ENG 1001-03 Home Page Sample In-text Citation

            In his essay, “Violent Media is Good for Kids,” Gerard Jones claims that, contrary to popular belief, violent media does more good than harm to kids. He begins by describing his own experience as a young child of open-minded parents who worked to instill in him values of peaceful conflict resolution. As a result, he led an isolated childhood, too afraid to conquer his own fears. It was the Incredible Hulk, he explains, that helped him break free from the “nice-boy persona,” under which he had “suffocated [his] deepest fears and desires.” He also describes the positive effects of violent media in the cases of his own son and two girls with whom he worked alongside of psychological Melanie Moore. With the help of these examples, he argues that violent cartoons, music, and movies can aid in helping children learn to deal with real-life conflicts and anxieties. Though Jones does bring up some points that are worthy of investigation, he not only fails to produce sufficient unbiased evidence, but he also commits the logical fallacy of assuming that the positive effects that he is seeing are in fact caused by violent media, and not by some other factor.

            One implication put forth by Jones that is deserving of further inquiry is that people are far too overprotective of their children. When he quotes a “guilt-stricken friend” as saying “I’ve turned into the bad mom who lets her kid eat sugary cereal and watch cartoons,” he is echoing a fear felt by many parents. In an effort to be perfect moms and dads, raising perfect kids, many parents today go to great lengths to make certain that their children are exposed to as few of life’s negatives as possible. These are the parents who quickly usher their child past the homeless man in the street, and brush off the questions asking “why is that man asking if we had any food?” They are the parents who insist that the children on the losing soccer team should all receive trophies, too, so that no one ever has to know what it feels like to be defeated on the playing field. A degree of protectiveness is essential when raising a child, but an eighteen year old about to move across the country to college, who has been denied the knowledge of both the good and the bad that life has to offer, is going to have a very difficult time managing out in the real world. Keeping this in mind, Jones is correct in implying that his parents were doing him an injustice when they “built a wall between [him] and the crudest elements of American pop culture.” However, as intriguing as this point is, he does an inadequate job of arguing his overall case.

            For instance, his lack of sufficient evidence to support his theory does little to instill confidence in his readers regarding his trustworthiness on the issue. Half of the specific examples he cites exist within his own household: himself and his son. Because his son likely inherited or learned many of the same traits and behaviors that he has, it is not surprising that he might share some of the same experiences. It is ridiculous to purport that the experiences of two close family members would be the same as that of the broad majority. Moreover, the other half of the specific examples Jones cites consists of only two young girls, with minimal background provided on each of them. In the case in which he recounts the girl who listened to rap music, little support is given to prove that the reason “she avoided the heavy drug use that sank many of her peers, and flowered in college as a writer and political activist,” was in fact due to the violent music she adored.

            In addition, in the opening sentences of his essay, Jones unwittingly presents his audience with evidence that could quite possible counter his case. By stating that he was “taught by [his] well-meaning, progressive, English-teacher parents that violence was wrong. . . ,” he reveals that he came from a loving environment, with parents who cared deeply for his well-being and meticulously nurtured his growing personality and interests. Perhaps this is the factor—not violent media—that contributed to the unleashing of the courageous and outgoing boy that Gerard Jones had hidden deep inside of him. Evidence of these same types of factors is obvious in his other examples, as well. The mere fact that Jones is in tune with his son’s fears affirms that, like his parents, he too has enveloped his son in an environment rich in the ingredients needed to cultivate a healthy and well-rounded personality. In the cases of both the young girls he discusses, it had been stated prior that he worked with them during the time in which he was partnered with the psychologist Melanie Moore. A parent who cares enough about his or her child to seek out the help of a professional to assist in the healthy development of that child is likely to be one who uses that same sort of diligence in all aspects of child-rearing. Unfortunately, committing a logical fallacy such as this one can be detrimental to convincing the reader to believe his argument. The critical thinker who picks up on this will now question every other statement and detail of his essay.