Children usually learn better from what they see than what parents or teachers teach them. Even though, parents usually tell your children that violent media is not good for them, they should not try to play it, and it has to be forgotten completely, but some of them still try to play it, and many of them has been addicted to violent games. In the article “Violent Media is Good for Kids”, the author Gerard Jones argues that bloody videogames, gun-glorifying, gangsta rap and other form of “creative violence” help far more children than they hurt, by giving a tool to master their rage. That means violent media is good. Besides, he also gives his personal experience about how violent media helped him changes as a person in a good way to prove that media violent can help kids, so parents should allow their children to play violent games. The author does a great job when he connects his personal experience with belief that violent media is helpful for kids, but this article is not trustworthy enough to convince the audience.
At the first paragraph of the article, the author makes a good point to start holding the readers’ attention and persuading them by giving his own life experience “At thirteen I was alone and afraid. Taught by my well-meaning, progressive, English-teacher parents that violence was wrong, that rage was something to be overcome and cooperation was always better than conflict, I suffocated my deepest fears and desires under a nice-boy persona.” (Paragraph 1). Also, Jones creates a chronological order of his lifetime from he was a teenager, then he became a writer, and then the father of a son. When Jones became a parent, instead he courage his own son to watch cartoons as many kids, Jones used stories to install courage in his own son only to keep hearing that cartoons should be discouraged. Jones insists that in all his experience, combative storytelling is only harmful when parents teach their children to fear aggression.
The greatest strength of this article was the use of personal stories and testimonies, which gained the readers trust and sympathy. This anecdote helped the reader sympathize with Jones and established an emotional connection. Most readers can
identify with the memory of feeling lost as a child or, at the very least, feel empathy for that person. This bond helps the readers trust in Jones and see things through the same perspective. Besides, Jones also uses his own son’s story as an example to convince the readers. Not at all, Jones only supports his arguments from the words of Dr. Moore, a psychologist, who agrees with Jones that “Children need violent entertainment in order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood.” (Paragraph 7). However, the important point is Jones does not have any degree or the history of study in psychology, so he is not qualified to assess and dissect the thought process of children. Therefore, any evidence which Jones uses in this article from his own research is untrustworthy, not scientific, and an abuse of his position as a published writer.
Morover, in the article, Jones uses only his personal experiences and stories to persuade his audiences to believe in his argument about benefit of violence. Additionally; Jones’s only examples are himself, his son, and family friend. Without giving an example that is unbiased, his persuasive essay is closer to be nothing more than a short story on his experiences. During the article, there is only arguments that focus on his own experiences and personal thinking. On the other hand, other reasons are basically depended on the experience with kids. However, it is not rational enough to claim that violent media can benefit to children. Furthermore, Jones lacked scholarly research which can make prove his point firmly. For example, he states that the violent comic book helped one hundred people, yet he does not provide any statistical evidence to back that up. Moreover, every arguments of Jones would be more credible and less biased if other sides of the issue are discussed and then refuted to make the claim stronger. All these matter is a weak and therefore makes his article loses its trustworthy.
Overall, the essay “Violent Media Is Good for Kids” offers a new point of view but not convincing enough to audiences. In reality, violence in media could affect children in negative ways and therefore may cause many bad consequences. However, there are still some comic books such as Superman and the Hulk that are safe and helpful.
Because there are a varying range of violence, parents should supervise their children and determine what violent media is good and acceptable for them.