Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children withand Withou.docx

Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children with
and Without Disabilities: Powerful Opportunities
for Family-Professional Partnerships
Elizabeth J. Erwin Æ Naomi Morton
Published online: 14 August 2008
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract There is growing concern regarding the amount
and type of violence that young children are exposed to on
a daily basis. Through media, popular toys and video
games violent images are consistently present in children’s
lives starting at a very young age. This paper discusses (a)
the growing presence of young children’s exposure to
media violence, (b) the influence of media violence on
early childhood development and well-being, (c) the
impact of media violence on young children with disabil-
ities, and (d) recommendations for addressing this national
dilemma within the context of family-professional part-

nerships. A list of related web resources is also included.
Keywords Media violence � Young children with
disabilities � Family-professional partnerships �
Early childhood � Television and screen activities
Given recent advances in technology, changes in laws reg-
ulating television programming, and society’s commitment
to freedom of speech, young children are now exposed to
violent images more than ever before. Violence seeps into
the homes of most American families on a daily basis. There
is a dramatic increase in the number of children who directly
experience or witness family and community violence
(Osofsky 1995, 2001; Groves 1997). However, the focus in
this article is on violence that young children consistently
witness in their own homes through television programs,
videos, computer games and other products that are specif-
ically designed and marketed to them as entertainment.
‘‘Media is the most ubiquitous source of violence encoun-
tered by the majority of children’’ (Groves 1997, p. 272).
The Rise of Media Violence in the Lives of Young

Children
Television and other screen activities (e.g., computer games,
videos, the Internet) have become highly accessible to young
children. This raises questions about the quality and intensity
of the material to which young children are exposed.
Escalating Exposure to Media Violence in Early
Childhood
Young children and their families don’t have to leave their
homes to witness violence; it is brought directly into their
homes on a daily basis. Before young children even enter
kindergarten they are exposed to over 4,000 h of television
viewing (American Psychological Association 2005) and
by the time they leave elementary school children will have
witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on
just television alone (Levin 1998). Nearly 1,000 children’s
television programs were analyzed in Britain and results
revealed that 39% contained violence including 4,000
violent acts involving shootings and other forms of phys-

ical assault (Gunter and Harrison 1997).
In a study examining violence in over 2,700 television
programs across 23 channels of broadcast networks, public
broadcasting, and cable, Wilson et al. (2002) found that
nearly 7 out of 10 children’s shows contain some type of
E. J. Erwin (&)
Department of Early Childhood, Elementary & Literacy
Education, College of Education and Human Services,
Montclair
State University, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Morton
Newark, NJ, USA
123
Early Childhood Educ J (2008) 36:105–112
DOI 10.1007/s10643-008-0276-x
physical aggression and that, within a typical 1 h children’s
program, a child is likely to witness one violent act every
4 min. In comparisons between children’s and other types

of television programming, the study authors concluded
that ‘‘violence is more prevalent and concentrated in pro-
grams specifically targeted to viewers under age 13’’
(p. 27). The amount of violence in shows specifically
aimed at young children is inexcusable.
Incredibly, the average American child spends approx-
imately 1,023 h per year watching television which is
greater than the 900 h children spend in school each year
(National Center for Children Exposed to Violence 2003).
The Children’s Defense Fund (2004) suggested that the
28 h a week that the average child spends watching tele-
vision may be in part influenced by inadequate supervision
that more than six million children receive at home after
school. And these figures do not include the amount of time
children are engaged in other screen activities such as the
Internet, computer games, movies, and videotape viewing.
Unfortunately, it is not only American children for
whom television plays a dominant role in their lives. At the

General Conference of UNESCO in Paris, a study includ-
ing 23 countries around the world revealed that 93% of
children have access to a television set and that television
is the most influential source of information and enter-
tainment, superseding books and radio (Groebel 1997).
Further, this report suggested children around the world
spend at least 50% more time viewing television, than any
other activity including homework, outside play, time with
family, reading or computer time.
The frequency of violent or unrealistic acts children are
witnessing in the media continues to rise. For example,
about 20 years ago when violence in the media was not
nearly as rampant as it is today, the television show Power
Rangers depicted approximately 100 acts of violence in
one single episode (Levin 1998). The increasing presence
of violence in media is not just a problem in the United
States. In Israel when the World Wrestling Federation was
introduced to Israeli television, ‘‘the widespread imitation

of the wrestlers’ behavior produced an epidemic of serious
playground injuries’’ (Cantor 2000, p. 4).
In addition to the violence young viewers witness
through children’s television programs, they are also
exposed to violence through the news media. During din-
nertime over two-thirds of American families watch the
nightly news on television—thus conveying to children who
are too young to fully understand what they are exposed
to—that the world is a scary place and that world leaders as
well as terrorists often choose violence to solve conflicts
(Levin 1998, 2003a, b). In addition, children may be
exposed to another form of media violence that has grown
in popularity within recent years. Reality shows are such as
Survivor and Fear Factor, while not specifically marketed to
young children, deliberately glorify aggression, distrust and
fear. Even if children are not directly exposed to this type of
‘‘adult entertainment’’, they are still indirectly impacted via
overheard discussions about it from the adults in their lives

or innocently exposed to commercials advertising these
shows. Given the frequency of hostile and aggressive ima-
ges in the media and other entertainment sources, exposure
to media violence in early childhood has become a rapidly
growing problem in today’s society.
Marketing, Advertising and Selling of Violence to
Young Children
In addition to a steady rise in the frequency and the graphic
nature of violence depicted in the media, there is also a
sharp increase in inappropriate and dangerous products that
are marketed and advertised specifically to children. This
trend of violence in children’s media has been directly
attributed to the 1984 deregulation of children’s television
programming by the Federal Communication Commission
(Levin 1998). It was around this time that Levin observed
children’s shows were developed for the blatant and sole
purpose of selling toys and other products to young audi-
ences. In the year following deregulation, nine out of ten of

the top-selling toys were associated with children’s tele-
vision shows (Levin 2003a, b) and there was an estimated
500–700 percent increase in the sale of war-related toys
immediately following deregulation (Carlsson-Paige and
Levin 1988).
Levin (2003a) noted ‘‘link-ups between violent media and
toys have become an established part of childhood culture’’
(p. 15). This is a serious concern because these link-ups
encourage young children to recreate the violent images in
their play that they have just witnessed on the screen. Young
children are seduced into playing out scenarios with their
action figures or other media-related products that are often
inappropriate, unrealistic and aggressive.
Clearly, there are television stations and other media
agencies that responsibly choose to air programs that are
age-appropriate, educational and free of violence. How-
ever, the steady rise of violence in the media for young
children, coupled with the excessive amount of commercial

advertising and marketing of media-based products must
be examined within the context of how it is affecting the
lives of young children.
The Impact of Media Violence in Early Childhood
The body of research as well as national calls for action and
position papers written about the negative effects of media
violence on young children’s health and well-being con-
tinue to mount.
106 Early Childhood Educ J (2008) 36:105–112
123
What Do Professional Organizations Have to Say
About Media Violence?
National professional organizations are in full agreement
when it comes to the impact of media violence in early
childhood—the effects are harmful and detrimental to
children’s development. The American Academy of Pedi-
atrics (2000) issued a joint statement on the impact of

media violence, which was created by six major medical
and mental health organizations. In this report 1,000
research studies were reviewed over a 30-year time period
leading to the conclusion that children’s viewing of media
violence increases aggressive values and behaviors. Fur-
thermore, this position clearly articulated that the impact of
children’s witnessing violence through entertainment
sources such as the Internet, television, and video games is
‘‘measurable and long-lasting’’ (p. 1). In 1997, the Amer-
ican Academy of Pediatrics launched a national public
campaign called Media Matters to assist doctors, families
and children in an effort to raise awareness about the sig-
nificant impact that media has on health and well-being
(http://www.aap.org/advocacy/mmcamp).
The National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC) (1994) also maintained that there is
solid evidence suggesting the negative effect of young
children’s exposure to violence on their growth and

development. NAEYC’s position statement (1994) clearly
denounced media violence aimed at young children in any
form. This is not only a reflection of society’s acceptance
of violence but also a substantial contributor to the crisis
that has been created in this country.
According to reports by the Surgeon General’s Scientific
Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior,
which was created in 1969, as well as the National Institute
of Mental Health, the three primary effects of media vio-
lence on children are (a) reduced sensitivity to the pain and
anguish of others, (b) increased fearfulness, and (c) greater
aggressive or violent behavior toward others (American
Psychological Association 2005). In addition, The Ameri-
can Psychological Association (2005) maintained that
existing research suggests that exposure to violence in the
media leads to increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes
and behavior in children. Similarly, a 10 year review of the
research published in the journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, summarized that
exposure to media violence led to more violent and
aggressive behavior as well as high risk behavior (e.g.,
drug and tobacco use, early sexual activity) in children and
youth (Villani 2001).
These reports clearly support the notion that media
violence has a detrimental impact on growing children’s
attitudes and behavior toward themselves as well as others.
Young children are receiving negative and inaccurate
information through media and toys about the world in
which they live and these images are shaping their per-
ceptions and actions.
How Does Media Violence Influence Children’s Health
and Well-Being?
Research suggested that television violence does increase
children’s real-life aggressive behavior, beliefs, and atti-
tudes (Boyatzis and Matillo 1995; Gentile et al. 2003; Paik
and Comstock 1994; Wood et al. 1991). In a 15-year lon-

gitudinal study, Huesmann et al. (2003) found that
exposure to media violence in childhood is not only asso-
ciated with aggressive behavior, but is also a predictor of
violent behavior. There is also a greater tolerance for
aggression in others when children are exposed to televi-
sion violence (Molitor and Hirsch 1994).
In addition to researchers, early childhood advocates
argue that witnessing media violence can have a negative
impact on children’s perceptions of reality. Children under
the age of eight are not prepared for or developmentally
capable of discriminating reality from fantasy or under-
standing the subtleties in communication, action or
motivation (NAEYC 1994). Because children are still
developing emotionally and cognitively they are likely to
imitate what they see on television without distinguishing
reality from fantasy thus becoming more indifferent and
less empathetic about aggression in the real world (Groves
1997; Kirsh 2005). Re-enacting in play what is seen in the

real world is how children begin to make sense of the world
around them. Imaginative play, which is a necessary and
vital part of early childhood learning, is negatively
impacted as the result of frequent exposure to violence in
the media (NAEYC 1994).
Media violence also demonstrates to young children that
aggression is an acceptable and viable option for solving
problems, abuses of power are necessary in interpersonal
relationships, and a distorted appeal of war (Carlsson-Paige
and Levin 1988). Young children are understandably con-
fused by the mixed messages they receive when parents or
practitioners tell them ‘‘not to hit’’ or to ‘‘take turns’’ when
they are routinely watching conflicts being resolved in the
media through aggressive behavior.
Repeated exposure to violent and negative images can
potentially influence young children’s sense of self. Fre-
quent stereotypical images in the media strongly influence
how young children perceive others, and ultimately

themselves.
As an African American man raising a son, I believe
that I have a responsibility to be a good role model to
my son and to dispel many of the negative stereotypes
that are attached to all men but particularly to African
Early Childhood Educ J (2008) 36:105–112 107
123
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/mmcamp
American men. Television suggests that men are either
beer-drinking sportsmen, boring intellectuals, or
brutes who use violence to solve conflicts. The media
stereotype African American men even further: They
are portrayed as super athletes, individuals who are
addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs, or criminals.
They are rarely seen as caring, sensitive, responsible
people. …Our children are getting the wrong message.
U.S. society glorifies violence, sexism and racism. We
must give our children the right messages about loving

and caring. (Beach 1996, p. 29)
Fear can be instilled into the minds of children at a very
young age through screen activities. Specifically, the
‘‘misconstrued world presented on television is seen as a
mirror of reality and [young] viewers become convinced
they will fall victim to violence’’ (Simmons et al. 1999,
p. 150). There is a strong possibility that new generations
of children will grow up feeling emotionally or physically
unsafe as well as develop irrational fears about the world in
which they live because of repeated exposure to media
violence during the early childhood years.
What is Known About Media Violence and Young
Children with Disabilities
Although the research and general consensus in the field
indicate the negative impact of media violence in early
childhood, it is less clear what influence this exposure has
on young children with disabilities. It is estimated that
approximately 3 million young children in this country

receive the diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder
(characterized by frequent outbursts of anger and resent-
ment, displays of cruel and malicious behavior and a
recurrent loss of temper) and that this number is on the rise
(Webster-Stratton 1997). There also has been a remarkable
increase in the diagnosis of children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) that was virtually unheard
of 30 years ago. Kabat-Zinn (2005) suggested that the
recent increase in children with ADD is strongly linked to
media activities that are far too socially isolating, fast-
paced, sedentary and submissive.
Children watch hour upon hour of television or dis-
appear into computer games rather than play in
neighborhoods, in part simply to insure their safety, in
part out of habit, addiction and boredom. Their atten-
tion while watching television is an entirely passive,
asocial attention, a perpetual distraction from their own
interiority, and from embodied relationality (p. 144).

There is a limited but growing body of research on
factors related to media and ADHD and related disorders.
Landau et al. (1992) found that in the presence of toys,
boys with ADHD spend half as much time as typically
developing boys attending to television but when the toys
were not present, there were no differences. Olson et al.
(2007) conducted a review of the research on the effects of
violent video games on children in grades 3–12. One of the
themes they discovered was that many adolescent boys,
especially those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Dis-
order symptoms, used violent video games as a way to
release anger. Interestingly, they also reported that for at
least one teenager with a learning disability, proficiency at
playing violent video games was a source of self-esteem
and gave him more positive standing in his peer group.
Very little, if any, research has been done on the
exposure to media violence in preschool children with
disabilities. There are a small but growing number of

studies on elementary aged children and adolescents with
disabilities and media violence. Grimes et al. (1997) con-
ducted a study of 8–12 year olds with Disruptive Behavior
Disorders (DBD). Brief scenes of movie violence were
shown to typically developing children and to children with
DBD. The children with DBD showed less emotional
response to the victimization of an innocent person and had
a greater tendency to consider the violence justified.
Gadow and Sprafkin (1993) conducted a series of
studies over a 10 year period on the effects of violent
television on students who had been classified by the
school district as emotionally disturbed or learning dis-
abled, and seemed to fit the criteria for DBD. They found
that children with emotional disabilities watched more
violent television than their typical peers and they also
favored characters that were aggressive. In addition, chil-
dren with emotional disabilities had less understanding that
what is portrayed on television is not always realistic. This

emerging body of work indicates that there is a dearth of
knowledge in the area of exposure to media violence and
children with disabilities, particularly in the early years.
Challenging the FCC, toy manufacturers and the media
may appear to be a daunting, although not impossible, task.
However, collaboration between early childhood profes-
sionals and families can be a powerful and immediate start in
tackling the current challenge of young children’s exposure
to media violence. By establishing a partnership between
families and practitioners, there are more opportunities to
better understand the dilemma, share information, work
cooperatively to find solutions and advocate together for the
best possible outcomes for young children. As Turnbull et al.
(2006) suggested, partnerships occur when ‘‘families and
professionals truly collaborate to achieve a collective wis-
dom’’ (p. 141). In other words, when information is shared
openly and honestly, families and professionals can trust and
inform one another—which ultimately leads to shared

decision-making and positive outcomes.
123
Family-Professional Partnerships in Addressing
Children’s Exposure to Media Violence
Early childhood practitioners are perfectly positioned to
engage in a meaningful dialogue with families. The
importance and effectiveness of family-professional col-
laboration in working with young children with
disabilities has been well established (Bailey 2001; Dunst
2002; Turnbull et al. 2006). Early childhood educators
and related service providers often deliver services in
home-based and other natural environments so that
conversations about media and toys can evolve naturally.
These conversations about the presence and influence of
media violence are essential because families as well as
practitioners may not be aware of how witnessing vio-

lence can influence child development or might not be
informed of the extent or severity of the problem.
Likewise, educators and related service providers may
not fully understand the significant impact of exposure to
media violence on young children. Table 1 offers
resources that address media violence in early childhood.
The following list provides suggestions for how families
and professionals together can begin to eliminate media
and toy violence in young children’s lives.
Become Informed
Professionals and families are becoming increasingly
knowledgeable about the violence in media for young
children. As a result, information can continue to be shared
so that families, professionals, and caregivers begin to take
action. Table 1 provides a list of helpful web resources that
adults can turn to learn more about the influence of media
violence on young children and how to join others in
calling a stop to this problem.

Explore the Role and Influence of Media in One’s Life
Conversations between professionals and families about
television and other screen activities can be an excellent
place to examine the role that media plays in their lives.
Levin (1998) suggested the following questions to help
families as well as practitioners to identify the level of
importance and impact that media has on their personal lives.
• How do media contribute to and detract from my own
life outside of work?
• Are there things about the media in my life that I would
like to change? How can I begin to make the changes?
Table 1 Web resources related to media violence and young
children
American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Academy of Pediatrics Children’s Health Topics
on Internet and Media Use assists families in understanding the
influence that
media has on children’s health and well-being and helps them
and their children to make more informed decisions and become
educated
consumers of media

http://www.aap.org//healthtopics/mediause.cfm
Coalition for Quality children’s media
The mission for this national, not-for-profit organization is to
teach children critical viewing skills and to increase the
visibility and availability of
quality children’s programs
http://www.cqcm.org
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood
http://commericalexpoitation.com
This national coalition of health care professionals, educators,
advocacy groups and concerned parents is aimed at countering
the harmful effects
of marketing to children through action, advocacy, education,
research, and collaboration
National Institute on Media and the Family
The world’s leading and most respected research-based
organization on the positive and harmful effects of media on
children and youth. This
group is an independent, nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and
nonprofit organization that focuses on research, education, and
advocacy
http://www.mediaandthefamily.org
PBS Parents’ Guide to Children and Media

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) is a private, non-profit
media organization that operates the nation’s 349 public
television stations. A
trusted community resource, PBS uses the power of
noncommercial television, the Internet and other media to
enrich the lives of all Americans
through quality programs and education services that inform,
inspire and delight
http://www.pbs.org/parents/issuesadvice/childrenandmedia/
Truce
This group, known as Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s
Entertainment, is comprised of educators around the country
who are committed
to understanding how media and toys influence children’s
learning and play
http://www.truceteachers.org
123
http://www.aap.org//healthtopics/mediause.cfm
http://www.cqcm.org
http://commericalexpoitation.com
http://www.mediaandthefamily.org
http://www.pbs.org/parents/issuesadvice/childrenandmedia/
http://www.truceteachers.org

• How well do I understand the media and how does it
affect my world?
• How can my own experiences with media and feelings
about its role in my life help me better understand what
the experiences of media are like for children?
Examine of the Presence and Influence that Media Has
in a Child’s Life
Professionals and families can discuss all the screen
activities the child engages in during the week including
television, computer games, and videos. It would be helpful
to learn how often (times per week), when (what time
during the day), why (the appeal), and how long (hours per
day) the child is engaged in these various activities, and
with whom these activities typically occur. The types of
screen activities and toys the child chooses and the influ-
ence, if any, on his or her behavior, play, or interactions
would provide additional insight into the role of media in
the child’s life. It would also be important to learn what
children do and who they are with when they are not

engaged in screen activities.
Keep Children Safe by Creating Clear Boundaries on
What They See and Do
Young children rely on the adults who care for them to
keep them feeling physically and emotionally safe. Fami-
lies and practitioners can work together to create
environments that are free from violent and negative
images. Guarding children from news reports, reality
shows or other media that is intended for adults and older
children is one way of reducing the violence in which
children are exposed. The v-chip is one piece of technology
that is designed to help parents do this. All televisions
manufactured after January 2000 must include the v-chip,
which enables the television to detect the rating of a given
program and enables parents to block shows with certain
ratings. This is not a foolproof solution, as some shows
may contain violence, especially cartoon violence, yet be
rated as appropriate for children. It is, however a tool

parents can use to help protect children from accidental
exposure to inappropriate content. Unfortunately, it
appears to be seriously underutilized. One study found that
only fifteen percent of households have activated the chip
in their television sets (MacQueen 2007).
In addition, families and professionals can work closely
together to make informed and conscious consumer choi-
ces about the toys and materials that are bought and
brought into the child’s life. Adults can choose not to
purchase toys that reinforce stereotypes, violence or neg-
ative images such as media link ups as discussed earlier.
Uncover the Hidden or Overt Messages in Screen
Activities and Toys
Originally established as criteria for the selection of books
and materials, Neugebauer (1993) proposed some of the
following questions that may also be helpful in assisting
families and professionals in determining the underlying
messages in television and other media entertainment.

These questions include:
• Do the characters in the story have personalities like
real people?
• Do the characters seem authentic in the way they act
and react?
• Do the characters have power over their own lives?
• Are the characters respectfully representing ethnic, age,
cultural, economic, ability and sexual differences?
• Do the characters treat others with respect, kindness
and dignity?
• Do the characters solve problems in ways that are
cooperative?
• Are there hidden messages that are demeaning in any
way or that reinforce stereotypes?
• Does this show or toy as a whole represent the diversity
of humankind?
In order to raise these questions with their children
parents must be aware of what shows their children enjoy,
and join their children in at least some of their TV viewing.
Simply watching together and discussing the actual
implications of any violence seen on the screen can have a

significant influence on reducing the impact of viewing
violence (Kirsh 2005).
Classroom teachers can support parents’ efforts to help
children think critically about media violence by planning
instruction on thinking critically about what is viewed and
how to make educated choices about television programs
as well as raising awareness about the how the portrayal of
violence in the media is typically unrealistic. Rosenkoetter
et al. (2004) conducted an experimental program where
they taught 31 lessons over the course of a school year on
these themes to first, second and third graders. They found
at the end of the year the girls had reduced their viewing of
violent television programs, reduced identification with
violent heroes, and reported less enjoyment of violent
television. While the boys did not decrease the amount of
violence they viewed, their aggressive behavior (as repor-
ted by classmates) did decrease significantly.
Involve Children in Making Wise Decisions

Depending on the age of the child as well as cultural beliefs
about child participation in decision-making, practitioners,
family members and children can work together to reflect
123
upon the choices that are made regarding screen activities.
Levin (1998) suggested teaching children to make their own
choices about television, films, videos and computer games.
For example, Levin advises helping children develop
advance planning for their screen time which involves
determining how much and when to watch programs or play
video games as well as making informed choices about the
specific content of these activities. There may be guidelines
established such as ‘‘I can watch two shows each day’’, ‘‘I
can’t turn on the television just because I am bored’’, ‘‘I
won’t turn on the television during a play date’’ or ‘‘I can
watch one show or play one computer game right before

dinner’’. Other guidelines might involve ‘‘I will not watch a
show where someone hurts another person or animal’’. In
essence, it is about setting up clear guidelines so that children
are actively involved in making healthy choices about the
quality and quantity of what they are watching.
Promote Peace
Children can be encouraged every day to choose peace in
their lives. Levin (2003b) suggested that adults have a pri-
mary responsibility to help children deal with the violence
that they see and hear. Families and professionals can engage
in conversations with children about negative or harmful
images on television. This can assist children in under-
standing, at an age-appropriate level, that the images are
inaccurate or mean-spirited. Instead of focusing on violence,
practitioners and families can work together to emphasize
peaceful approaches in daily activities and routines. There
are countless naturally occurring opportunities to discuss
peace with young children each and every day. For example,

children can be taught how to offer a trade to a sibling or
classmate as opposed to taking a toy with which someone
else is playing. Initiating honest and open conversations with
children about television shows when one character sud-
denly hurts another can be an important step in promoting
peace instead of tolerating violence.
As society becomes more enamored by cruel reality
shows, action-packed violent films, and aggressive computer
games, early childhood professionals and families must
work together to protect the youngest members of society.
Establishing and maintaining strong partnerships between
families and professionals must occur so collective and
informed actions are taken. This can ultimately lead the way
in creating environments where young children can feel safe,
happy and part of a cooperative community.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Joint statement on the
impact of entertainment violence on children. Congressional
Public Health Statement. Retrieved May 7, 2004, from htttp://

www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jsmtevc.html.
American Psychology Association. (2005). Violence in the
media:
Psychologists help protect children from harmful effects.
Retrieved April 4, 2005, from APA Online: http://ww.psycho
logymatters.org/mediaviolence.html.
Bailey, D. B. (2001). Evaluating parent involvement and family
support in early intervention and preschool programs. Journal of
Early Intervention, 24(1), 1–14.
Beach, R. (1996). Our children are getting the wrong message.
In E. J.
Erwin (Ed.), Putting children first: Visions for a brighter future
for young children and their families (p. 29). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Boyatzis, C. J., & Matillo, G. M. (1995). Effects of ‘the Mighty
Morphin Power Rangers’ on children’s aggression with peers.
Child Study Journal, 25(1), 45–57.
Cantor, J. (2000, August). Media violence and children’s
emotions:
Beyond the ‘‘smoking gun’’. Paper presented at the Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, Wash-
ington, DC.
Carlsson-Paige, N., & Levin, D. (1988). Young children and

war play.
Educational Leadership, 45(4), 80–84.
Children’s Defense Fund. (2004). The state of America’s
children
2004: A continuing portrait of inequality fifty years after Brown
vs. Board of Education. Retrieved March 1, 2005 from:
www.childrensdefence.org/pressreleases.
Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through
high
school. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 139–147. doi:
10.1177/00224669020360030401.
Gadow, K., & Sprafkin, J. (1993). Television ‘violence’ and
children
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 1(1), 54–63.
Gentile, D. A, Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2003, April).
Looking
through time: A longitudinal study of children’s media violence
consumption at home and aggressive behaviors at school. Paper
presented at the Biennial Conference of the Society for
Research
in Child Development, Tampa, FL.
Grimes, T., Vernberg, E., & Cathers, T. (1997). Emotionally
disturbed children’s reactions to violent media segments.
Journal of Health Communication, 2, 157–168. doi:10.1080/

108107397127734.
Groebel, J. (1997). Young people’s perception of violence on
the
screen—A joint project of UNESCO, the World Organization of
the Scout Movement, and Utrecht University—Summary report
presented to the General Conference of UNESCO, Paris.
Groves, B. (1997). Growing up in a violent world: The impact
of
family and community violence on young children and their
families. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17(1),
74–102. Retrieved February 8, 2005 from the Academic Search
Premier.
Gunter, B., & Harrison, J. (1997). Violence in children’s
programmes
on British television. Child Society, 11, 143–156. doi:10.1111/
j.1099-0860.1997.tb00022.x.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. D.
(2003).
Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV
violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young
adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 201–
221. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Coming to our senses. New York:
Hyperion.
Kirsh, S. J. (2005). Cartoon violence and aggression in youth.
Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 11(6), 547–557. doi:10.1016/
j.avb.2005.10.002.
Landau, S., Lorch, E. P., & Milich, R. (1992). Visual attention
to and
comprehension of television in attention-deficit hyperactivity
disordered and normal boys. Child Development, 63, 928–937.
doi:10.2307/1131244.
123
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jsmtevc.html
http://ww.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html
http://ww.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html
http://www.childrensdefence.org/pressreleases
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360030401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/108107397127734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/108107397127734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.1997.tb00022.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.10.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.10.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131244
Levin, D. (1998). Remote control childhood: Combating the

hazards
of media culture. Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Levin, D. (2003a). Teaching young children in violent times:
Building
a peaceable classroom (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Levin, D. (2003b). When the world is a dangerous place.
Educational
Leadership, 60(7), 72–75.
MacQueen, K. (2007). Cashing in his v-chips—Big time.
Macleans,
120(22), 8–9.
Molitor, F., & Hirsch, K. W. (1994). Children’s toleration of
real-life
aggression after exposure to media violence: A replication of
the
Drabman and Thomas studies. Child Study Journal, 24(3), 191–
208.
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
(1994).
NAEYC position statement on media violence in children’s
lives.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Children Exposed to Violence. (2003).
Statistics:
Violence in the media. Retrieved May 7, 2004, from: http://ww.
nccev.org/violence/statistics-media.html.

Neugebauer, B. (1993). Alike and different: Exploring our
humanity
with young children (rev ed.). Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Olson, C. K., Kutner, L., & Beresin, E. V. (2007, October 1).
Children and
video games: How much do we know? Psychiatric Times, p. 41.
Osofsky, J. D. (1995). The effects of exposure to violence on
young
children. American Psychology, 50(9), 3–66. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.50.9.782.
Osofsky, J. D. (2001). Addressing youth victimization: Action
plan
update. The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency. Office of Justice Programs. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. A. (1994). The effects of television
violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communi-
cation Research, 21, 516–546. doi:10.1177/0093650940210
04004.
Rosenkoetter, L. I., Rosenkoetter, S. E., Ozretich, R. A., &
Acock, A.
C. (2004). Mitigating the harmful effects of violent television.
Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 25–47. doi:10.1016/
j.appdev.2003.11.005.

Simmons, B. J., Stalsworth, K., & Wentzel, H. (1999).
Television
violence and its effect on young children. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 26(3), 149–153. doi:10.1023/A:10229253
01026.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. (2006).
Families,
professionals and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through
partnership and trust (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Villani, S. (2001). Impact of media on children and adolescents:
A
10-year review of the research. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry,
40(4), 392–401. doi:10.1097/00004583-200104000-00007.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1997). Early intervention for families of
preschool children with conduct problems. In M. J. Guralnick
(Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 429–453).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Wilson, B. J., Smith, S. L., Potter, W. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D.,
Colvin,
C. M., et al. (2002). Violence in children’s programming:
Assessing the risks. The Journal of Communication, 52(1), 5–
35.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02531.x.

Wood, W., Wong, F. Y., & Chachere, G. (1991). Effects of
media
violence on viewers’ aggression in unconstrained social interac-
tion. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 371–383. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.109.3.371.
123
http://ww.nccev.org/violence/statistics-media.html
http://ww.nccev.org/violence/statistics-media.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.782
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.11.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.11.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022925301026
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022925301026
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200104000-00007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.371
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.371
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children with �and
Without Disabilities: Powerful Opportunities �for Family-
Professional PartnershipsAbstractThe Rise of Media Violence in
the Lives of Young ChildrenEscalating Exposure to Media
Violence in Early ChildhoodMarketing, Advertising and Selling

of Violence to Young ChildrenThe Impact of Media Violence in
Early ChildhoodWhat Do Professional Organizations Have to
Say About Media Violence?How Does Media Violence
Influence Children’s Health and Well-Being?What is
Known About Media Violence and Young Children with
DisabilitiesFamily-Professional Partnerships in Addressing
Children’s Exposure to Media ViolenceBecome
InformedExplore the Role and Influence of Media in
One’s LifeExamine of the Presence and Influence that
Media Has in a Child’s LifeKeep Children Safe by
Creating Clear Boundaries on What They See and DoUncover
the Hidden or Overt Messages in Screen Activities and
ToysInvolve Children in Making Wise DecisionsPromote
PeaceReferences
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (None)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated v2 300% 050ECI051)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual
/DetectBlends true
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails true

/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/SyntheticBoldness 1.00
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 524288
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts false
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 150
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode

/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 150
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15

>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [

0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?)
/PDFXTrapped /False
/Description <<
/ENU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066
006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200
6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020
007500730065006400200066006f0072002000640069006700690
0740061006c0020007000720069006e00740069006e0067002000
61006e00640020006f006e006c0069006e0065002000750073006
100670065002e000d002800630029002000320030003000340020
0053007000720069006e00670065007200200061006e006400200
049006d007000720065007300730065006400200047006d006200
48>
/DEU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066
006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200
6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020
007500730065006400200066006f00720020006f006e006c00690
06e0065002e000d00280063002900200032003000300038002000
53007000720069006e006700650072002d005600650072006c006
1006700200047006d006200480020000d000d0054006800650020
006c00610074006500730074002000760065007200730069006f0
06e002000630061006e00200062006500200064006f0077006e00

6c006f00610064006500640020006100740020006800740074007
0003a002f002f00700072006f00640075006300740069006f006e0
02e0073007000720069006e006700650072002e0063006f006d00
0d0054006800650072006500200079006f0075002000630061006
e00200061006c0073006f002000660069006e0064002000610020
007300750069007400610062006c006500200045006e0066006f0
063007500730020005000440046002000500072006f0066006900
6c006500200066006f0072002000500069007400530074006f007
0002000500072006f00660065007300730069006f006e0061006c
0020003600200061006e0064002000500069007400530074006f0
07000200053006500720076006500720020003300200066006f00
7200200070007200650066006c00690067006800740069006e006
700200079006f007500720020005000440046002000660069006c
006500730020006200650066006f007200650020006a006f00620
020007300750062006d0069007300730069006f006e002e>
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [5952.756 8418.897]
>> setpagedevice
Teacher: Hi, it is a draft of your academic essay that focuses on
analyzing a change in your field of study, telling the reader
either what caused the change or what effect it has had. You
want to take the topic you chose and that works for the
assignment, create a thesis and then flesh that thesis out into a 3
or so paragraph draft. Then post that to the DB. You will then
use the feedback you receive to revise it fully to submit as your
Unit 6 Assignment.
The draft has been done already, now I am revising it. Are there

any way that you can revise this. The paper CANNOT HAVE
REFERENCES.
HERE IS MY ROUGH DRAFT!!!
Hello Everyone,
Here is my rough draft for my academic essay.
The Department of Human Resources has changed drastically
over the course of the years due to the world around us
changing and the trends changing year by year. I feel as though
the HR field has been forced to change because of the vast
growth in technology, social media, and the fact that this is a
workforce full of millennials', which has made it more personal.
The big question becomes are all these factors of change
beneficial to the workforce or is it hindering.
Technology and the rapid pace that it is growing at has had a
huge effect on society good and bad. It specifically has changed
the work force because it has created the whole remote way of
working. Computers, tablets and phones have created ways for
employees to do their work from home, which means human
contact decreases and everything is virtual reality. If everybody
has a computer, Skype and FaceTime whats the point of going
into the office. Technology has made our work easy and
comfortable. So the HR Department then can hire people that
may not live in the city of the company which exposes more job
opportunities to more people. It also makes schedules more
flexible and its less about long hours and face to face
interaction and more about getting the actual task done at hand.
Technology honestly has cut back on a lot of time as far as
business hours and also has opened up more job opportunities
for the department to give out.
We are in the world where social media is everything right now
and that has definitely affected the work force. HR is now using
social media and social sites like linked in to find their
candidates to hire. I think social media is helping companies
grow their traffic and their audience. So now being social media
savvy is most of the time required because of how important it
is in our world. The HR department has also became way more

lenient than when it was just coming out because now social
media is looked at as a tool. It can also have some down effects
on employees because what you put on your social media and
how you present yourself on these sites can hinder HR for
hiring you or it could drive HR to fire you. Social media has
some positive and negative affects on the work force and in
general.
Now lets talk about Millennials and how they affect the work
force. Jobs are looking for young and fresh faces who are eager
to learn and very hip on trend which are now called the
Millennials. Millennials are judged and deemed to be self
entitled which means they are wanting a bigger salary than the
employer feel they are owed. They say Millennials grew up
being rewarded for participation and that is what started the
entitlement. A lot of millennials also have the entrepreneur
mindset which means they are self starters and they find it hard
to follow directions or the lead. Also in some instances, they
are found to need more interaction with their employers for
better performance. The pros to millennials supposedly being
entitled is that they are over achievers and have a strong drive
for success.
My Question is does my draft focus on the specific change in
HR and also am I showing you what I think is causing the
change accurately?
HERE IS WHAT THE TEACHER STATED?
That's an important question, and if you look at the first
paragraph, I do think that it's not focusing on a specific change.
Notice this sentence:
the Department of Human Resources has changed drastically
over the course of the years due to the world around us
changing and the trends changing year by year.
Isn't that saying that the whole of this field has changed, rather
than a specific issue within the field? Think of it this way:
imagine a paper trying, in 4-5 paragraphs, to explain how the
field of medicine has changed. That would be impossible, and

even a long book might not be able to do that.
What would you say is the most important change in this field
that you know?
IMPORTANT TIP FOR MAKING AN “A!”
Hi everyone, before you submit your Unit 6 Assignment, please
check the assignment instructions and the rubric again to make
sure you are aware of grading expectations. Then, use this
checklist to make sure you have followed the instructions
carefully:
Have you:
1. selected a specific change to write on? Is this a relevant
change that has already occurred, like an increase in diabetes
among children or a decrease in a particular type of crime?
2. established a clear main point about the change you are
writing about? Is the main point clearly focused on either the
cause or effect? Is your point established in a thesis?
3. developed thatmain point with your own ideas, not relying on
sources?Remember that the goal is not to rely yet on any
sources. Do not use them. Read the instructions please and
remember what we said in seminar about not relying on sources.
Instead, what are your thoughts, reasons, and observations for
what caused this change or what effect it has had?
However, if you use ANY source, have you given credit to any
source information, paraphrases or quotes? If you do not cite
the source IN TEXT (and if you do not know what that means,
that means you do not need to use sources yet, until we learn
how to use and cite them in units 7 and 8) that will cause
problems with plagiarism and a zero grade.
4. organized your ideas logically into paragraphs? Do your
paragraphs have clear, strong topic sentences that limit the

focus of the paragraph? Do you use clear transitions to connect
the ideas both within and between paragraphs?
6. revised the ideas you posted in your DB draft post? If you are
submitting the same exact work for the Assignment, you will
not receive much credit. Your Unit Assignment must
demonstrate revision. That's why we posted a draft to the DB
and why classmates gave us feedback, so we could revise. Make
sure your revision includes making it formal, avoiding first
person (I, me, my, we, us, our) and second person (you, your).
Instead, write in third person. Instead of "I think that the
increase in diabetes has been caused by..." write "The increase
in diabetes has been caused by...
7. edited/proofread your paper? Read it out loud and listen to
your sentences. The focus of this Assignment is not on perfect
grammar, but you do want to avoid major errors like fragments,
as they can cause confusion for the reader. Remember, this must
be in APA format.
8. included the required additional Research Plan paragraph at
the very end of your assignment? Make sure this Research Plan
paragraph is specific and creates a plan for the specific
information you need to find in the next two units to support the
ideas you have written about in your draft.
If you have any questions, please try to ask them now, so you
will have time to get the answers you need. Remember also that
the Writing Center is available to help you with your writing
needs!
Article

Civilizing the Child:
Violence, Masculinity,
and Race in Media
Narratives of James
Harrison
Adam Rugg1
Abstract
This article critically examines the media coverage surrounding
National Football
League (NFL) player James Harrison in 2010 and 2011. In 2009,
medical research
linking hits to the head and the Alzheimer’s-like condition
known as chronic trau-
matic encephalopathy prompted the league to institute rule
changes to limit violent
tackles. Harrison was repeatedly punished by the league office
and criticized by
sports media outlets for his violent tackles and recalcitrant
attitude. Guiding both
the discipline and media coverage of Harrison are narratives
rooted in a neoliberal
logic situating the existence of and responsibility for football
violence within the
individual decisions of football players. Intensifying these
narratives is the NFL and its
media partners’ invocation of discourses of Black criminality to
construct the most
damaging moments of football violence as unsanctioned acts
that operate “outside
the game.” This invocation serves to place the authority over
the judgment and
legitimation of football violence within the White corporate
morality of the league’s

offices and its media partners, allowing them to preserve the
sport’s central place in
producing and maintaining dominant American masculinities
through football vio-
lence while casting off the responsibility for the consequences
of that violence to the
footballing bodies that administer and receive it.
1 Department of Communication, Fairfield University, Fairfield,
CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Adam Rugg, Department of Communication, Fairfield
University, Fairfield, CT 06824, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Communication & Sport
1-18
ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2167479517745299
journals.sagepub.com/home/com
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517745299
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/com
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F21674795
17745299&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-12-13
Keywords
football, masculinity, race, violence, concussions
The National Football League (NFL) is in a period of serious

transition in the way it
sanctions physical contact within the sport of football. The
increased focus on the
sport due to massive television ratings, record profits, and
global television exposure
coincides with an increased focus on the medical dangers of
playing the game. Over
the past decade, the medical community has been building an
increasingly strong
link between concussions sustained playing football and the
eventual onset of
chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a condition similar to
that of Alzheimer’s.
The mounting evidence from the medical community has led to
increased awareness
and discussion of the issue in sports media and popular media
alike and has pre-
cipitated a moment of uncertainty and instability in the
dominant discourses that
shape the game.
In the present moment, the dangers and consequences of CTE
are widely known
among athletes, sports fans, and the general public. The
postmortem findings of CTE

in the brains of high-profile former players such as Hall of
Famer Junior Seau have
brought the condition to the most elite players in the game.
Continuing studies have
only confirmed the pervasiveness of CTE. A 2017 study finding
all but one of 111
brains of former NFL players having the condition received
significant media atten-
tion and even prompted John Urschel, a 26-year-old lineman for
the Baltimore
Ravens, to retire from the league (Mez et al., 2017). Urschel’s
retirement joined
those of a growing number of players such as A. J. Tarpley,
Eugene Monroe, and
Chris Borland who have retired early due to fears of long-term
brain damage (Bel-
son, 2017).
While the number of current players wary of the dangers of the
game may be
concerning for the league, it is the potential desertion of the
game at the youth levels
that stands to most significantly hurt the league’s pipeline of
both future laborers and

fans. Stories about the debate over how and when children
should play football (if
they should at all) receive coverage in mainstream news outlets
such as CNN, the
New York Times, and CBS News, while the release of surveys
about youth partici-
pation in football and other contacts sports is scrutinized in
search of larger trends
(Jones, 2015; Marcus, 2017; Omalu, 2015; USA Today, 2016).
Even those who have
found success in professional sports have begun to vocalize
their concerns over
children playing football. Kurt Warner, a retired Hall of Fame
quarterback, drew
significant media attention in 2012 when he stated that he did
not want his sons
playing football because it “scares” him (Smith, 2012a).
National Basketball Asso-
ciation (NBA) star LeBron James went further to declare that
his sons were prohib-
ited from playing football due to the risk of brain injury
(Broussard, 2014).
The NFL, aware of the potential consequences of CTE for the
sport, sought to

undermine, stifle, and discredit early research into CTE. High-
profile exposes on the
NFL’s attempts to downplay or marginalize research into the
condition have been
2 Communication & Sport XX(X)
produced in the New York Times and Public Broadcasting
Service’s League of
Denial documentary and dramatized in the major Hollywood
film Concussion. In
recent years, as public awareness of CTE has increased, the
NFL has begun enga-
ging in explicit marketing and corporate social responsibility
campaigns in
attempts to keep children invested in playing and consuming the
game and
ameliorate the fears of mothers who may pull their children
away from the game
(Dohrmann, 2016; Johnson, 2016; Montez de Oca, Meyer, &
Scholes, 2016; Wilk-
ing, Golin, & Feick, 2015).
As Morrison and Casper (2016) argue, the NFL’s response to
CTE is a reflection

of the “sports-masculinity complex,” which is “deeply
embedded in the politics of
race, gender, and capital” (p. 159). Other scholars have also
interrogated the links
between responses to CTE and larger structures of gender and
race (E. Anderson &
Kian, 2012; Benson, 2017; Furness, 2016; Johnson, 2016;
Oates, 2017; Oriard,
2014; Rugg, 2016). This article seeks to broaden these critical
inquiries into the
role of race and gender in the NFL’s response to the emergence
of CTE by focusing
on an important, yet understudied, moment in the time line.
Between 2009 and 2011,
as the NFL first begin grappling with how to make the game
ostensibly safer for its
players, it instituted a bevy of new rules between 2009 and 2011
that reshaped the
rules governing tackling in order to reduce hits to the heads. In
outlawing specific
types of hits and modulating the types of hits allowed
depending on the offensive
player’s specific circumstance, the NFL sought to present the
dangers of football as

not inherent to the game, but as the result of deviant acts that
can be legislated away.
However, these new rules proved controversial among fans,
sports media, and the
player themselves who argued that the rules deprived the game
of its essential
qualities or attempted to control the game at a granular level
that the speed of the
game does not allow. The use of these new rules to penalize
players, then, became
material manifestations in the game of a larger debate over
violence and danger in
football and just who is responsible for it.
This article utilizes an intersectional approach to assess the
application of these
rules and their surrounding coverage in sports media to better
understand and cri-
tique the ways in which the NFL and media partners sought to
preserve the economic
momentum and masculine formation of the league by off-
loading the dangers of
football to the unsanctioned actions of “deviant players.”
While the rhetoric employed by the league and its media
partners was directed at all

players who violated (or could violate) the new rules, no player
received as much
attention as Pittsburgh Steeler linebacker James Harrison. The
article argues that
guiding both the disciplining of Harrison and its depiction
within the media are
narratives rooted in a neoliberal logic that firmly situates the
existence of and respon-
sibility for football violence within the individual decisions of
football players. Con-
comitant with these narratives was the NFL and its media
partners’ reinterpretation of
Harrison’s aggression, stubbornness, and confrontational
personality—previously
celebrated as embodiments of the violent masculine ideal—
through historical racial
discourses of Black criminality and mental instability and
immaturity. These
Rugg 3
discourses helped reconstruct Harrison from an exemplar of
footballing masculinity to
an “out of control” and maliciously violent deviant, bringing to

the debate over
football violence a familiar construct of deviant Black athletes
needing to be con-
trolled by the White corporate morality of the league’s offices
and its media partners.
In doing so, the NFL and its media partners attempted to
preserve the sport’s central
place in producing and maintaining dominant American
masculinities through football
violence while casting off the responsibility for the
consequences of that violence to
the predominately Black footballing bodies that administer and
receive it.
To better understand this moment, I utilize Birrell and
McDonald’s (2000)
“Reading Sport” framework for interpreting the circulation of
media narratives
around specific sport celebrities in order to understand how
different “power lines”
intersected in the construction of James Harrison to reformulate
a new relationship
between the NFL, violence, masculinity, and race. The analysis
centers on the
treatment of Harrison by the NFL along with the accompanying

media coverage
from October 2010 through July 2011. The media coverage
analyzed is the con-
stellation of media outlets most invested in promoting the sport:
prominent national
sports media outlets such as ProfootballTalk.com, Sports
Illustrated, and the sports
section of USA Today; the sports sections of daily newspapers
in NFL markets; and
the national and regional outlets of NFL television rights
holders (Fox, ESPN, CBS,
and NBC). In combining the specific actions taken by the NFL
against Harrison with
the coverage of Harrison in sports media into a singular
representation, I am recog-
nizing the mutual economic interests of both the NFL and the
media apparatus that
cover it to promote the league and protect its long-term viability
(McChesney, 1989;
Jhally, 1984)
The Celebration and Punishment of Black Sporting Bodies
The black male athlete occupies an unstable place within the
larger cultural forma-

tion of sport. Oscillating between a figure of celebration and
consternation, the black
male athlete reflects the larger structures of racism that other
Black bodies while
simultaneously exoticizing them in ways that produce perverse
pleasures for White
audiences. As King and Springwood (2001) describe the
meaning of the Black body
in sport,
Ultimately a social artifact, it naturalizes distinction, physically
inscribing racial dif-
ference and materially legitimating social asymmetries. The
body of the African-
American athlete, as a site and source of (exceptional) ability,
(criminal) deviance,
and (spectatorial, if not sexual) pleasure, simultaneously
facilitates imagination and
exploitation. And as it entertains, inspires, troubles, and revolts,
it legitimates, if not
encourages, discipline, regulation, and control. (p. 104)
As others have ably shown, the institutions of sport, the sports
media, and White
audiences resolve the paradoxical relationship of a fear of Black
athletes and the

http://ProfootballTalk.com
attraction to them through the controlling of Black bodies and
the sanctioning of
Black athletic behavior by White moral authorities such as
coaches, team owners
and league offices, and the sports media, structures that remain
predominately White
(King & Springwood, 2001; Lapchick, 2015a, 2015b; Oates,
2007, 2009).
Andrews (1996) has shown, for example, that the NFL has used
changes to its
rules to exert control over the expressive behavior and
celebratory performances of
players to restrain and restrict Black cultural expression.
Through this rulemaking,
Andrews argues, the league “wield[s] not only economic power,
but also the power
over what is construed as normal and abnormal behavior in
professional football”
(p. 48)
This power to construe what is normal and abnormal has

increasingly moved
away from ostensibly governing behavior within the field of
play to dictating accep-
table and unacceptable behavior and performance in the spaces
around and adjacent
to the game, such as in the NBA’s change to its dress code
requiring players to dress
in “business casual” attire (Cunningham, 2009). In the current
moment, the anger of
disgruntled fans (as well as the president) at the inability of the
league or its owners
to formally “punish” players who protest racial inequality
during the national
anthem reflects the contemporary role of rulemaking within
sport. Their frustration
reveals the expectation that rules put forth by the leagues
should operate not merely
as technical guidance for determining winners and losers of the
game but as mechan-
isms that reflect the larger cultural and racial politics of the
leagues and their owners.
As Cunningham argues, the legislating and subsequent
punishment of “deviant”
Black athletes emerged from a sporting environment which saw

“a fusion of the
black athlete with the black criminal” (p. 40). Indeed, the
criminalized Black athlete
figure, whether criminalized in their off-the-field actions or on-
the-field actions,
carries weight not only in sports media, where Black athletes
are overrepresented
as criminals compared to White athletes and covered in more
explicit and negative
ways (Lapchick, 2000; Leonard, 2010; Mastro, Blecha, &
Atwell, 2011; Primm,
DuBois, & Regoli, 2007), but also in the minds and perceptions
of sports fans (L. C.
Anderson & Rainey, 2017).
While the overrepresentation of the criminalized Black athlete
figure offers the
most explicit rationale for controlling and “taming” Black
athletes, it works in
conjunction with another common racist stereotype: that of the
infantile simpleton.
As Collins (2006) argues, this representation works to showcase
“safely tamed
Negroes who pose little threat to white society” and who are
“castrated, emascu-

lated, and feminized versions of black masculinity” (p. 75).
This infantilization,
then, rooted in the practices of slavery, works not just to
promote White masculinity
over Black but to justify the need for White control by
presenting Black men as
mentally and emotionally incapable of fulfilling the duties of a
“real man” without
guidance and direction (Hall, 1997).
While these two negative representations seem contradictory,
they each point
toward the same conclusion: that Black athletes need to be
controlled, guided,
punished, and harnessed. Whether that is due to malicious
deviance or inherent
Rugg 5
incapableness matters less than the resulting ways in which
those representations are
seized upon to reinforce dominant racial hierarchies.
Complicating the performance and reception of Black sporting
bodies in football

is the prioritization of the game as a space for what Morrison
and Casper (2016) label
the “routine spectacle of gendered cultural politics” (p. 157).
Football has, since its
inception, been intimately intertwined with a culturally centered
masculinity based
on aggression, strength, and dominance. As Messner (1990)
argues, the incorpora-
tion and promotion of these qualities within the structures of
play naturalized the
equation of violence with male identity, constructing sport as a
continuously replen-
ishing source of rationalization and legitimation for patriarchy
(p. 205). Similarly,
these violent sporting masculinities found cultural synergies
with militarism and
nationalism, transforming football into a politically valuable
crucible for the pro-
duction and maintenance of the militarized citizen (Butterworth,
2012; Butterworth
& Moskal, 2009; Montez de Oca, 2013; Rugg, 2016).
Crucially, these idealized forms of masculinity necessitate not
just the enactment
of violence on others but also the acceptance of violence on

oneself. As Sabo and
Panepinto (1990) argue, the structures of football condition
players to become
“ritualistically accomplices in one another’s physical
brutalization” (p. 123). This
focus on the willful acceptance of violence has resulted in a
sporting culture in which
pain and vulnerabilities are masked and hidden in an
expectation that they are to be
stoically withstood or, if unavoidably visible, solemnly
appreciated as necessary
sacrifices to maintain the masculine ideal (E. Anderson & Kian,
2012; Howe,
2004; Messner, 1990; Sparkes & Smith, 2002; Trujillo, 1995).
Ultimately, then, successful participation in football encourages
the adoption of a
masculine performance rooted in the display of excessive
violence, bravado, and
domination. Yet it is these same displays that become
articulated as evidence of
Black deviance and provide the rationale for regimes and
structures of discipline and
control of Black bodies that permeate sport and society at large.
Thus, the inter-

pretation and representation of Black violent masculinity within
sports and sports
media is always perilously contingent on its perceived
usefulness in maintaining the
mutually constitutive dominant structures of race and gender.
In the case of James Harrison, his displays of masculinity were
historically seen
as largely positive. His success as an individual player and the
success of his team
were often presented as validations of the masculine qualities he
possessed. This can
be clearly seen in the major media profiles of Harrison between
2008 and 2010. This
was a time period in which Harrison was named defensive
player of the year and
won a Super Bowl in which he orchestrated one of the greatest
plays in Super Bowl
history, a 100-yard interception return for a touchdown. In the
week leading up to
that Super Bowl in 2009, in an extensive ESPN profile (Merrill,
2009) titled
“Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison’s glare is only
half the story,”

Elizabeth Merrill depicts Harrison as a fierce competitor on the
field and a kind,
caring individual off of it. Calling Harrison, a “thinker buried in
240 pounds of
chiseled steel,” the reporter recounts numerous positive
anecdotes about Harrison,
from his charitable work with hospitalized children, to his
dogged determination to
do well in school and obey his mother, to his stubbornness to
succeed by doing
things his own way. Throughout the article, Harrison is
presented as a man of
principle and relentless determination, who continually
overcame being told he was
not good enough and lived to prove people wrong.
This positive portrayal of Harrison is mirrored in a 2011 video
profile of Harrison
for the NFL network program “NFL100” (Top 100, n.d.). The
program, created by
the NFL as a promotion for its network, profiled every selection
of the NFL’s “Top

100 players” list. An opposing player introduced each player
profiled by the pro-
gram. James Harrison was Number 21 on the list. For Harrison’s
video segment,
New York Jets offensive lineman Damian Woody provided the
introduction, saying:
He’s mean, man. He doesn’t care about who talks about him, or
anything like that. He
only knows one way of playing football. And even though I
don’t like defensive guys I
can appreciate the way he plays the game . . . You know,
another one of those undrafted
guys. They’ve got a great story. The one thing he said early in
his career was he wasn’t
coachable. And that can get you cut a lot of times. He got cut 3
or 4 times from
Baltimore, landed on his feet in Pittsburgh. And once he got
inserted into the lineup
that was it. That was all she wrote.
While the Harrison NFL100 segment aired in 2011, it is still
worth considering it
within the scope of Harrison’s positive representations of pre-
October 2010. As a
large-scale promotion by the NFL network to celebrate its

players, the NFL100
avoided any mentions of controversy and produced only
uniformly positive por-
trayals of the players. Thus, in Harrison’s case, it neglected any
mention of Harri-
son’s recent history with the league and relies primarily on the
pre-2010 narrative
of Harrison.
In these portrayals, Harrison is celebrated for his
unconventional route to success
and the aggression with which he plays the game. The fact that
Harrison became a
star despite being undrafted is seen as a testament to his will,
determination, and
strength. His continual recalcitrant attitude toward coaching and
his isolation from
others is regarded with admiration for a man who “goes his own
way.” His playing
style, heavily built upon intimidation and aggression, reflected
the qualities of
violent masculinity that football, and contact sports in general,
had long favored.
Rearticulating James Harrison

As E. Anderson and Kian (2012) argue, however, the emergence
of CTE and the
increased awareness of the dangers of football violence brought
about a cultural shift
in the performance of masculinity within football spaces. While
the “masculine
warrior narrative” would still be present and visible, it would
increasingly be modu-
lated and softened by an emerging concern over health.
Harrison, whose perfor-
mance of violent masculinity was uncompromising, would
quickly move from being
Rugg 7
the embodiment of a celebrated masculine model to a
representation of the ills of the
game. The accompanying rearticulation of Harrison, then,
utilized the preexisting
frames of Black deviance to individualize the dangers within the
Black criminal/
infantile body in an attempt to protect the economic futures of
the league and its
media partners.

The NFL first began issuing rule changes in response to the
emerging medical
concerns regarding concussions and violent hits to the head in
2009. Initially, the
rules were often unenforced except in egregious circumstances
and the game played
in much the same way it always had. Things changed in Week 6
of the 2010 NFL
season, however, when there were four separate instances of
extremely violent
helmet-to-helmet hits on defenseless receivers. James Harrison
was involved in two
of them. Press coverage was immediate and heavily focused on
the hits and their
repercussions. Describing the potential fallout of the events,
Sports Illustrated writer
Peter King (2010), one of the most prominent NFL reporters in
the country, declared
that Week 6 was a “seminal” moment that “may have changed
how defense gets
played in the NFL.” Trotter (2010), another NFL writer for
Sports Illustrated, wrote
an article declaring the events of the week as “carnage” and
calling on the NFL to

further protect defenseless players.
The NFL responded quickly, fining the three players a total of
US$175,000 and
threatening suspensions for future illegal hits on players.
Harrison was the most
heavily fined at US$75,000 because he was a “repeat offender”
(Florio, 2010a). The
next week, the NFL sent a video to all teams detailing what is
and is not a legal hit. In
the video, Ray Anderson, the NFL’s executive vice-president of
football operations,
frames the issue as one of individual noncompliance by directly
addressing the
players and stating, “you are on notice” (NFL’s Video, n.d.). In
the 11 weeks
following Week 6 of the 2010 season, the NFL fined 27 players
a total of
US$533,000. Combined with the US$175,000 in fines from the
week before, the
final 12 weeks of the 2010 season saw US$708,000 in fines for
illegal hits on
defenseless players or almost 4 times as much as the entirety of
the 2009 season
and the first 5 weeks of the 2010 season combined.

Many players, coaches, fans, and commentators responded
negatively to the
NFL’s aggressive policing of the game. Defensive players, in
particular, many of
whom who grew up learning an aggressive and violent style of
play, vocally cri-
tiqued the league on two fronts: that the rules were confusing
and impossible to
correctly follow within the speed of the game and that the new
rules were an attempt
to eliminate the historically favored qualities of power,
aggression, and toughness
from the sport (Chase, 2010; Serby, 2010; Silver, 2011).
Unfortunately, the articulations of many who criticized the new
rules often were
packaged within the same gendered frameworks that naturalize
male violence and
reinforce problematic depictions of violent masculinity. In an
ESPN Radio inter-
view in 2010, Kevin Mawae, at that time the president of the
NFL Players Asso-
ciation, criticized the league’s renewed efforts to penalize
helmet-to-helmet by

stating that the rules were too ambiguous and unfairly punished
well-intentioned
players. He finished his critique by saying, “I think it’s
ridiculous and I think the
skirts need to be taken off in the NFL offices” (Rosenthal,
2010). Former NFL
player and current NFL Network Commentator Warren Sapp
said, “It’s gotten
sissyfied, it really has” (N. Davis, 2011). Current players who
felt they were being
unfairly targeted by the new rules also utilized this language.
Redskins player
LaVar Arrington told ESPN’s Outside the Lines in an interview
on adopting
greater safety measures, “to me, it’s sissification, and I think
that’s the only way
to put it” (Smith, 2011, 2012b). Even Ed Reed, a respected
veteran, spoke out
against what he perceived as unfair treatment by the league by
declaring, “They
want it like powder puff to where you can just run around and
score points ‘cause

that’s going to attract the fans” (Rosenberg, 2012).
Harrison was at the forefront of these criticisms, even
threatening at one point to
retire. Although his retirement threat barely lasted longer than a
day, the football
media was quick to criticize him. In an article titled “Memo to
Harrison: Go ahead
and quit the NFL,” Orange County Register’s Earl Bloom
(2010) invokes many of
the framing tactics found in later coverage of Harrison. He
declares Harrison to be
a “reckless, dangerous man” who “doesn’t care about the lives
and livelihoods of
his competitors.” Further, in a caption to a photo of Harrison,
the article accuses
Harrison of “headhunting” and posits that he does not
“understand” the conse-
quences of his actions.
Despite some criticism of Harrison’s recalcitrant attitude toward
the fines and
emphasis on safety in the aftermath of “Black and Blue
Sunday,” much of the sports
media seriously engaged with Harrison’s early criticism of the

NFL. Many articles
focused primarily on the dry mechanics of Harrison’s fines or
engaged with larger
discussions about safety and violence in the NFL, of which
Harrison’s viewpoint
was widely shared. This can be seen in the numerous articles in
which Harrison’s
teammates and coaches defended him. Even the owner of the
Steelers, Art Rooney,
questioned the fines and penalties levied on Harrison and
spurred debate over how
football should be played. However, as Harrison continued to
rack up penalties and
fines through November and December 2010, the narrative
began to shift, with
Harrison increasingly depicted as an angry problem child for the
NFL to deal with.
This emerging negative narrative of Harrison was cemented and
intensified on
July 13, 2011, when Men’s Journal released excerpts from a
provocative interview
with Harrison entitled “Confessions of a NFL Hitman.” The
interview, which was
conducted over several days, was full of many inflammatory

quotes from Harrison,
including negative statements about two of his teammates,
accusations of racism by
the NFL, and many profane statements about NFL commissioner
Roger Goodel
(Solotaroff, 2011). Accompanying the article was a picture of
Harrison—a vocal
gun advocate and collector—posed shirtless against a Black
background holding two
of his guns across his chest (Figure 1).
As mentioned in the positive 2009 profile of Harrison, he was
once accused of
hitting the mother of his son, though the charges were
eventually dropped. Negative
media descriptions of Harrison, however, were quick to invoke
criminal metaphors
Rugg 9
in describing the actions and mentality of Harrison. During the
infamous “Black and
Blue” Sunday from October 2010, Pro Football Talk (2010), one
of the heaviest
trafficked football sites on the web, ran a story with the

headline, “James Harrison
claims another victim.” Numerous times he is identified as a
“repeat offender” when
referring to his penalized hits on players (Florio, 2010a, 2010b,
2010c)
While criminal metaphors such as these are frequently used in
sports when
referring to rules and on-field actions, media reactions to
Harrison’s interview in
Men’s Journal began to use criminal metaphor in describing
Harrison’s off-field
actions and his general person. In particular, the picture of
Harrison and his guns
enabled discussions that connected Harrison to gun violence.
For instance, the
picture prompted Boston Herald writer Ron Borges (2011) to
exclaim, “Judging
by the Harrison photo and recent police reports from around the
country, NFL
owners best end the lockout soon before their players all end up
in lock-down.”
Going further, ESPN writer L. Z. Granderson (2011) ended a
lamenting editorial on
Harrison with the graph,

I guess I’m at the point where my desire for someone to be
something he’s not has
given way to accepting who he really is. Fines and suspensions
can punish, jail can
deter but eventually a person’s going to be who he is going to
be. I hope for change but
accept people may not. If Harrison was reported arrested
tomorrow, I doubt anyone
would be shocked. He’s projected that kind of image
In continuingly describing Harrison’s on-field behavior as
criminal and drawing
criminal interpretations from his interview photo, a slippage
occurred that
allowed many in the media to re-interpret Harrison’s on-field
actions as
“reckless” and “dangerous,” and as troubling manifestations of
an intentionally
Figure 1. Confessions of an NFL Hitman.
criminal mind-set, not as the necessary machinations of a
hegemonic masculi-

nity previously celebrated by the league and its fans. The Men’s
Journal inter-
view enabled Harrison to become marked as a criminal visually
(through the
accompanying photo) and mentally (through the vitriol of his
responses). In
many ways, the Men’s Journal article became the ex post facto
explanation
of Harrison’s entire career.
In addition to positioning Harrison as having a criminal mind-
set, the media
repeatedly positioned Harrison as a child through the use of
metaphor. In November
2010, after being penalized for a hit on Saints’ quarterback
Drew Brees, Harrison
met with Roger Goodell to discuss the NFL’s agenda against
illegal hits. In a short
and mundane news item on the meeting, Florio (2010d) attached
the headline,
“James Harrison gets called to the Principal’s Office.” After the
Men’s Journal
interview, the child comparisons came back in even greater
numbers. The princi-
pal/student metaphor reappeared in a July 13, 2011, article by

Fox Sports Ohio
reporter Zac Jackson (2011) who stated that Harrison was “no
stranger to a trip to
the principal’s office.” Also, Harrison’s obsession with
cartoons, positively seen as
an escape from the stress of the world in his 2009 ESPN profile,
became the basis for
a Washington Times article that compared Harrison to Elmer
Fudd and argued that
he lives in a “cartoon world” (Daly, 2011).
The most egregious example of the infantilization of Harrison
can be found in an
article in the Orlando Sentinel by Owens (2011). The article,
“James Harrison needs
to be responsible with the truth,” begins with an anecdote about
how one of the first
lessons parents teach a child is to tell the truth, before leading
into the statement,
“Ladies and gentlemen, meet the man-child otherwise known as
James Harrison.”
The article maintains the child motif for the length of the story,
culminating in the
author comparing the “filter” of Harrison to that of a 3-year old.

In addition to the use of child metaphors in describing
Harrison’s actions and
comments, Harrison’s mental stability and level of intellect are
repeatedly ques-
tioned. He is depicted as “without a clue” (Bloom, 2010),
“stupidly” (Borges, 2011),
“looking like an idiot” (Fox, 2011), and a man who “could not
get from thought A to
thought B without demeaning this person or ridiculing that one”
(Lopresti, 2011).
Florio (2010e) at Pro Football Talk repeatedly questioned
Harrison’s understanding
of the game, sarcastically detailing the rules and concluding
with “it’s as simple as
that,” and suggesting that a Steelers coach needs to teach the 8-
year veteran “the
rules of the game.” The demeaning, or ignoring, of Black
intelligence has long been
a technique of racism. In sports, in particular, many scholars
have shown how
representations of Black and White athletes often invoke
descriptive binaries that
situate the Black athlete as athletic and the White athlete as
intelligent. While many

of these studies refer to in-game descriptions of athletes, they
are still cultural
descriptors that place players within larger cultural frameworks
based on race and
would thus work to guide and inform off-field representations
of athletes (L. R.
Davis & Harris, 2002; Rada & Wulfemeyer, 2005; Van
Sterkenburg, Knoppers, &
De Leeuw, 2010).
Rugg 11
Harrison’s mental maturity was also challenged in the form of
his sanity. Jackson
(2011) called Harrison “a little bit nuts” and suggested that he
might be “genuinely
crazy.” Brinson (2011) of CBS Sports declared that Harrison
had taken a “spin over
into crazytown.” The Rap Sheet (2011), a sports blog for the
Boston Herald, easily
provided the most explicit use of the descriptor, headlining an
article about Harri-
son’s interview with the title, “Steelers LB James Harrison,
possibly crazy, says a

bunch of crazy about everyone.”
Frequently in the coverage of Harrison, columnists made
allusions to how
Harrison’s interview did contain legitimate criticisms. However,
those criticisms
could never be addressed because of the incivility in which
Harrison presented
them. Lopresti (2011) of USA Today accused Harrison of using
“flamethrower
rhetoric” that could only be defended by “those whose bar for
civility is no higher
than an anthill.” Kerry Byrne (2011) of Sports Illustrated said
Harrison “took a
machete to sports etiquette.” Freeman (2011) of CBS Sports
stated, in an article
generally approving of Harrison’s critiques, that Harrisons’ lack
of filter prevented
him “from being taken seriously.” NBC Sports’ Mike Florio
(2011) echoed similar
feelings, stating “If Harrison could confine his comments to
those points and avoid
reckless accusations and name calling, Harrison’s views would
be taken far more
seriously.”

The discursive constructions of Harrison as negatively
exceptional were fur-
ther reinforced by coverage that continually emphasized
Harrison’s disconnect
with his teammates and other NFL players. Indeed, much of the
reaction to the
Harrison interview centered on Harrison’s attacks on his fellow
players and
gauging negative responses to the interview by current and
former players on
other teams. Harrison was repeatedly criticized for not being in
a “team frame of
mind” during the interview, with Burton (2011) even
questioning whether his
teammates would “take it out on him.” The NFL Network (2011)
aired a group
discussion segment entitled “Has Harrison lost his teammates
with his words?”
Other reporters wondered whether Harrison would even be
invited to teammate
Ben Roethlisberger’s wedding (he was). Reactions to Harrison’s
comments by
current and former players were collected by many reporters,
with much news

being made of former Steelers player Jerome Bettis’ comments
that he was
“disappointed” in Harrison (Smith, 2011). Brooks (2011) of The
Washington
Post’s “The Early Lead” blog even ran an article titled “James
Harrison’s
incendiary comments drawing ire of fellow NFL players” that
contained screen-
shots of critical tweets of Harrison from only two players in
addition to a
fictional dialogue the author envisioned between Harrison and
Roethlisberger.
However, despite the preponderance of articles on Harrison’s
falling out with
teammates and players around the league, there was very little
evidence of
actual fallout between Harrison and the player fraternity. In
fact, Harrison’s
teammates continually defended him in the aftermath of the
interview, and some
articles even emphasized that many players around the league
quietly shared
Harrison’s feelings about Roger Goodell (Fox, 2011).

Conclusion
Ultimately, the handling of James Harrison by the league and
the subsequent media
coverage by the sports media represent an early indicator of the
ways in which the
NFL and its media partners would attempt to keep an unstable
compromise—to
preserve the league as a favored producer of violent masculine
identities while
simultaneously absolving itself of the consequences of those
identities. With James
Harrison, the league and its media partners were able to do this
by pinning the
negative consequences of violent football masculinities on a
reimagined represen-
tation of Harrison based on preexisting frames of Black
criminality and mental
instability and immaturity.
Thus, the disciplining of Harrison represented a hegemonic
negotiation aimed to
preserve football as a realm of (White) masculine dominance.

As Enck-Wanzer
(2009) argues, certain aspects of violent masculinity, such as
domestic abuse, violent
crime, and debilitating injuries, are rhetorically expunged from
the whole of mas-
culinity by casting them off as machinations of deviant,
criminalized, racialized
bodies. This is now occurring in the NFL, with the increasing
amount of medical
evidence suggesting that football is an inherently debilitating
enterprise to those who
play it. Moving forward, it is most likely that the most violent
and damaging hits of
football will increasingly be depicted as abnormal occurrences
of deviant players
rather than the consequences of a sport that has historically
cultivated an expression
of masculinity based on the use of violence as a tool of
domination and an expression
of power.
Importantly, Harrison’s actions, style of play, and demeanor
remained consistent
through the shift in coverage from a masculine ideal to an out-
of-control deviant.

Rather, it was his recalcitrance regarding the rules and his
subsequent refusal to
acquiesce to punishment from the league and admonishment
from sports media that
affected the shift. In doing so, the qualities he possessed which
previously drew him
much acclaim—his aggression, stubbornness, and
confrontational approach—
became threatening and unacceptable marks of deviance.
Regardless of the ques-
tionable efficacy of the new rules, the upheaval they required in
individual defensive
players’ approach to playing the game, or the culpability of the
league’s investment
in constructing and promoting the masculine identity which
Harrison embodied, the
new rules reflected a “new normal” that players were expected
to follow. More
importantly, they stood as a reassertion of the league’s
perceived right to legislate,
control, and dictate the behaviors of its players.
The rearticulation of Harrison, then, reveals the fragility of
positive Black athlete

portrayals in media. With such a broad gamut of negative
representations available,
from those based in weakness, laziness, and unintelligence to
those based in aggres-
sion, passion, and individuality, the depiction of Black athletes
is conditional more
than it is illustrative. The shifting relationship between the NFL
and violence amid
the emergence of CTE produced new masculine formations
within the sport that
Harrison did not align with. Without the accompanying support
of broader gender
Rugg 13
hierarchies within the sport, Harrison’s actions quickly
reemerged as a front in the
larger struggle over White control over Black sporting bodies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Anderson, E., & Kian, E. M. (2012). Examining media
contestation of masculinity and head
trauma in the National Football League. Men and Masculinities,
15, 152–173.
Anderson, L. C., & Rainey, A. A. (2017). Exploring the
relationship between sports fandom
and the Black criminal stereotype. Communication and Sport.
Advance online publication.
Andrews, V. L. (1996). Black bodies—White control: The
contested terrain of sportsmanlike
conduct. Journal of African American Men, 2, 33–59.
Belson, K. (2017, October 24). For Ravens’ John Urschel,
playing in the N.F.L. no longer
adds up. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com
Benson, P. (2017). Big football: Corporate social responsibility
and the culture and color of
injury in America’s most popular sport. Journal of Sport and
Social Issue, 41, 307–334.
Birrell, S., & McDonald, M. G. (Eds.). (2000). Reading sport:

Critical essays on power and
representation. Lebanon, NH: UPNE.
Bloom, E. (2010, October 22). Memo to Harrison: Go ahead and
quit the NFL. The Orange
Country Register. Retrieved from www.ocregister.com
Borges, R. (2011, July 14). James Harrison stupidly has guns
blazing. Boston Herald.
Retrieved from www.bostonherald.com
Brinson, W. (2011, July 13). James Harrison targeted for being
James Harrison. CBS Sports.
Retrieved from www.cbssports.com
Brooks, M. (2011, July 13). James Harrison’s incendiary
comments drawing ire of fellow
NFL players. The Early Lead. Retrieved from
www.washingtonpost.com
Broussard, C. (2014, November 13). LeBron: No football in my
house. ESPN. Retrieved from
www.espn.com
Burton, N. (2011, July 14). NFL great Bettis disappointed in
James Harrison’s controversial
comments. The Root. Retrieved from www.theroot.com
Butterworth, M. L. (2012). Militarism and memorializing at the

Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children withand Withou.docx

Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children withand Withou.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children withand Withou.docx

Similar to Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children withand Withou.docx (8)

More from mecklenburgstrelitzh

More from mecklenburgstrelitzh (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Exposure to Media Violence and Young Children withand Withou.docx