Wilfred 1

Rhetorical Analysis Essay

28 February 2016
Violent Media
In his article, Violent Media is Good for Kids, author, Gerard Jones explains to his
readers that violent comic books, gangsta rap, and graphic video games are more helpful to
children than they are harmful. A comic book and screen-play writer himself, Jones audience is
primarily the parents of young children and adolescents who enjoy the aforementioned genre of
gaming, comics, and music. The purpose of his article is to convince these parents that the
material he produces does not have negative, long-lasting, psychological effects on its young,
impressionable audience. Despite his claim that violent comic books, movies, and music are not
harmful to children, Jones article, Violent Media is Good for Kids, fails to provide credible
evidence that these materials are actually safe for vulnerable youth.
The article begins with an anecdote about Jones childhood, specifically when he was a
teenager. He discusses how he was always taught to control his anger and rage, which made him
harbor feelings of loneliness and fear. When he was introduced to the Incredible Hulk comic, his
point of view changed. He no longer felt alone or afraid; instead he became empowered. He felt
as though he needed to be able to experience violence, on some level, in an effort to fully
understand his own inner feelings. The article then moves on to discuss Jones son, a child who
was similarly afraid. Jones introduced his young son to the Power Rangers, Tarzan, and other
action heroes; in an effort to help him overcome his fears.
Jones then moves on to provide evidence based on research from Melanie Moore, a
Ph.D., psychologist, and mother who specializes in the urban youth population. He discusses
how Moore is a consultant to public schools and government officials and the fact that the two

Wilfred 2

have worked together studying the effects of violent comic books and media on youth. He states
that their findings show that there is developmental value in these types of material. He supports
his claim by providing case studies of two separate children who, through the use of violent
media, were able to successfully maneuver throughout their adolescent years. After
acknowledging that children being exposed to violence is not completely harmless; he concludes
his article by asserting that play fighting, reading violent comic books, and listening to gangsta
rap have been beneficial to more children than they have harmed.
Jones uses several different rhetorical strategies in an attempt to persuade his audience.
The tone of his article was authoritative. In other word, Jones wrote as if he was an expert on the
subject of comic book violence and gangsta rap, as it relates to its effect on youth. For example,
he asserts that, at its most fundamental level, what we call creative violence- head-bonking
cartoons, bloody videogames, playground karate, toy guns gives children a tool to master their
rage (Jones). He makes this claim based on research he conducted with Melanie Moore.
Another rhetorical strategy Jones used was irony. While he acknowledges that most people will
argue that comic book, television, and video game violence have damaging effects to young,
impressionable youth and adolescents; he counters that exposure to such violence can be
beneficial to them. In fact, he states that:
Im not going to argue that violent entertainment is harmless. I think it has helped inspire
some people to real-life violence. I am going to argue that its helped hundreds of people
for every one its hurt, and that it can help far more if we learn to use it well (Jones)
The irony is in the fact that, although Jones acknowledges that exposure to violence is harmful,
he still manages to claim that it helps more than it hurts. Another rhetorical strategy used in the
article is argumentation. Jones uses different anecdotes to argue his points. He provides two

Wilfred 3

stories of young girls; one who liked to draw pictures of violent acts and goory scenes, the other
about a girl described as a middle-class nice girl who used gangsta rap to help her make it
through her adolescent years. He claimed that they both successfully used these types of media,
with the guidance of adults. He closes by suggesting that modern kids are far more likely to
grow up too passive, too distrustful of themselves, too easily manipulated (Jones). His claim is
based on the belief that parents deny their children access to violent media sources, such as
comic books, television, video games, and gangsta rap.
Jones claim in his article is lacking in some very key points. His main idea of the article
is that violence in comics, television, and rap are good for children to act out their rage and
fantasies. He provides details about his children and son, states his position, followed by
research and his experience. He provides anecdotes and expert opinions about the subject. The
purpose of the article is to persuade readers that the comic books he creates are safe for young
children. What he lacks is research from urban families; specifically those from broken homes
or where exposure to violence is more than mere fantasy. The focus of his research is on
suburban children; especially those with strong support systems. This is evidenced by the fact
that he states the parents enlisted his or Dr. Moores assistance to guide their children through the
issue of their propensity to enjoy violent scenes. He doesnt consider the fact that there are many
children who lack these resources and dont have anyone able to or willing to help them work
through these emotions in an effective and safe manor. Additionally, there are some children
who live around violence and chaos. He doesnt address how exposure to media violence affects
them. Finally, Jones article serves a dual purpose; one of which is self-serving. Aside from
persuading parents that comic books, video games, television, and gangsta rap that promotes
violence is safe; he is an author of these types of materials, as well. As a result, it is in his best

Wilfred 4

interest to portray the material he produces in a positive light. In addition to the authors bias,
the fact that his population sample was extremely small lessens the credibility of his claim. He
only provided two examples of how violent media helped youth. More examples, in addition to
using a variety of research subjects, would have aided in making a stronger argument. The
organization of the article is logical and cohesive. Jones does a good job illustrating the many
different action figures he describes. However, he fails to provide in-depth information
regarding the research he has conducted. He superficially glazes over it; but lacks specific
details including statistics on the number of children exposed to media violence, how many
children media violence has helped versus how many it has hurt, and statistics on parents
perception of their children being exposed to this type of media. Additionally, Jones claims of
this type of media being helpful is based on his own, personal observations and provides no
outside validity. It is difficult to determine if his information is credible.
Based on personal experience, I would say that Jones claim is unfounded. There are tons
of articles and research to counter his opinion. On a personal note, I can attest to the fact that, at
a minimum, prolonged exposure to violence on television desensitizes a person. This, in turn,
can make them more tolerant of or even more willing to participate in these violent acts. One
example of this desensitization is, when I was growing up, curse words and sex where rarely
seen or heard on television. When it was, it was very rare and shocking. Today, primetime
television allows a lot of curse words and sex scenes are almost a requirement for every sitcom.
It no longer has any shock appeal, as it has become accepted as the norm. Lately, there have
been several stories in the news, where killers involved in mass shootings either outright blame
violent media or have admitted to being exposed to it. School shootings such as Columbine and
the recent Sandy Hook massacre blame media violence. The shooter at a movie theatre in

Wilfred 5

Aurora, Colorado, who killed and injured many people, reportedly was addicted to violent video
games, as well. The news media is filled with stories recounting violent scenarios where video
game, gangsta rap, and comic books have been to blame. I also have several younger cousins
who would not be able to distinguish fiction from reality when being exposed to this type of
violence, simply because they are too young and impressionable.
In conclusion, violence is all around us; in real life and in fantasies. Children are very
young and vulnerable and exposing them to this type of media can have damaging effects on
their development. While children who are offered support and assistance in understanding the
appropriateness of such violence and how to use it to channel their negative energy may
experience positive benefits from it; there are many children who do not have the luxury of
someone guiding them through the process. Violence in fantasy is not a positive method for
children to handle their real-life problems. There is a saying that violence begets violence. In
other words, being exposed to violence, whether on television, in magazines, or in person; will
only lead to more violence. Suggesting that children can benefit from these types of media is
dangerous and irresponsible.

Wilfred 6

Works Cited
Jones, Gerard. Violent Media is Good for Kids. Mother Jones. (2000): n. pag. Web. 23 Feb.
2016.