This document discusses how violence in news media can cultivate perceptions of the world as mean and scary in heavy viewers. It analyzes research showing news frequently emphasizes crime and violence more than actual rates. Studies found media exposure accounts for children's knowledge of violence even in low-crime areas. Heavy viewing is linked to outcomes like "mean world syndrome," defined as seeing the world as exceedingly dangerous. While tragic events receive coverage, this focus on violence and fear may fuel disproportionate public panic out of line with actual risks and realities.

1. The Mean World Syndrome:
An Analysis of Violence in the News and its Consequences
Madeline Rawicki
Sociology 484, Field Experiences
August 1, 2012

2. Part 1-Introduction:
“If it bleeds, it leads.” This common quote describes a media saturated with tragedy and
violence, a media that overemphasizes disturbing occurrences and shows mostly death, crime,
and brutality. Why does the news show a world so much scarier than it is in reality? This is
because society has become obsessed with madness. It is evident that people want sensational
stories, but this kind of television comes with a price, so what is the consequence?
“The People you Know, the News you Trust,” is the slogan for KBTX Media. They
strive to inform the public of real news happening in the area. Their mission statement includes
“commitment and dedication to responsible reporting and community involvement.” This
statement begs an important query; what determines responsible reporting? Is it just the
breaking news or does it include “gems” and other happy stories? Are viewers being informed
of only what they want to hear or of everything happening in the area? In fact, who are the
viewers and what do they want? These inquiries combine to ask a more encompassing
question:
Does the amount of violence and calamity in the news cultivate the “mean world syndrome” in
some heavy viewers, meanwhile desensitizing others to the reality of the tragedies and their
consequences?
KBTX News targets a specific population at the time in which I am in the station: stay-at-
home moms. This is the large portion of the public remaining in the vicinity of television while
their kids are at school and wondering how to protect their loved ones. KBTX serves to inform

3. these viewers of danger in the area so that this protection can be fruitful. But where is the line
drawn regarding the amount of violence shown? At what point, if ever, will these mothers cross
the mark from protective to over protective? Later news shows target a larger population, such
as the six and ten o’clock news aimto inform the working public. Here in College Station, it is
mostly families that watch the news, even though there are so many college students in the
area. Further research attempts to determine if there is a consequence to heavy violence in the
media, and if so, to what extent it affects these viewers.
Part 2-Research Analysis:
“Media is saturated with violence” (Diorio 2010: 61). This is apparent. It seems that
every program on TV includes some type of violent content, and it is therefore getting more
and more difficult to escape. The main focus here is not general media but rather news
programming, and even more specifically, local news. After surveying groups in three regions
of the United States, Scharrer found that “Crime is the most frequently included topic in both
local and national television news” (Scharrer 2008: 292). Morgan studied this same topic and
states that “local news is heavily consumed with messages of crime and violence in viewers’
local communities,” and furthers this idea with a claim that the amount of content is “unrelated
to actual crime rates” (Morgan 2010: 342). This solicits yet another question, is the violence
shown in the news representative of real-life rates of crime and violence?
Smolej set out to prove or disprove this inquiry and discovered that media does in fact
show more crime than what is representational of actual occurrences. “Crime reporting has
increased while the actual level of criminality and victimization has remained stable” (Smolej

4. 2006: 211). In a particular study regarding kidnapping in the news, Wilson found that although
child abductions seem to be on the rise because of their media exposure, “statistics indicate
that kidnapping constitutes less than 2% of all violent crimes in the U.S. targeted against
children under the age of 18” (Wilson 2005: 47). These studies validate the fact that news, like
other media, is increasing in violence and brutality, and the entire viewing population is in
danger of the consequences.
People of all ages come in contact with the news. It is available by way of newspaper,
Internet, and most relatable to this discussion, television. “Television is the medium with which
most people spend their time with in recent years” (Citak 2009: 268). Citak further describes
which viewers are more likely to be impacted by news content. The journal discusses heavy
versus light viewing and claiming that those who watch TV more frequently will bear the
greater consequences. Because such a vast majority of the population watches TV regularly,
mass media has become “the carrier and transmitter of culture” (Citak 2009: 268). Morgan
agrees with Citak in saying that people “spend even more time watching” because of the
convenience of television, and it “still dominates the flow of words and information that pass
by our eyes and ears each day” (Morgan 2010: 350). This culture is heavily affecting those new
to the real world, as Cairns, Wilson, and Van der Molen all discuss media’s effect on children.
Cairns conducted a study concerning boys and girls in three different areas: one with a
high crime rate, another with a low crime rate and a sample area with little to no crime. The
children’s perceptions of the violence in their towns were measured in relation to how much
news they watch. The most accurate perceptions were in areas of high violence, so to Cairns, it
appeared that higher news exposure “accounts for the fact that even children living in parts of

5. the country virtually untouched by actual violence have reasonably detailed knowledge of it”
(Cairns 1990: 2).
Wilson discusses specific effects on three different age groups, young elementary, older
elementary, and adolescent. Because each group is affected differently due to various levels of
cognitive ability, Wilson believes that “more theoretical attention should be devoted to how
specific news stories are likely to be processed at different points in cognitive development”
(Wilson 2005: 49). Because of this stratification, the children respond to different topics and
begin to believe fallacies. Van der Molen agrees that “children of all ages may be regularly
confronted with highly distressing and violent accounts of murders, catastrophic accidents, war,
and other suffering,” (Van der Molen 2004: 1771) and begins to explain its direct impact.
“Studies have shown that more realistic portrayals of violence may heighten levels of
involvement and aggression, immediate fright reactions, fear of the world as a scary place, and
desensitization” (Van der Molen 2004: 1772).
A viewer is impacted through the cultivation of ideas and culture planted into his or her
brain through various media outlets. Morgan describes this state of cultivation more simply,
explaining, “those who spend more time watching television are more likely to perceive the real
world in ways that reflect the most common and recurrent messages of the world of fictional
television” (Morgan 2010: 337). In order for an individual to bear the consequences discussed,
this cultivation theory must be valid. The fact that each journal analyzed describes that viewers
were impacted in some way, proves that the hypothesis is accurate in most cases. Cultivation is
analyzed through the “study of the relationships between institutional processes, message
systems, and the public assumptions, images, and policies they cultivate” (Morgan 2010: 338).

6. The intensity of the cultivation can be, as Smolej predicts, enhanced in four ways. These
hyphotheses are substitution, resonance, vulnerability and affinity.
Subsitution, described as affecting mostly the elderly, explains “the less personal
experience of crime that a recipient has, the greater is the effect of the media on feelings of
fear” (Smolej 2006: 213). This idea that those who don’t encounter violence personally will be
more swayed by the news was found to be inconsistent throughout the study. The latter
hypotheses of resonance, vulnerability and affinity proved to be more promising. One will
experience greater media effects due to resonance when what is shown on TV “more
comprehensively reflects personal experiences” (213). Vulnerability plays a large role based on
“the subjective evaluation of the statistical likelihood for a person to be victimized” (213).
Finally, affinity expresses its effects when the viewer finds “similarity in experience with the
presented victim” to him or herself. (214) These can all work to reduce or enhance a viewers
amount of cultivation, and although this cultivation encompasses a wide spectrum of
outcomes, two embodiments were specifically analyzed, the “Mean World Syndrome” and
desensitization.
The “fear of the world as a scary place” that Van der Molen refers to describes a term
coined by George Gerbner that Dioro analyzes extensively, the “Mean World Syndrome.” It is
defined by Gerbner, and re-expressed by Diorio as the consequence of heavy viewing that
causes individuals to “see the world as an exceedingly scary place and to become very fearful of
becoming the victim of an act of violence” (Diorio 2010: 61). This syndrome is found by many
to be the consequence of exposure to brutality in media and news programming.

7. An article titled Violence and the Media, regarding adolescents’ reaction to violent
content on television claims, “18 percent of high school students now carry a knife, razor,
firearm, or other weapon on a regular basis, and 9 percent of them take a weapon to school”
(1999: 266). Another example, as discussed before, is Wilson’s study of fright reactions to
kidnappings in the news, which refers to sociologist Barry Glassner’s idea that “such media
coverage fuels our collective fear of kidnapping, which [Glassner] calls ‘one of America’s most
enduring but fallacious panics’” (Wilson 2005: 47). Although tragic, this panic is fallacious
because the fear is based off of the amount of abductions shown in the news and not the
amount in real life. Wilson studies fright reactions in more depth, based upon the age of
viewers.
Wilson found that older elementary-school children are most frightened by kidnapping
stories because this age is “more frightened of stories involving crime and violence” (Wilson
2005: 50). This counters the partly supported theory that “younger elementary school-children
are more frightened of news stories involving natural disasters and accidents,” and this is
because those stories are “often accompanied by graphic video footage” (50). This is due to the
earlier discussed differences in cognitive abilities of these children. Age isn’t the only factor
producing fear for these children, but also the amount of viewing and the “idea that heavy
viewers of television perceive the world as a more dangerous place than do light viewers” (63).
This is the Mean World Syndrome. This consequence doesn’t only affect children, either.
“Adults who watch a great deal of local news programming are more frightened and concerned
about violent crime” (51). This is when this artificial fear becomes a problem, because children

8. look to their parents for behavioral reactions, as part of the learning theory, and the fear
expands into a syndrome.
The Mean World Syndrome is an unfortunate consequence of brutality in the media, but
this effect is often short lived. A more threatening reaction is what succeeds this fear.
“Desensitization occurs through the long-term development of emotional tolerance, in which
individuals become injured through repeated exposure to violence, ultimately registering a
diminished physiological response as well as a higher threshold at which to label something as
violent and a greater tendency to think of violence as simply part of the everyday fabric of
society” (Scharrer 2008: 301). This cultivation effect is one studied by many, because of its
potentially vast impact on society.
Desensitization is almost in direct opposition to empathy, which is defined as “the
capacity to recognize, comprehend, and re-experience another person’s emotions” (Scharrer
2008: 292). Empathy is what connects mankind to feel for one another and to dignify humanity.
Without this, people will become selfish and unsupportive of each other. “Violence on scene
excludes human item and human is converted to objects of facts like murder and massacre”
(Citak 2009: 269). This violence that Citak refers to is more displayed on television than in
reality. Because of its high prevalence in the media, viewers are subject to “develop an attitude
that violence is normative” and could then “become desensitized and callous to violence in real
life” (269).
This process of desensitization is a slow and not so obvious one. “Desensitization to
violence is a subtle, almost incidental process which may occur as a result of repeated exposure
to real-life violence, as well as from exposure to media violence” (Funk 2004: 25). Funk sees

9. that this consequence can come from media violence, as what has been discussed, but also
from real-life violence. An important question surfaces from this idea: what causes what?
“The question of cause and effect is a delicate one; therefore, one must be cautious in
asserting that television news viewing caused rather than resulted from more accurate
perception levels of violence” (Cairns 1990: 4). The casual direction hasn’t yet been fully
established, so more studies do need to be completed. Although the cultivation theory has
been heavily supported, it has never focused solely on news media. “It is presumable that the
relationship between media and fear of crime is not one-dimensional or mechanic but depends
on several conditional factors” (Smolej 2006: 212).
One major criticismof George Gerbner’s cultivation theory targets his specific idea of
mainstreaming, as defined, “the sharing of that commonality among heavy viewers in those
demographic groups whose light viewers hold divergent views” (Van den Bulck 2003: 290-291).
Van den Bulck believes that Gerbner’s studies are dangerously close to the idea of the
regression to the mean. Which is an effect of surveys that “occurs because a group contains
elements which are extreme ‘by accident,’ because of random effects” (292). The regression is
an accidental reaction to a pre/post-test way of conducting studies that leads to a false sense of
commonality among answers and participants. Gerbner’s idea of mainstreaming regards the
similarities in perceptions of those who watch a lot of television, struggling, in Van den Bulck’s
mind, to prove a theory of cultivation. The error found in mainstreaming is the lack of proof of
the cause of the parallel opinions. Van den Bulck compares it to regression of the mean
because he believes the original sample studied was chosen on grounds that forced light
viewers to have very different opinions and heavy viewers to have similar ones. This ultimately

10. comes down to the fact that all cross-sectional, or one-time, surveys have a high danger of
being flawed in a way that can show signs of regressing to the mean.
These sociologists and scientists lend valid information to the research question
regarding media violence, but I found that the best research gathered is what I encountered
personally at the agency.
Part 3-Critical Analysis of the Research
The previous research has given much validity to the main question at hand, but talking
to experts and experiencing the situation first hand has allowed for a deeper understanding of
the Mean World Syndrome and the other effects of encountering violent news. I have observed
the reporters and managers at KBTX go beyond the level of fear and therefore experience
desensitization.
Based on conversations with some members of the KBTX staff, the mean world
syndrome stems from brutal news exposure. Whether this cultivates due to a “normal” amount
of viewing or because of an excess, seems unknown, but desensitization is no doubt a
consequence of overexposure. There is a very age-diverse staff at KBTX. Some reporters have
up to twenty or more years of experience than the newcomers. At the morning meetings, it is
obvious that those with more experience are able to talk of violent acts with blank stares on
their faces, or even while cracking jokes. Usually, the new reporters either laugh along
hesitantly or refer to the remarks as “insensitive.”
While shadowing reporters on interviews, I asked questions about their ultimate goals,
how they feel about the agency and their experiences. Most of what I learned proved that the

11. media does in fact have an agenda of producing sensational news, even if the amount of
violence shown is not representational of the percentage in the real world.
“Daniel” said that the supervisor always asks himto find the dilemma in a story. He is
trained to steer the interviewees into saying something negative, but always staying within the
boundaries of truth. While this is not a lie, the negativity still doesn’t span over the majority of a
population, which is not what it seems to viewers. On a different trip, “Stephanie” told me that
in busy cities, only “spot news” is covered, meaning breaking and violent news. Even though,
here in the BCS area, we don’t encounter as much spot news, the station still looks for
dilemmas and problems.
All of this violence in the news has a probable cause. Viewers want to watch exciting
and sensational news. The advertisers want viewers. Therefore, the news needs to show these
types of stories in order to get funded. Is this creating a vicious cycle? Are viewers the reason
for their own fear?
Before we answer this question of “blame,” we must answer the research question to
see if these consequences are even existent in the first place. It is apparent that hearing and
watching too much violence has an impact on a viewer. After studying articles and my
coworkers at KBTX, I have determined that this impact is in fact, in its early stages, a fear of
reality, and later, desensitization.
I have come to this conclusion based on phenomenological research as well. I was able
to experience these levels first hand throughout my time working with KBTX. At first, each joke
made at the expense of a corpse was a stab to my heart. I would read story after story of death
and pain in the area. More fatal crashes than I had heard about in all three years living in

12. College Station were reported in my first three weeks at the agency. My utter shock at the
plethora of fatalities began to lead to fear behind the wheel. I began to turn my music down
and sit closer to the wheel, so as to get a better view of the road. After hearing even more
stories about crashes, my fear turned into sighs of frustration at how this keeps happening,
until eventually, I would just add it to the list of all the others in my mind, barely batting an eye.
Stories had to get bigger and “better” in order for me to react as I would have at the beginning
of the summer. A pot bust of 3,000 plants in August would have yielded the same reaction as a
bust of 100 in May. Just today I was thinking about how this year has been so unlucky with all of
the crime and heartache, but this may be due to the fact that I am much more exposed to it
rather than an actual increase in the crime rate. This desensitization is an apparent problem,
and being able to acknowledge it within myself has allowed for its reverse back to empathy.
Whether or not this is a need for the agency is unknown to me.
Based on my observations at the agency, these consequences don’t seemto be a
problem for the staff. As mentioned before, news agencies want viewers and KBTX has an
adequate amount. This pull between the need for viewers and the problems that stem from
viewing is a sticky subject. It is not necessarily wrong of news to show these stories, but
whether or not it is a problem is not something that managers want to look into. Unfortunately,
we do live in an age where people want sensational stories and normal day to day life is
considered boring. News staff needs money just like everyone else, and if one must step on a
few toes in the process of getting the most exciting stories, then perhaps it’s what they need to
make a living. It is difficult to say who needs to first make the change, the news to show less
violence or the public to stop wanting to watch. Further research must be conducted.

13. The journals and articles analyzed spoke of a problem with causal direction. It is necessary to
discover the stem of these consequences to then make changes either with the news or with
the viewers. Scharrer, as previously referenced, mentions a need for studying more about the
impacts of resonance, vulnerability, and affinity in relation to perceptions of fear and crime in
the media. Citak also sees a need for more study. “Further research on determining the change
in the attitudes of people toward violence on TV needs to be carried out” (Citak 2009: 273).
Much more needs to be studied with relation to what Scharrer and Citak advise, before
making drastic changes. This is to protect the news agencies and their employees, but I believe
that desensitization can bring a society to ruin so these studies should be conducted
immediately. The Mean World Syndrome is a very real effect, no matter the cause, and
desensitization is an even more threatening outcome. “If it bleeds, it leads” is a dangerous way
to organize news programming because of the potentially detrimental outcomes, and both
viewers and the news won’t change until something is done to prove it.

14. References
Cairns, E. (1990). Impact of Television News Exposure on Children’s Perceptions of Violence in
Northern Ireland. Journal Of Social Psychology, 130(4), 447-452.
Citak, G. G. (2009). Constructing an Attitude Scale: Attitudes toward Violence on Television.
International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 268-273.
Diorio, G. (2010). The Mean World Syndrome: Media Violence & the Cultivation of Fear. School
Library Journal. 56(12), 61.
Funk, J. B., Baldacci, H., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure in real-life,
video games, television, movies, and the internet: is there desensitization?. Journal
Of
Adolescence, 27(1), 23.
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The State of Cultivation. Journal Of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 54(2), 337-355.
Scharrer, E. (2008). Media Exposure and Sensitivity to Violence in News Reports: Evidence of
Desensitization? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(2), 291-310.
Smolej, M., & Kivivuori, J. (2006). The Relation Between Crime News and Fear of
Violence. Journal Of Scandinavian Studies In Criminology & Crime Prevention, 7(2), 211-
227.
Van den Bulck, J. (2003). Is the Mainstreaming Effect of Cultivation an Artifact of Regression to
the Mean? Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 289-295.
Van der Molen, J. (2004). Violence and Suffering in Television News: Toward a Broader
Conception of Harmful Television Content for Children. Pediatrics. 113(6), 1771-1775.
Violence and the Media. (1999). Congressional Digest, 78(11), 266.
Wilson, B. J., Martins, N., & Marske, A. L. (2005). Children's and Parents' Fright Reactions to
Kidnapping Stories in the News. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 46-70.