analysis on `Hollow Claims about Fantasy Violence`

Name

Professor

Subject

February 14 , 2008

Analysis on Hollow Claims about Fantasy Violence

Richard Rhodes ' article entitled Hollow Claim about Fantasy Violence ' was published on September 17 , 2000 in The New York Times Opinion section . The intended audiences of this article are the readers of The New York Times if it demands the outside-audience . However , it terms of inside-audience , the article 's target are the text-moral entrepreneurs . As what Rhodes tried to convey in his article child-abuse and violence does not merely started from mock violence that children

watch on television but more on its physical environment

Based on the text , the author was not aware of his word-usage . He focused his attentions on the facts , data , and arguments that different studies have discussed . My experience in reading this argument is a bit confusing because of some simple words that were used but are not meant to be stated in some parts of the article . But violence isn 't learned from mock violence . There is good evidence - causal evidence , not correlational - that isn 't learned in personal violent encounters beginning with the brutalization of children by their parents of their peers (Rhodes , 2000 ' Rhodes ' use of but ' shows informality within the text . He also abbreviates the word is not ' to isn 't ' and other different words , which are unnecessary to the text for it was a factual opinion stating the data and evidences of the argument . It shows that Rhodes used casual words just like putting up an unimportant discussion in the public . Aside from this , he also used the term not exactly that made more mystified to what he wanted to state in his article . By justifying his argument , he was not careful to some words that he used to make his audience understand thoroughly every single detail and analysis that he wanted to express . Another thing is that Rhodes did not explain what had Martin Barker wanted to say in his message . After citing Barker 's statement , he ended up the quote without simple and brief explanation especially that Barker 's account is important crucial , and sensitive issue that needs a simple yet attackable discussion

Another confusing part in the article is the ending message of Rhodes Violence is on the decline in America , but if we want to reduce it even further , protecting children from real violence in their real lives -- not the pale shadow of mock violence -- is the place to begin (Rhodes , 2000 ' He stated in the beginning of the article that television is not the reason for children 's act of violence and aggressiveness but in the end , he already stated that researchers should not make television as the main issue but they must look on some cases that are related to this issue . For me , the main argument went to other path that I myself could not perceive . He stated that mock violence should not the first basis to justify that television is the root of children 's evil thoughts . However...