i need someone who can assist me to my homewok
jo6699
CommunityUnitSourcePool102.H.docxShould the age limits on access to profane content be changed?
Community Unit Source Pool
Instructions: Copy (ctrl + c) and paste (ctrl + v) each of your annotated bibliography entries into the provided space as you complete each entry. Source should be organized alphabetically by the first word in the works cited entry. Be sure that your name is clearly labeled beneath your entry. As you copy and paste, be careful not to split someone else’s entry. Once an entry is added to this space, it becomes property of the class, able to be used by any member for their Community Annotated Bibliography.
A
Profanity
Adams, Michael. In praise of profanity. (pp 1-50). Oxford University Press, 2016.
Adams begins the book by talking about the debate over profane language. He says that our society has made the use of profane language an ordinary thing. He quotes examples of media that use profane language in them and about how young children use the language even though they may not understand the meaning. They hear it on a daily basis and think it is okay to use it themselves. The younger children do not think it could be a word that has sacrilegious meaning because their elders use it on a normal basis. The fact that profane language is used on mass media means that it is able to be gotten away with anywhere. He says that even though profanity is a big topic of discussion, having a voted resolution to stop it would be pointless. Voting would be pointless because no matter what the conclusion of the resolution is, people will still continue to use it. These people are considered an outlaw and Adams says that you are supposed to shun people like that. If we continue to live like we are in today’s transitional time period things that were once extreme vulgarity will continue to become the new norm for our society.
This source passes the TRAAP evaluation and gives me useful resources pertaining to the class research question. It was written in 2016 so the timeliness of the source is very relevant. This source is not the most relevant source for our research question because it simply talks about the use of the language today rather than focusing on the impact it has on children. The source is accurate while comparing two different sides of profane language. Adams compares the people who see profanity as sacrilegious and wrong to the people who use it as a normal form of communication. He mainly sides with the group of people who see profanity as swearing and uses the arguments of the opposite group to explain why the language should not be used. The author of the source, Adams, is able to be trusted because he says that English language is what he studied, and he was a professor. The purpose of my source, In Praise of Profanity, is to show the use of profanity in communication today. He says that profanity is oversimplified in today's time and that we use it based on emotions or relationships of those around.
Brooke Ladner
Adams, Michael. In praise of profanity. Oxford University Press, 2016. In the book In Praise of Profanity, Author Michael Adams lays the ground works on the topic of profanity. He discusses why people swear, in what ways they do so, and whether people should get upset about it. Adams takes a unique stance on the topic and actually defends the use of profanity in our culture. He states that often times profanity in needed to express exactly what one mean just like any other work can be crucial to the meaning of a sentence. One thing not very apparent is profanity is used in many different ways. “The f word” does not have one set meaning, rather depends on the context to understand its intended purpose. This is one reason Adams argues profanity is important to our culture. In one instance it could be used as an insult and even a verbal battery against a person, and in another instance it could be used to show one’s comfort with another person. It can set the tone for a conversation as very casual or it can intimidate. Profanity often finds its way into humor almost coming synonymous with the idea of laughter. For example “F* that B*, this is Russia” is much funnier than “Forget about her, this is Russia”. This is in the foundation of Adams argument solidifying his point that profanity is often necessary to properly communicate what you mean. The points made in this book are very valid and very helpful information to consider while researching profanity to keep your information unbiased. There is no good research done without considering all sides of the argument. In Praise of Profanity is not a credible source do to the Author’s bias and lack of authority on the subject. As far as the other points of the TRAAP method are concerned it would have made for a great source. Having only been published 2 years ago in 2016 it is a very current and timely source. On the topic of our research question timelines is very important to the relevance of a source. A source being even 5 years old could be outdated due to how quickly culture changes. As fare as relevance, the book does not explicitly answer our question but is very relevant to the topic providing key information that can be used to betting understand our research question and the nature of profanity. The information is accurate to the topic giving many examples of profanity in pop culture. Authority is the main reason this source ins not very credible. Adams is a self proclaimed expert on profanity simple because he has no problem using it. He has a degree in English but that does not make him an expert on all words of the English language. The purpose seems to be biased, in an attempt to change our society to better accommodate the authors vocabulary.
Emma Smothers
Adams, Michael. In Praise of Profanity. Oxford University Press, Aug. 2016. In the first chapter of In Praise of Profanity, the author claims that the offensive nature of swear words is all in the mind of the person who is offended. The words themselves are primarily seen as negative because there is a general idea that people who use them are uneducated, immoral, and uncivilized. Yet, softer words that are sometimes used to replace swear words have the same meaning and intent, but do not carry the same negative connotation. The author uses the example of a child character on Modern Family using the F-word, but not being aware of the meaning the word carries because she is not mature enough to recognize the offensive side. The child only realizes that the adults are giving her attention when she says it. This example further proves the fact that the words themselves only become offensive when we make them offensive. Advocators for the casual use of profane language often give that same argument along with the comedic aspect. The author gives two examples where the F-word has two completely different connotations. One example shows the author using profanity in an effort to hurt the person on the receiving end. However, the same word can be used lightly in conversation in the same sentence, but with a playful, joking tone rather than a harsh, angry one. Generally, the harmful connotation is defined as profanity while the playful connotation is defined as slang. This becomes a problem because does that mean both connotations should be censored? How do you know the difference between each connotation? I believe the timeliness of this source is good because it was written in 2016. Being more current allows the source to add modern ideas of profanity to the conversation because the general public feels differently about it now than a long time ago. This source is not directly related to the question we are asking because it does not talk about how kids are affected by this language. Rather, it gives a different perspective than the typical one you may see, and that perspective could be useful in the essay. The way Adams looks at profanity is uniquely casual. We need to be able to talk about the positives along with the negatives. The topic of profanity is split between those who see it as inherently wrong and those who see it as a casual form of communicating if used correctly. The author looks at both sides, but leans heavily toward the side that is more tolerant of swears. He mostly uses the arguments of people who protest profanity and breaks them down and explains what is wrong with them. His opinion is not unpopular today, but it is also not popular. Michael Adams is trustworthy because his field of study is the English language and he has written multiple books on slang. Not only was he a professor at Indiana University, but he was a Provost Professor. The purpose of In Praise of Profanity is to showcase reasons why people should not be scared of profanity and to break down the general negativity surrounding it. The author gives psychological, social, and comedic reasons in support of profane words. There is nothing to gain or lose, but the text provides counter-arguments for a lot of anti-profanity parties. Zack Munger
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009.
This chapter talks about the origin of the word “taboo.” The author explains that this word comes from Captain James Cook when he was sent to Tahiti. He was sent there to observe Venus’s transit across the sun. While he was there he wrote many journal entries describing the native people’s culture. The author describes the different kinds of taboos in the world including fatal taboos, uncleanly taboos, and less serious taboos. Some taboos, though they may seem silly, have a rational origin. A story is shared about the taboo of spilling salt. Years ago, salt was vital to life. It was used to preserve meet and was quite expensive. Therefore, it was very important that it was treated properly and looked after carefully. However, not all taboos occur in every culture and in every age. Something that is considered a taboo in culture today may have been perfectly acceptable in a different decade. Taboo refers to a certain behavior that is considered unacceptable in a certain culture. Next, the author explains in detail the topic of censorship. Censorship goes back to Roman times where the censor was in charge of supervising a citizen’s moral conduct. The author goes on to describe censorship as it relates to different cultures at different time periods. There is a difference noted in censoring and censorship. Censorship refers to the institution that goes back to the Roman censor. Censoring includes both the institution and also the individual approach. The chapter is ended by connecting the early description of taboo and the later description of censorship. These words will be the basis for the rest of the book.
This source is not a credible source for the proposed research question as it only details the background, historical look on language rather than a look at youth in connection to profane content therefor, it does not pass the TRAAP evaluation. Timeliness is ok with this source because it was published nine years ago in 2009 and covers how words are used in society today in relation to other eras of time. Relevance with this source is questionable because it does not specifically talk about the age limits placed on profane content. It goes more into a historical perspective. This source is accurate in that it has a very historical perspective. It is not claiming much, rather, it is stating the undeniable facts. The authority of this source is desirable because both authors are professors of linguistics, meaning they do much study on language and are familiar with teaching others about their studies. The purpose of this source was not altogether clear because of the length it took to set up the background. It became clearer as the chapter progressed.
Madeline Stanteen
B
Brown, Jane D., et al. “Sexy Media Matter: Exposure to Sexual Content in Music, Movies, Television, and Magazines Predicts Black and White Adolescents’ Sexual Behavior.” American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol. 117, No. 4, April 01, 2006. pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/4/1018..info , 10.1542/peds.2005-1406.
This article outlines an in-home extended survey taken by 1017 white and black adolescents, all of which attended one of 14 middle schools in the North Carolina area. Each adolescent was conferenced with at 12 to 14 years of age. Each teen was then reviewed a second time 2 years later through the use of a audio computer-assisted self-interview (SMD) to safeguard personal privacy. A different procedure was used to calculate each adolescent’s sexual media content consumption in every movie, magazine, music album, and television outlet the adolescent used on a regular basis. The survey found that Caucasian teens within the highest quintile for sexual media exposure of 12 to 14 years of age were 2.2 times more probable to have experienced sexual intercourse at ages 14 to 16 years old compared to teens that were in the bottom SMD quantity - even when several other pertinent components, such as minimum sexual behavior, were initiated. This correlation was not statistically of importance to black teens after gaining control over other elements that could be predicted, such as parental intervention and tolerance of sexual norms in peers. The survey numerically concluded that subjection to sexual material in popular forms of the media escalates white teenagers’ sexual actions and spikes their risk for initiating sexual intercourse at a younger age. Black adolescents were more behaviorally affected by their parents’ and friends’ perspective of their sexual conduct versus what they were exposed to by the media.
This article was published in April of 2006, so timeliness is not an issue. The date of publication does not affect the accuracy of this source, as the issues present in the article are still of great importance today. The article is most certainly relevant and on topic with the research question. It’s information about the survey taken would most definitely help answer whether or not the age limit should be changed on explicit content of the media for younger people. For accuracy, I would say this source is mostly on par, but not an extensive portrayal for all races or ethnicities. Although it glanced into the tendencies of white and black individuals, the effect sexual content of the media has on other minorities was not acknowledged. The individuals over the survey are not questionable in authority, as each of the authors are certified in their field and have either a PhD, an MPH, or an MA. Purpose of this source was to evaluate if subjection to sexual material in the mediums of music, magazines, movies, and television predicts sexual conduct in middle aged adolescents. The purpose of this article does not look to be persuasive in any way. In summary, the article passes the TRAAP evaluation.
Bethany Paul
Buckingham, David,Rebekah Willett, Julie Frechette. “Cyber-Censorship or Cyber Literacy? Envisioning Cyber Learning Through Media Education.” Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New Media, Routledge, 2006, pp. 149–170.
Chapter nine of Digital Generations focuses on shielding the youth from the internet. It talks about how Congress Passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act. It requires for for federally funded facilities to adopt the internet safety policies. This chapter was about how the United States tried to protect the youth from things that they might gain access to. It explained different methods and ways that they tried to protect the youth. Some of the methods proof-of-age/shielding systems, commercial filtering software and databases, and testing content controls. They set age restrictions on certain things and required proof age before being allowed to access the content. It worked the same way fraud-screening technology worked. Merchants collected user information on websites they visited for instant verification. It allows sellers to block content or allow access to content. Other ways to protect the youth from things on the internet are private filtering software that parents could buy. The chapter also questioned the would any of these methods actually work. Could people easily get around the measures taken to protect the youth. How would these programs work and who would make sure that it works. Would it be monitored to make sure that no one could get around it.
Timelines is questionable with this source because it was made as internet use was still on the rise. The source was created in 2006 but around that time not everyone had internet access like how common it is today. The source is relevant because the question is should the age limit on access to profane content be changed. This source talks about the current age limit on certain content. The source says that is limits access to kids under the age of 13. The source was written based off of the Children's Internet Protection Act. The source was written also to question the act and does it really work or is easily bypassed. The author is challenging congress by questioning does the act they put in place really restrict the youth from certain content.
Andrew Coleman
C
Chirico, Rob Damn! A Cultural History of Swearing in Modern America
In the first chapter, What's in a Dirty Word, the author explains a controversy over two different phrases and that they have two significant differences. The two phrases are "kissing it" and "eating it". They obviously have very different meanings and as stated in the chapter, these phrases were a good example of "manipulation and exploitation of the context in which words were intentionally made to be confusing." The author talks about how certain French words that correlate to American words are more derogatory because of the way they use the word. Also, in the late 1950's and early 1600's, swearing in public was severely frowned upon and was even subject to a fine or imprisonment. Lenny Bruce was claimed to have altered the way we speak in public and was arrested half a dozen times as well as banned from several US cities. He often tested the limits of censorship and questioned the value of words in and of themselves. At one of Bruce's shows, he walked out and said a vulgar statement about his wonderful audience and was immediately arrested as well as banned then on from performing there. A crusade of freedom of speech came about after his six-month trial where he was sentenced to four months in a workhouse. This crusade was to prove his points and that it seemed as freedom of speech was fine as long as no one was offended by it. Bruce sought out truth and was always willing to say the unsayable and therefore influences many famous people today from his legacy. This chapter showed a lot about how much profanity and the world we live in has changed over the years. If someone were to go on stage at a show today and say a vulgar statement, the audience would probably laugh and no one would even think twice about it.
This source is not a credible source for the proposed research question because it does not meet the requirements for TRAPP. It does not give a credible source for what we are researching and getting information on. This source talks about how swearing has changed over time rather than the affect it has on our youth today. The timeliness aspect is not the best as it was published on December 1, 2014. A more recent source would be a much better choice and opportunity for relevant information. The relevance is definitely questionable as it does not directly relate to the topic. This is a very accurate and correct source as it gives good examples and simply states facts. It is not a biased source and doesn’t not persuade the reader in any way. The authority is not the best with this source because Rob Chirico is a freelance writer and artist whose work and books deal a lot with food and cooking so I would not see him as a viable source for this topic. The purpose is not very clear throughout the first chapter and seems to be a satirical book that would be fit the TRAPP evaluation.
Neeley Williams
Coyne, Sarah M. “Profanity in Media Associated With Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Profanity Use and Aggression.” Pediatrics, vol. 128, no. 5, 17 Nov. 2011, doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1062d.
This is a scientific journal that detailed the results of a study done on 223 average middle schoolers ranging from ages 11-15. The researchers hypothesized that there would be an observable correlation between students who were heavily exposed to profanity in media and the children who frequently cursed. Researchers also believed that students who cursed more would be more prone to aggressive behavior due to the exposure to violence in media. To prove their hypothesis, students were asked in the form of a survey how strongly they agree with different statements regarding profanity. For example they were asked how often they used profanity when talking to their friends in casual conversation. The students responded by rate their usage of profanity use on a scale from 1-5. Students where then asked how many hours week they spent watching television and rate the degree of aggression of their favorite shows. This way, researchers hoped to fully understand the situation of the subjects of the experiment and get the most reliable data possible. The results of the experiment show that the hypothesis was overwhelmingly correct. The effects of profanity exposure through media lead to students believe that profanity was okay to use and they there for used it more frequently. Through this, they were also exposed to more violence in media that lead to physical aggression as well as just the use of profanity, as hypothesized. The journal includes a helpful diagram and a graph that helps explain the correlation between profanity in media and profanity in a child.
TRAAP
This journal passed the TRAAP evaluation with ease and seems to be a highly reliable source It was published in 2011 so it contains very up to date information. It was the first study to reveal that exposure to profanity in media is associated with harmful outcomes for adolescents. This source is very relevant to the topic because it tackles the key issue we will have to face in our research question using scientific data acquired by field research. If we want to know if the age limits should be more restrictive in media to protect children, it is essential to understand the extent in which children are actually affected by the media they engage with. This source comes from a very straight forward survey of middle school children. It thoroughly explains the reasoning behind the questions presented to the children and can be trusted as yielding an accurate outcome. The Quinn Foundation and the Family Studies Center at Brigham Young University were acknowledged as funding the project. The fact that this is a funded study that proved its hypothesis to be true is worrisome, but after looking into the foundations, there is no reason to believe that the survey could have been rigged in any type of way. The purpose of this journal was stated in its hypothesis. Researchers wanted to see how strong the correlation between media exposure to profanity and children who use profanity and express aggressive behavior really was. This source is both reliable and very useful to our class question.
Camryn Neal
Profanity in Media Associated With Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Profanity Use and Aggression
Sarah M. Coyne, Laura A. Stockdale, David A. Nelson and Ashley Fraser
Pediatrics originally published online October 17, 2011;
This is an article about studying the relationship between the exposure to profanity in media and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes among adolescents. Exposure to high levels of profanity in media today are constantly acknowledged by parents, society, and the industry. However, there has not been a study to examine the relationship to show how it affects adolescents' behaviors directly. Authors Coyne, Stockdale, Nelson, and Fraser hypothesized that this exposure to profanity in media is directly related to beliefs and behavior regarding profanity and was indirectly related to aggressive behavior. They had a method which was to examine 223 adolescents (87 boys and 135 girls) attending a large Midwestern middle school where participants completed questionnaires examining their exposure to media, attitudes and behaviors, and aggressive behavior. Participants identified their 3 favorite television programs and video games; then they rated each of them with respect to the amount of profanity they contained. This allowed them to see how the hypothesized relationship affected these teens directly or indirectly and compare results between each person. The main hypothesis was confirmed when their results showed that there was in fact a positive association between exposure to profanity in many forms of media and beliefs on profanity, use of profanity, and physical or relational aggression. It was concluded that it would be in everyone's best interest that parents and policy-makers should consider the appropriateness and implications of adolescents' exposure to profanity in media.
The article, "Profanity in Media Associated With Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Profanity Use and Aggression" was published in 2011 by authors Coyne, Stockdale, Nelson, and Fraser. The timeliness of this article would be acceptable for TRAPP since it is only 7 years old. The information regarding this article is very up to date with society today and is still very relevant with our research topic. It is directly related to what we are talking about because of its study about the relationship between profanity in media and the effects it has on adolescents. The authors each have a PhD, BS, or MS degree and each gave an unbiased approach as their sole purpose was to create a study and obtain accurate and informative information. The purpose of this article was to determine if profanity in media had a direct relationship with attitudinal and behavioral aggression in those 223 adolescents. This article effectively passes the requirements for a TRAPP evaluation.
Neeley Williams
Coyne, Sarah M., et al. “Profanity in Media Associated With Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Profanity Use and Aggression.” Pediatrics, Vol. 128, Issue 5, November 2011, pp. 867-872. EBSCO, 10.1542/peds.2011-1062.
The authors begin by acknowledging that profanity in mass media is a concern amongst numerous adults and researchers. The authors briefly address that there is a direct correlation in adolescents between the vulnerability to profane dialogue and vulgar content from the media. The authors state that children and teenagers are most especially susceptible to these effects. Next, the authors elaborate on vulgar language in a professional setting or work environment, as it has been found to initiate hostile responses to demands and orders. The usage of explicit words in relation to personality type and the manner in which younger crowds process emotion on a regular basis is also mentioned. After the topics of behavior tendencies and negative responses associated with profanity are covered, the authors delve into their hypothesis. The authors claimed before their study began that subjection to profanity in the media would be secondarily related to aggressive reactions and promptly result in conduct concerning vulgar language. The relationship between exposure to explicit conditions and behavior was observed at a middle school in the Midwestern region. 223 adolescents were filled out questionnaires concerning their actions or perspective about explicit language, how it is used, and aggression related to profanity. The conclusion reaffirmed the authors’ hypothesis. Viewpoints towards explicit language were strongly affiliated with the correspondence of profanity from the media and aggressive behavior or vulgar content. The uniqueness of this particular study is addressed in the last paragraph and several times throughout the article.
This source passes the TRAAP evaluation for each category. For timeliness, the findings of this study were posted in 2011, so its publication date is fairly recent and up to date. While the study does not ask the identical question I am researching, the article’s data directly relates to the research question, most especially in aspects of content that is not censored for young people. The manner in which profanity effects aggression in teenagers would help to answer whether or not the age limit should be altered on explicit content. As far as accuracy is concerned, the results of the study are scientifically documented, while also strongly agreeing with other related studies about similar topics. The most information I could gather from authority involve the investigation of whether or not the authors were experienced in their field. I found that each of the authors for this article and study are actively involved in other childhood and teenage research projects or studies having to do with media and its behavioral effect on emotional development. The purpose of this article is not meant to convince or persuade the audience towards a particular viewpoint. The goal is simply to educate the reader on the findings of a study having to do with adolescents and the media. The only way I could see this study biasing someone would be if the reader began to judge all media content in a negative light for teenagers. Even then, the results this study portrays are scientific in nature. Whether or not an article changes personal stance is up to whoever is reading it.
Bethany Paul
Coyne, Sarah M., et al. “Profanity in Media Associated With Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Profanity Use and Aggression.” Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics, 1 Nov. 2011, pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/867.
Summary:
The author begins this study by stating what the point of it is and what the hypothesis is. The point of the study is to research whether or not there is a link between exposure to profanity and behavior regarding profanity use and attitudes regarding profanity, as well as finding a link to aggressive behavior. The hypothesis was that exposure to profanity would be directly related to behavior regarding profanity and indirectly to aggressive behavior. The author goes on for several paragraphs to set up the main idea that profanity and behavior are link by doing several things. The current rating system is called into question as well as pointing out the lack of research on this given topic. The actual study followed. The author included 223 middle school students from a large midwestern school with a mean age at about twelve and a half years old. The study included several categories where the children were given options to choose in relation to how often something occurs in their own life such as profanity use and profanity exposure. The results proved the hypothesis correct in that the children that admitted to having high exposure to profanity where in turn, more aggressive and more accepting of profanity. The author goes on to discuss these results and assert his opinion on the matter. The author makes note that these study results provide the necessary evidence that ratings for tv programs and movies are important and should be closely followed. However, he also recognizes that this was one study done with one group of children and that to be recognized as credible, it should be tested several more times.
TRAAP
The timeliness of this source is strong as that it was accepted as an article to enhance this website in 2011 which was very recent in relation to other studies. The relevance of this article is exactly what we are looking for to address our specific research question. It talks directly about children and the influence that profanity in the media has on such a young age group. This study provides a scientific source to our pool of sources. The accuracy of this source is questionable. In the article itself, the authors admit that there is not any other research like this out there, so that also means there is not much to back the findings of this study. It could be accurate but it could also be completely made up. The authority of this source is also questionable. Not much is given about the authors on the website and after researching them individually, I was only able to find that most are college professors. Again, they could be very credible but based on what the source provides, there is nothing that notates them in any way. The purpose of this study is very strong. As state in the article, the sole purpose of this study was to fill a gap in research concerning this topic. The authors felt that this was a topic that needed to be addressed but wasn’t already being addressed. There is also a footnote that says that there were no financial relations to this study. Overall, I believe that this source passes the TRAAP evaluation in that is provides information that is necessary to our research.
Madeline Stanteen
D
dIvory, Adrienne Holz and Christine E. Kaestle. "The Effects of Profanity in Violent Video Games on Players' Hostile Expectations, Aggressive Thoughts and Feelings, and Other Responses." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 57, no. 2, Apr. 2013, pp. 224-241. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.787078.
This article addresses research done on how profanity can affect individuals. The article starts off defining what aggression is and the many forms it can take place. This definition establishes how profanity can give arise to these forms of aggression. Researchers state how profanity in video games can cause an increase in aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and actions. However the article also addresses the opposite view that researchers has towards this issue. They believe that results on video games and research is mixed or not credible enough to make a conclusion. Multiple scientist go on to discuss a scientific theory known as GAM to illustrate profanity’s influence. Essentially, human aggression can come from situational and personal mediums that can influence decision making and behavior. The article however does state the lack of evidence as to how profanity can lead to physical violence. There is more research that needs to be done, but verbal aggression does seem to arise from profanity. As such, the article goes on to discuss experiments and further questions that can be used for further research.
As it was published in 2013, the timeliness of the article is definitely credible to the TRAAP method. The relevance is apparent due to the issue that is presented in this article. The article addresses profanities effects through use of video games. The authority can be questionable due to writers of said articles. While they write from an unbiased perspective, information on their credentials is seems to be unknown. However, due to the multiple researchers that are cited the accuracy of the article is credible. Especially due to the fact that the scientists’ facts are backed up by another scientist. The article’s purpose is mainly to give facts and research to profanity use in video games. There is however, a need for more evidence and the article constantly says that more research needs to be done. That being said I do not believe that the article passes the TRAAP method some lack of information. Due lack of credentials found and needing of more evidence, another article could be more beneficial.
Daniel Hall
E
F
G
Givens, Beth. "Children in Cyberspace: A Resource Guide." Human Rights, vol. 26, no. 1, Winter99, p. 13. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.mc.edu:2048/login?url= http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1552332&site=ehost-live .
The article “Children in Cyberspace: A Resource Guide” was written in 1999. Nineteen years have passed since the release of this article therefore it does not meet the requirements of Timeliness. While this source is great to look at and find background information on the research topic for the class; it is not a source that should be quoted in a research journal.
Some parts of the article “Children in Cyberspace: A Resource Guide” relates to the research topic. For example, when the article talks about how teens are easily swayed by the material thrown their way is an important fact that the class research journal needs to have specified. However, the source goes on to talk about prevention measures to take to help children not have access to certain websites, and that does not pertain to the class research topic.
The source does not have a bias or unbiased approach to whether or not children should have unlimited access to the internet. The source is object and states the concerns of what parents and teachers have.
Beth Givens is the founder of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse which deals with consumer rights issues. Her experience would give her a unbiased approach to the research topic because her main goal is to protect the rights of individuals privacy.
The author is gives a straightforward object approach to informing the readers of the dangers of letting children have unlimited access to the internet. The author is also trying to inform parents that there is internet blockers that one can set up to block children from certain websites that they do not approve of. The only people who stand to lose something are children who want unrestricted access to the world wide web.
Jordan Ball
Gosselt, Jordy F., et al. “Effects of Media Ratings on Children and Adolescents: A Litmus Test of the Forbidden Fruit Effect.” Journal of Communication, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 13 Mar. 2012, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01597.x/abstract.
Should the age limits on access to profane content be changed? There is different opinions on this topic. Some believe when today's youth have access to certain content it effects them. Some places have age restrictions on certain content already. The age limit is there to protect them from the content because it is believed to affect the youth negatively. It is believed to make the youth develop violent and undesirable behavior along with bad habits. The Article tells that there is different research showing that kids who have access to certain content with profane language and violence often develop violent behaviors. In the netherlands it is illegal to sell content with a certain rating and profane and violent content. Should everyplace make it illegal for children to have content with violence and profanity. Even if laws were in place on profane content for kids how would it be enforced? This content is still available in different places. How will the age restriction work for games, social media, and every other place that the content can be accessed. In the article it is stated that the age restrictions should be from eight to seventeen.
Timeliness is questionable with this source because it was created six years ago when internet use was starting to peak. The source was created in good timing for new trends but new trends are appearing in the youth and what content they see. The source is relevant because the question is about putting an age limit on certain content . The article says that when the youth has access to certain content they develop violent and undesirable behaviors. The article agrees with the evidence they found saying that an age limit should be on certain content. The text clearly argues for age restrictions by providing evidence from other sources what happens when the youth is introduced to certain content.
Andrew coleman
H
Hughes, Thomas. “Who will protect press freedom now? | Thomas Hughes.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 30 Nov. 2017, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/30/press-freedom -censorship-news-journalism.
The Guardian is a news and journalism platform where trustworthy journalists write their opinions and ideas about relevant problems. The article starts out explaining how the digital age has transformed journalism. Now instead of having to go through the processes of buying a newspaper to read about the latest new, a person can turn on the television or look on their phone to stay connected. This gives journalist more power than ever to reach the masses. The problem, Hughes argues, is that many governments are regulating the internet and therefore violating the people's right to free press. Violence and profanity are often censored on the internet to some degree by the government. Also if a government sees something they believe to be inaccurate, they may take away access to it. This has many positive implications. For example it can stop an internet troll from scaring millions of people into thinking that the world will end in 8 hours. The problem with this is the government can abuse its power by taking things off the internet that go against their agendas. Hughes explains how the desire to spread truth has often gotten reporters into trouble in many countries where they have been physically abused in order to silence them. Hughes wraps up the article with a plea to protect journalists from censorship and physical harm. This source offers a look at the negatives associated with censorship. While widespread censorship would be a good fix, it is important that we as a class attack the question from multiple angles and consider the idea that maybe censorship is not the answer.
TRAAP
Although this article is very relevant and interesting, it struggles to prove itself as a valid source worthy of passing the TRAAP test. This source is very new, written in November of 2017, therefore time is not an issue. The source is indirectly relevant to our question. While it does not address profanity in great detail, it does tackle the question of censorship from a unique angle. It will give the class an idea of why government censorship might not be the best answer and will redirect our focus to finding better ways to solve the issue. The source is accurate for our purposes because it represents a real person's opinion on censorship that might be different that will provide us with a different perspective to look at the problem from. Authorship is shaky because Thomas Hughes is the director of Article 19. Article 19 fights for protection and promotion of freedom of press and information worldwide. The purpose of this article is to plea for protection for journalists to practice their right to free speech. The fact that Hughes is so involved in the issue, proves that he both knows alot about the subject and is also trying to persuade us to lean on way or the other. All things considered, the persuasive and passionate tone of the article ultimately renders this article inadequate as a valid source. It can still be used as a way for the class to broaden the horizons of their thoughts towards the question.
Camryn Neal
I
J
K
Kundanis, Rose M. Children, Teens, Families, and Mass Media: the Millennial Generation. L. Erlbaum, 2003.
Children, Teens, Families, and Mass Media was created in 2003. The date of this source hurts the credibility of the information it gives because it is not the most recent study of how teens can be easily influenced. However, this source does give a researcher adequate amount of data to start off their research. Age of the document is a pretty important factor in the topic of should the age limits on the access of profane content be change. Mass media is ever changing so, the source one uses for their research paper needs to be up to date with what impacts mass media has on society. The source touches base on how teens are easily manipulated into believing into formal features that mass media broadcasts. Through this, one is lead to believe that since teens are easily swayed in what they believe profane content should be held back from them. The source shows the stages of life of a child and how much mass media effects their judgement on real life situations. The source ties in scientific research that other experits have testified as truth. The source agrees with most sources in the field by stating that mass media does have an effect on children. The amount of impact that mass media has on a child depends on the child’s age and gender. The author, Rose M. Kundanis, has been teaching at Keene State College for over 18 years in the Journalism department. Rose Kundanis therefore knows and deals with mass media almost everyday. The author’s experience might be bias towards children since she works with mostly college or higher age men and women. The author is hoping to inform her audience that the early stages of a child’s life is heavily influenced by mass media, and most of their decisions are heavily based on how or what they perceive on television. If one was to take the side of the author the people who stand to lose are the young adolescents who want to expose themselves to profane content in mass media. The author does not pick a side on whether or not teens should be exposed to mass media, the source sticks to unbiased approach and informs readers to just facts.
Jordan Ball
Kaye, Barbara K. and Barry S. Sapolsky. "Watch Your Mouth! an Analysis of Profanity Uttered by Children on Prime--Time Television." Mass Communication & Society, vol. 7, no. 4, Fall2004, pp. 429-452. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.mc.edu:2048/login?url= http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=14696886&site=ehost-live .
“Watch Your Mouth” provides information regarding the usage of profanity by child actors in television. The writers did a lot of research compiling plenty of statistics on the topic. Interestingly, the first time the F-word was aired on television was during a live showing of a children's show. It was let loose by a stumbling camera operation accidental, however often times this language is scripted. In our culture we have several taboo’s on who can use profanity and the entertainment uses those taboo’s to their advantage. People are humored by children swearing and this humor is often aired for public entertainment. When a child sitting at home in front of the television see’s someone their age speaking this way and getting the reactions they are, that child is more prone to use that language to get attention. This language then makes its way to the school house playground and then into another family’s home. Age based ratings were put in place so that children would not be exposed to content too mature for their age. Those ratings are: TV-G, TV-PG, and TV-14. This suggest that a show rated TV-PG is unsuitable for younger children due to use of some profanity, violence, or sexual content. TV-14 would be less suitable for children, suggesting to only be viewed by children 14 years or older. Research done in 2001 gathered how many times different categories of profanity were used in programs of the various ratings. In the 7 major networks in 2001, mild profanity was used 368 times in TV-PG programs. TV-PG, again, is supposed to be suitable for children under the age of 14. So children in their prime growth age are hearing profanity at least once a day. One has to imagine this would create a habit of using this type of language.
“Watch Your Mouth” was published in 2004 putting it at 14 years old. The generation impacted by the information in their research are now adults which can actually provide some insight into how the exposure to such language affected the people during adolescence. Typically old data is outdated and irrelevant however in this instance that is not the case. The relevance of the source is source comes in comparing the usage of profanity of the generation affected in this text. Knowing the effects of profanity on children can help us better decide if there should be more regulation on the access to profane content by children. The information is very accurate giving detailed statistics gathered by actual research. It was written by a professor of journalism and electronic media as well as a professor of communications so the writers have authority on the subject. The purpose is purely informative. There was no political or monetary agenda backing the writing. This is pure research without bias. This source checks out and is credible to use
Zack Munger
L
Levine, Madeline. “Adolescence: Ages 15, 16, 17, and 18.” Viewing violence: how media violence affects your child’s and adolescent’s development. New York : Doubleday, 1996. MICAL, mical.mc.edu/search?/Xa:(Levine%2C+Madeline)&SORT=D&l=eng&m=a&b=speed/Xa:(Levine%2C+Madeline)&SORT=D&l=eng&m=a&b=speed&SUBKEY=a%3A(Levine%2C+Madeline)/1%2C4%2C4%2CB/frameset&FF=Xa:(Levine%2C+Madeline)&SORT=D&l=eng&m=a&b=speed&3%2C3%2C.
In chapter twelve of Viewing Violence, Levine first introduces the manner in which adolescents find their sense of self, and outlines the media’s positive or negative influences on a teenager’s developmental processes. To transition, the author goes on to point out that the luxuries of technology are doing more harm than good. The explicit content on millions of television screens desensitize young people to violent behavior. In result, Levine suggests the connection between media depictions of brutality and criminal acts in the real world grows stronger. The writer finds that aggressive strategies often used in films by leading male roles strongly reflect the despotic and emotionally repressive decisions made by political authorities of today. The industry is almost void of positive male role models that do not value extreme dominance and acute competitiveness. The movie making industry fails to acknowledge the unrealistic message tyrannical behavior sends to young boys searching to become men. Although the media uses challenging obstacles that appeal to younger audiences, the author states these do not provide the societal features required to help adolescents solve complex problems with real consequences. In addition to little regard for personal safety, Levine claims the media has omitted the tempestuous experience of young relationships. Raunchy images of today exacerbate the sexual pressures adolescents face to pursue physically intimate measures they are not emotionally prepared to handle. The psychological language couples use to communicate in movies and television series is largely ignored, as most romantic encounters are risqué or obscene with no consequences whatsoever. The careless circumstances presented to young crowds by the media leave them convinced there will be no resulting impact from the decisions they make in their own lives. The authors draws the chapter to a close by acknowledging that adolescents should be exposed to subjects that impact their everyday lives.
This source is quite lacking in the timeliness category since the book I chose was published in 1996. However, since the topics covered in the chapter are still more than relevant issues in today’s world and time, it would not be fair to render the material inadequate. For relevance, this source perfectly suits the research question. This book investigates the manner in which adolescents are impacted by negative influences of the media. Analyzing how the media affects the younger generation pertains to the age limit on profane content of the research question. Accuracy, like relevancy, passes. The source strongly agrees with other experts in the field of study regarding the media’s influence on adolescents. On authority, the author of this source, Dr. Madeline Levine, holds a Ph.D. in psychology, an M.A. in education, a B.A. in English, and twenty-five years of teaching experience. In addition to her professional background, she has also raised three children, and uses several examples from her experience as a mother to validate behavioral characteristics popular amongst teenagers. The purpose of this source is to educate people (specifically parents) on the main developmental phases in which children and adolescents encounter their environment, and how the media impacts these encounters. Persuasive matters from this source are marginally concerning, especially since the author refers to many studies conducted on the effects - mostly negative ones - the media has on a developing child. This can only imply that the author strongly believes the media has a primarily damaging effect on adolescents. However, the suggested perspective does not blind the author’s viewpoint to other less gloomy possibilities. Overall, this source does not pass the TRAAP evaluation due to questionable categories of timeliness and persuasive content.
Bethany Paul
Lopez, Michelle. Swearing in Today’s Society. http://hornet.fullcoll.edu/swearing-in-todays-society/
This article, Swearing in Today’s Society, addresses the author’s views towards profanity in this day of age. She makes it clear that she is not a fan of this behavior and is appalled on how worse it has gotten. Profanity is exposed to individuals in multiple different ways. They can be through movies, television, ads, newspapers, and many other mediums. The children of today’s society more prone learning bad words along with their normal alphabet. The author goes on to explain our cultures acceptance to this type of behavior. Back in the day, men with be cautious of the language they would use around women. However, women have been shown to use this language just as much as men. The article argues a pro and con for the topic of swearing. Some experts state that swearing is an expressive form of language that has impact on a point that you are making. Others say that swearing just shows how unintelligent and ignorant someone is. This is made apparent due how many people use this type of language. The author references a study done by the Parent Television Council that addresses televisions’ allowance of profanity. Apparently during the family hour usage of this language has increased 58 percent over the past two years. This councils proclaims that due this development morals are lost. One member even states that profanity is the language of aggression and can lead to violent acts. The article concludes with the author restating her early point and challenging the readers to think it over.
Despite the passion written in this article, I do not believe that this article passes the TRAAP method. The article does not give a reference to the time it was published, so the information stated can be super dated and possibly inaccurate. There is relevance due to the topic of our study and this information does give incite to the negative effects of profanity. The author does give any reference to her credentials so her knowledge on this subject can be called into question. It should be noted that the tone of the article seems to be written from a biased perspective. However, the author does gives sources that back up the points she makes within the article. Throughout the article, purpose seems be that profanity is terrible thing and should be blocked at all cost. While the purpose is clear it again shows and unhealthy biased that must be addressed. Ultimately while there is some truth this article, it should not be considered for further use on our topic.
Daniel Hall
M
N
O
“Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity - FAQ.” Federal Communications Commission, 7 July 2017, www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq .
The website does not have a publishing date, however the information in the document is very beneficial to read. “Regulation of Obscenity, Indecency, and Profanity” breaks down what profanity is, and what is and not acceptable broadcasting on the airways. It goes into great detail about what the government does to protect young children from profanity. It also talks about what the three different levels of secular content are. In the article it talks about who oversees the content entering the airways, and what the consequences are if a broadcasting network does not follow the set guidelines. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is in charge of keeping the airways clear of obscenity. The author of this article works for the government, so the data displayed on this website can be trusted. The source is objective. It does not state whether adolescents should or shouldn’t listen to secular content. The main object of this article is to inform readers of what the government is doing now to protect young teens from obscenity.
Osgerby, Bill. Youth Media. Routledge, 2004. Routledge Introductions to Media and
Communications. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.mc.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=116966&site=ehost-live.
The first chapter of Youth Media describes a fashion industry known as Diesel’s 55DSL. The line is credited to be a successful company due to their form of promotion. Through the use of a multi-faceted advertising campaign and promoting their merchandise in a brand new store, the company was successful in making sales. The owner’s success demonstrates the influence media can have on individuals buying goods. This is important due to the clothing line being advertised to adolescent teens. This successful business also shows the competiveness in the business world and necessary risk that must be taken to complete those goals. Media is shown to be used a strategic tactic in the business world to appeal to a certain demographic. In late 1900s companies started to focus more on products that would appeal to individuals with certain lifestyles and interests. Prior to this change, companies would advertise generic goods that can be applied to multiple demographic which resulted in sub-par sells. However, the author also gives sources as to how media is relevant to today’s youth. According to U.S. researchers, adolescents ranging from eight to eighteen spend an average of seven hours participating in some form of media. This includes television, books, movies, and etc.… The author makes sure to reference that America’s youth are not the only participating in media. Europe’s adolescence have been reported to spend at least five hours participating in this outlet. This include children ranging from the age of six to seventeen. The books states how teens use sources of media to aid in their natural transition into adulthood. Psychologist G. Stanley Hall, draws to conclusion on how the youth want to emulate the type of people say see through the media. Thus there morals and future expectations are modeled after this view.
The book’s publication occurred in 2004, so the timing of information should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the book’s relevancy is clear due how media affects youth today. There can be television shows that have celebrities dressed in an appealing attire. The average teen who idolize that celebrity would try to emulate their style and will pay money to achieve that look. The author’s authority is plausible due him being a professor in communications and culture. He makes different references to media’s influence on today’s adolescence. The book’s accuracy is true due to today’s culture proving how media works. The purpose of my source, Youth Media, is show examples and references to media’s importance to the culture of youth. However, the source does pass the TRAAP method due to timing of the book’s release.
Daniel Hall
P
Q
R
S
Saltzman, Joe. “Why Can’t You Say--or Show--That on TV?.” USA Today Magazine, vol. 132, no. 2708, May 2004, pg. 75
The author begins this article by asserting the observation that politicians are very keen to cling onto the buzzword of “indecency” when planning their campaign strategies. Instead of addressing the national deficit, they address how and when profane content is used in mass media and how it affects children. He goes on to assert that the f-word is a very popular word that is used by many Americans at a plethora of venues. However, it is very much a censored word when it comes to television. It’s use in relation to children is even more astounding to the author. He gives examples of adult people who are so offended by it that they use children as an excuse to censor media and television so as to not sound silly by saying outright that they are offended. The author uses the example of the super bowl to parallel the censorship of nudity and the lack of censorship of gore and grit. The topic of how to define indecency is looked at. He suggests that each person has a different opinion of what is decent and indecent and therefore, a single ruling cannot be made that includes all. The author’s opinion of why this subject is latched on to in a political arena is because it is a distraction to the people.The main point of this article is to point out the wrongly placed necessity on the topic of censorship according to the author’s opinion. He believes that there is no one way to define indecency and therefore the centralized approach is taken to distract the common people from the bigger problems facing the world.
The timeliness of this article is great. It was written in 2004, so it is not completely outdated, however, in relation to our question, it provides a look into how censorship may have even been different fourteen years ago. The relevance of this article is strong because it specifically talks about censorship of mass media, specifically television, in relation to children. The accuracy of this article is questionable. It takes a very specific stance in saying that censorship is not really an issue, but rather, a distraction. This is not the stance that most people would probably take, considering the taboo of profanity in our society. THis article has good authority, as it was written by the Associate Dean of Journalism at the University of Southern California. The purpose of this article seems to be to present a controversial opinion. Whether this is to spark debate or not is unclear. After evaluating this source, I believe it passes the TRAAP evaluation. While it is a controversial, biased article, I believe it can be useful to us as we build evidence for both sides of our question.
Madeline Stanteen
Sigman, Aric. “What children need is censorship.” The Guardian. 2008. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/11/internet-digitalmedia. Sigman brings a new light to the censorship argument. Like many, he agrees that kids need to have their content filtered, however, he does not think that swear words are necessarily the issue. Beyond that, children today now have access to the world at their fingertips. Previously, parents had direct control over all images and interactions their children had. Now kids can log onto social media or chat rooms and talk to whomever they would like, and it’s harder to see who they’re interacting with. This applies to videos and photos, too. Sigman brings up the issue of media outlets heavily editing their photos used in advertisements. Since kids are exposed to so much commercialism and adverts now, it can have dangerous effects like low self-esteem and eating disorders. Today’s youth are more introverted than ever, even if the child is actually very friendly, because they are wanting to spend more and more time on the internet than with actual people. I believe this article is a little outdated just because it references chat rooms and it does not include current dangers to children like what they are seeing on Youtube. Youtube has recently been hit because of their content not being kid-friendly. For example, the tide pod challenge, Logan Paul’s suicide forest video, and mature videos under the guise of children shows have all been a hot topic recently as advertisers are pulling away from Youtube. However, the writer could easily take the ideas from this article and apply them to more recent issues, making it relevant. The article is accurate because this trend has been proven. Kids are more exposed to harsh media because parents are having a harder time monitoring what their kids are watching now that the internet is accessible on more than just computer monitors. Statistics and psychological studies can prove the point of the author. The author also has authority to speak on the topic because he is practiced in psychology and works with young children in schools, however, he does make clear that this particular piece is purely his opinion. The purpose for writing this article seems to be to warn parents about what their kids are watching and being more aware of what they are exposing themselves to.
Emma Smothers
Steinberg, Brian. “Does Bleeping Profanity Make Any F-king Sense?” Academic Search Premier. AdAge, vol. 80, no. 14. 20 Apr 2009. Brian Steinberg observes and analyzes the way television censors profanity in his article “Does Bleeping Profanity Make Any F-king Sense?” He elaborates on how different situations require more censoring than others. For example, shows that air earlier in the day will be heavily censored because younger viewers are likely to be awake and watching television. Cartoons and comedies are shown during this time because they do not require any censoring usually. Dramas, reality shows, and mature programs have more flexible rules on the other hand. There’s a variety of reasons the FCC is more lenient with these programs. Firstly, dramas and reality shows will usually utilize profanity to make the characters seem more relatable and real. Profanity is backed by emotion that cannot be shown through other words typically, so, when a writer or reality star is showing intense anger, it is often encouraged to use profane language in order to get the raw emotion across. Some programs with profanity have been allowed to air at earlier times by censoring the foul language. The author uses the example of “Hell’s Kitchen” as a show that gets by with using a lazy bleep to cover up an expletive. The problem here lies in the fact that it is quite easy to read lips and see what is actually being said. This leaves the question of whether censoring profanity is even worth the effort and if it is effective. This article was written in 2009, so I think, while the timeliness is not the most up-to-date it could be, it is still current enough to address the issue at hand in a modern way and not be influenced by any ancient ideologies. This source is relevant to me as well because it touches on how effective and useful censorship of profanity on television actually is. The way our particular question is set up, I’m not sure there is a way for sources to be “inaccurate” because the divide in those who are pro-profanity and those pro-censorship is matched in supporters. The author, Brian Steinberg, is a TV editor and probably has a lot of knowledge on the way the FCC and big broadcasting companies see profane language, so I would say he has authority to speak on the topic. I believe the purpose of this article is to bring awareness to how little censoring curse words actually does for people because you can still easily tell what words are being said and those words are slipping into daytime television. Steinberg is trying to showcase how the rules are being bent in our time because of how lightly and frequently the language is used today in daily conversations.
Emma Smothers
T
“The changing definition of 'TV': What parents need to know about today's television
content.” DeseretNews.com, Deseret News, 11 Sept. 2014,
The article begins by talking about how different television shows are scored differently on websites. The article itself is split into four subsections: current TV landscape, broadcast is changing, ratings and descriptors, and what parents can do. The article says that most parents think if it is on television then it must not be too bad for their kids to watch. Parents have found that they can no longer trust this mindset because television programs are not regulated like they used to be. Most television shows that are aired today have some kind of profane content in them. The Federal Communications Commission bans indecent content on six major television channels. Executive editor, Sierra Filucci, says there is definitely a shift in the profane content that is aired on television. She also says that most people could probably say they saw some form of profanity on television the day before, which tells us how regular this is used on today’s television networks. We see in the article that any television produced after the year 2000 must include a chip in it so that parents can limit what their children watch, which would lessen their exposure to the indecent content. While this may not completely leave children blind to profane content, it can help them influence their peers to not take part in certain things since that is what they were taught. The article concludes saying the most effective thing would to be to stay away from or else carefully monitor what is being watched by their children. This may mean limiting the use of internet accessible devices in the home.
This source passes the TRAAP evaluation. The timeliness of this article is very recent, 2014, which means it is ideal to use in our research. The relevance of this source is very relevant because it gives examples of how profane content is not regulated like it should be, therefore parents have to set precautions on the television to prevent their children from being negatively influenced by profanity. This source’s author can be trusted because she published it on a new website, therefore it has to be factual before being released to the public. This article is very accurate because it is real life examples of what parents go through today. Parents are required to monitor what their children watch to ensure that they do not receive negative influences. The article tells us this and this is exactly how it is in real life. The purpose of this article is to reinforce and reinform parents and other television users that the FCC only regulates certain channels for profane content, therefore parents must monitor what their children see to decrease chances of using profanity themselves.
Brooke Ladner
Tropeano, Eliana. “Does Rap or Rock Music Provoke Violent Behavior?”. Journal of
Undergraduate Psychological Research. Vol 1, Western Connecticut State University,
2006, p. 31-34.
http://library.wcsu.edu/dspace/bitstream/0/35/1/tropeano.pdf
Summary: This source describes the effects of violent music and music videos, such as rap, on behavior. For starters, it outlines and tells about what exactly happened in the experiment, and throughout it discusses why each thing was done, what it tested, and what the results were. The source gives a thorough look into what each step of the experiment means and how it pertains to determining if music is actually an influence on behavior. Throughout the source, it is said that music does appear to have a significant effect on people’s behavior, and this source also pulls multiple different sources of its own into its discussion to show that she is not the only person to get the results that she did out of his experiment or those similar to hers. In the end under her “discussion” category, she sums up her results and also looks at a few things that she could have done differently, which shows a few of the flaws in the experiment itself.
TRAAP: The timeliness of the source is not the greatest. It was published in 2006 which was quite a long time ago; however, the issue looked at has not changed much. The rap music and vulgar music videos available in those times are quite similar to the ones available now, except now there are just a lot more of them. So, the timeliness is not a major concern for me because the issue has not evolved a whole lot in quite a long time. Our question is “should the age limit to view profane content be changed?”, and this source is relevant to the question because it shows that profane music may have a negative effect on people which would show one side of the argument for why the age limit should be changed. The accuracy of this information can be assumed because it was published in an undergraduate research journal. This means that many people looked at the research and deemed in accurate enough and good enough to be published in a journal coming from a University. The article was written by a person by the name of Eliana Tropeano who was a student at the time this was written, so the authority of the research is not necessarily there for her research, except for the fact that she cited multiple different sources that had come up with similar information as she had, and those sources had be conducted by people with doctorates. This, by default, establishes what she says as reliable. The purpose of this article is to research a topic. The author has absolutely no other motive to prove that violent music causes violent behavior other than to get a good grade in the psychology class that they are taking, which improves the odds that the research done is unbiased. The fact that this article does not seem to be trying to prove a particular point makes it a very good source to use in an objective essay. (Mason Coleman)
U
V
Vaughn, Stephen. Freedom and entertainment: rating the movies in an age of new media. Oxford University Press, 2006.
This book deals with the entertainment industry specifically the rating of movies. The author, Stephen Vaughn seeks to give readers insightful information on the criteria in which films are rated. The key message the author is hoping to convey in this book is that there is some obvious corruptions in hollywood especially when it comes to rating movies. The book speaks about the effects of profanity, sex, and violence while giving insight on into how the entertainment industry decides what the limits are on what young viewers should be exposed to. It details the criteria for choosing what words are profane enough to push the movie towards an R classification. The rules explained on page 30 say that when a movie uses the word f*** one time it will result in an R rating. This is good information for the classes argument because it helps us see what the world defines as severe profanity. It also begs the question that if hollywood thinks that profanity specifically the “f word” is bad enough that only 18 year olds need to be exposed to it in films, is it therefore bad enough to need to be censored in some way in all forms of media? Both content and age limits are discussed in this book so it also explains lesser known laws that guide the decision of rating a movie such as the Production Code, the code in which all films are rated based on. The later parts of the book explain how use research done by the American Psychological Association effects the ways movies are rated. The source overall provides valuable insider information on why things are currently censored as they are in regards to films.
TRAAP evaluation
Freedom and Entertainment fails the TRAAP test due to potential bias, but is still a useful source for our purposes. Timelessness is questionable for this book because it was written in 2006 about laws which, by nature, are subject to change. However, through cross referencing I could tell that the laws outlined in this book were still effective today. This is a relevant source because it gives exclusive insight into why films are censored as they are right now. When trying to decide if censorship should be changed, insider information is invaluable. Accuracy is hard to test because this source is not comparable to other sources. It comes from exclusive knowledge that can only be acquired by an insider of the film industry. The authorship of this book is unquestionably strong because Stephen Vaughn has received two Fulbright awards, proving himself to be a powerful researcher. The purpose of this book is to offer a behind the scenes look at motion picture rating. Vaughn writes in part based on the private papers of Richard Heffner, head of Classification of Rating Administration. The book in parts focuses on the corruption of the industry and when Vaughn gets information from Heffner, it has potential bias involved. This source ultimately fails the TRAAP evaluation because of its potential biases. The bias only ruins parts of the book that we will not be delving into for the class question so it is still a valuable source.
Camryn Neal
W
Swearing Habit
Whipple, Edwin P. “The Swearing Habit.” The North American Review, vol. 140, no.
343, June 1885, pp. 536-539. JSTOR, www.jstor.org . Accessed 29 January
2018.
The article begins by referencing another volume that had been published that talked about swearing from the beginning of time up until present day. Using this kind of profane language is a habit amongst all people from the lowest character to the highest. Whipple says that the use of these kinds of words come from emotion, specifically rage, but can quickly turn into extreme rage. He gives an example of a man walking and having a shocked amount of decency for himself due to the profane language that is being used all around him by different types of people. He continues to say that people use the worst language when they are being hindered from something. They believe that use of sacrilegious language comes from the lack of expressing one’s emotions. He says that from all of these different homes come children who know how to speak the language and use it very frequently in their normal conversations. They explain that the parents do not need to necessarily be religious to understand the wrong doing that they are bestowing upon their child and the actions that come from theirs as the parent. Children face conflicts every day and are in direct contact of them. They conclude this portion of the article saying that religious views and other objections view profane language as part of condemnation.
This article passes the TRAAP method. The timeliness of this article would not be ideal to be used for our research question since it is not from a recent time. This article is very relevant to our research question because, even though it is not talking about there being an age limit to profane content, it is talking about the effects of profane language on youth. The source is accurate because they are giving us examples of how youth hear the things being said around them and take it in and use it themselves. It has an affect on them because they do not know what the words mean, but they assume it is okay because it is used by their elders. The author is able to be trusted because it is published by a university and used specifically for scholars and researchers. The purpose of my source, The Swearing Habit, is to show that whether we realize it or not, the things we say affect those around us that may be looking up to us.
Brooke Ladner
X
Y
Z
