful social inhibiter has been turned on its head. The Hollywood inspired culture of today, portray armed robbers, hired murderers, gangsters, drug addicts, drug pushers, car thieves, street gang members, mass murderers, vigilante's and loners bent on personnel revenge, as action movie heroes, admirable role models and macho men.

The most pitiful members of our society, those young men who are prone to criminal behaviour, who have generally low intelligence, poor social skills, poor self control, a minimal tolerance for boredom and frustration, an immature, a thrill seeking personality, and a selfish, egocentric view of life, find these movies inspirational in their crimes. They can identify with the criminal heroes of these movies, who are invariably portrayed as manly, tough, self assured, decisive, and objects of female adulation. These movies glamourise violence and reinforce the instincts of the socially inept, that violence and criminality, can be an acceptable way to attain dominance, respect, success, and public admiration.

Even the non criminal heroes portray an aura of aggressive masculinity as their dominant characteristic, who successfully use violence as a first resort when solving their personnel problems. These movies validate violence as an appropriate and manly response to those problems causing anger, frustration and humiliation, which can be a routine occurrence in every normal persons, everyday life.

[Aussie]

What's your point in a nutshell?

[Aussie]

They were dismissive of mortal danger by means of an understated sense of humour and "a stiff upper lip." Violence committed by these men, was never on a personnel level, but only on behalf of the King, the Parliament, or the Empire.

Lawrence of Arabia was a demented blood thirsty nutcase, yes?

[Bogan]

'Aussie' wrote

What's your point in a nutshell?

My point in a nutshell is in the heading of the topic. Do you have an English comprehension problem?

[Bobby]

Hollywood does tend to glorify criminal violence:

[Aussie]

Hollywood does tend to glorify criminal violence:

And has been doing so since they invented 'Hollywood.' That is the only thing needed to reply to the OP.

[Bogan]

The mid-60's saw the liberalisation of the censorship laws throughout the world, and there is a strong connection between this liberalisation, and our spiraling rates of violent crime. According to the Sydney Daily Telegraph, Friday Nov. 1997 incidence of violent crime generally, has increased 400% since 1964, armed robbery 700% since 1964, and rapes 1400% since 1953.

Between the years 1900 to 1970, England and Wales, achieved a significant milestone in the peaceful advancement of the human race. They achieved the lowest murder rate ever recorded for any industrialised, urban society in the world. This murder rate, 0.5 per 100,000, is even lower than the much vaunted (official) murder rate of gunless Japan, 0.6 per 100,000.

This great achievement was attained, not because the English enacted strong firearms laws in 1930, because prior to 1930, England and Wales had gun laws that were extremely liberal, and private citizens could legally possess handguns and even Vickers machine guns. Citizens could even carry a handgun in public if they had bought a tax stamp at the post office. The laws of 1930 were not enacted in response to any rising crime rate, but because the ruling class feared that British workers might embrace a Communist revolution. Similarly, the murder rate remained unchanged during the war years, when millions of servicemen and home guardsmen, openly carried around all manner of lethal military weapons and even kept them at home. It was achieved because of their culture.

In all of their novels, radio plays, dramas, newspapers and movies of this period, violent criminals, especially murderers, were portrayed the way that any police officer or prison warder will tell you that they really are. Weak, stupid, impulsive, morally bankrupt, entirely selfish, immature, and objects of scorn and pity. The media and entertainment industry exercised scrupulous social responsibility, providing the public, especially the young, with admirable and adventurous role models .

Models like Robin Hood, King Arthur and his Knights, Biggles, Sherlock Holmes, Lawrence of Arabia, Nelson, Wellington, Baden Powell, Douglas Bader and the pilots of Fighter Command. These role models were esteemed as the quintessential Englishmen. They were depicted as being unflappably cool in tight situations, loyal, adventurous, chivalrous, brave and with impeccable manners They were dismissive of mortal danger by means of an understated sense of humour and "a stiff upper lip." Violence committed by these men, was never on a personnel level, but only on behalf of the King, the Parliament, or the Empire.

These role models, idolised by generations of adolescent boys, nurtured a national character of the English Gentleman, that was openly admired, not only by Great Britain's many friends, but oddly enough, even by their most bitter enemies. The constant reinforcement of societies values and expectations by the entertainment and media industries of Great Britain was so strong, that much to the amazement of other Western industrialised societies, the British police had no need to carry sidearms. Even the criminal underclass had been conditioned to believe, that the use of violence was for "nutters", and a tacit "gentleman's agreement", between professional criminals and police, limited violence to the criminals traditional cosh and the policeman's baton.

But today this powerful social inhibiter has been turned on its head. The Hollywood inspired culture of today, portray armed robbers, hired murderers, gangsters, drug addicts, drug pushers, car thieves, street gang members, vigilante's and loners bent on personnel revenge, as action movie heroes, admirable role models and macho men.

The most pitiful members of our society, those young men who are prone to criminal behaviour, who have generally low intelligence, poor social skills, poor self control, a minimal tolerance for boredom and frustration, an immature, thrill seeking personality and a selfish, egocentric view of life, find these movies inspirational in their crimes. They can identify with the criminal heroes of these movies, who are invariably portrayed as manly, tough, self assured, decisive, and objects of female adulation.

These movies glamourise violence and reinforce the instincts of the socially inept, that violence and criminality, can be an acceptable way to attain dominance, respect, success and public admiration.

[UnSubRocky]

There have been studies on this topic from years past. Entertainment industries probably reduce the amount of violence and massacres. I hardly have found mass murderers to be stable individuals in the first place. However, if they are sitting at home watching violent content on television, they are not likely to be out murdering or raping people. They are too distracted by what they see on television.

[The Grappler]

A component of study of terrorism is the influence, direct and otherwise, that the media has on events. Clearly when the intent of a terrorist action etc is to make a splash to aim towards influencing change in the targeted nation/society, without media attention that effect is very limited.

When it comes to massacres during 'war' - clearly the intent of the massacring nation is to spread fear amongst its enemies and this needs media attention to do it for them. Conversely, a 'defending' nation will use reports of massacres to inspire assistance and support from other nations, pointing the finger at the invader. That needs media attention as well, of course.

Sometimes the very media itself becomes the news - with reporters etc taken prisoner and so forth

[J o h n S m i t h]

yeah ... because before television different tribes never attacked each other