Critical response

According to Gerard Jones, violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because it provides them an outlet to escape the fear and rage they feel daily. Jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because the media may convince the children to have alter egos with social and fearless characteristics that the character withhold. Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that violent media has helped hundred of kids for everyone it has harmed. However, violent media may be the root of child backlash, including school shooting and children bringing weapons to school, in many states across the US. All in all, Jones hasn't provided enough factual information to convince one that violent media may be good for children.


Jones uses pathos throughout the length of the article, maybe, to convince the audience to have pity for him and the way that he grew up. The poignancy isn't enough evidence to support his claims. Everyone is different and because violent media has coaxed him into being a little more social as a child doesn't mean it wouldn't send the next child into outrage. 

In recent news, there have been multiple school shootings. For example, there was a shooting in Florida this past week or so, the kid, who has admitted to have been suffering from depression and anxiety, and who has personal access via phone, has been labeled a "troubled kid" by the court. As it has been said in many past interviews, the suspect has come from a troubled home and may be suffering from anxiety and depression. How long has the suspect been able to access violent media? At what age is it suitable to introduce a child to such gruesome violence? Has the violence amplified his anger?- For parents and caretakers who have questions like such, evidence that has been proven factual would help Jones in persuading his audience that violent media is, in fact, good for kids.