13 May 2025 Mediated violence: What price accountability?

Philip Lee

Is there a connection between sustained exposure to representations of violence in the media – as one factor among many complex societal influences – and violence against women? If so, what can be done to transform attitudes and policies? And what about social media platforms and digital technologies?

In 2007, an article published in the Journal of Adolescent Health assessed some 45 years of research suggesting that exposure to violence in television, movies, video games, cell phones, and on the Internet increases the risk of violent behaviour on the viewer’s part – just as growing up in an environment filled with real violence increases the risk of behaving violently.¹ Its conclusion was unequivocal:

“Exposure to electronic media violence increases the risk of children and adults behaving aggressively in the short-run and of children behaving aggressively in the long-run. It increases the risk significantly, and it increases it as much as many other factors that are considered public health threats. As with many other public health threats, not every child who is exposed to this threat will acquire the affliction of violent behavior, and many will acquire the affliction who are not exposed to the threat. However, that does not diminish the need to address the threat [emphasis added].”

The following year, the American psychologist John P. Murray summarized decades of research on children’s social development stating, “Fifty years of research on the effect of TV violence on children leads to the inescapable conclusion that viewing media violence is related to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behaviours.”² The article argued that changes in aggression are both short-term and long-term and may be affected by neurological changes in the young viewer. Research evidence by various scientific and professional organizations concerned with children’s mental health and development has confirmed the effects of violence portrayed in the media.

In 2013, the US not-for-profit Common Sense Media (CSM) published a summary report reviewing scientific research about violence in the media and its possible effects on aggressive behaviour.³ CSM provides parents, educators, health organizations, and policymakers with reliable, independent data on children’s use of media and technology and the impact it has on their physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development.

The report identified six broad areas of concern: television content, video game content, social media and other online content, music content, movie content, and advertising violent media to children. Published in the aftermath of the 2012 mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, Connecticut, the report paid particular attention to the role that violent media might have played in such tragic incidents:

“Most researchers… reject the idea that any single factor can ‘cause’ an otherwise nonviolent individual to become violent, particularly when it comes to violence on the scale of a massacre. Rather, they speak in terms of a variety of factors that increase the risk that an individual will behave violently” (p. 11).

At the same time, the report cautions that cross-media studies – controlled for age, gender, and several other variables but not for exposure to family violence – indicate that children who watch violent movies and TV or who play violent video games imitate aggressive scripts, condone violence, believe the world is a hostile place, become emotionally desensitized to violence, and lose empathy for victims.

There are, of course, multiple factors in play (called moderators or interaction effects) that influence whether and to what extent violent media affect viewers. These are also impacted by “reciprocal” relationships in which those with aggressive tendencies seek out more violent media content, leading over time to a “cycle of influence” or “downward spiral”. The report underlines that such risk factors do not operate in isolation and usually exist in clusters.

The report concludes that longitudinal studies have shown that there are “reasons to be concerned that viewing (or playing) violent content increases the chance that a child will engage in violent behaviour in later life – especially if the child is aggressive to begin with and especially if other risk factors are present” (p. 17).

Several interesting points are made in an article in the British medical journal The Lancet published in 2017, which argued that the link between violent media and aggression among children and teenagers is both well established and widely misunderstood.⁴ It noted research on youth communication using social media, “where real-world trauma often plays out online and online aggression can trigger real-world violence” (p. 92).

The article advises clinicians, parents, and teachers who wish to help reduce the negative effects of violent media on children and adolescents to start “by becoming educated about the research evidence” since the entertainment industry knows it is marketing a harmful product and – like the tobacco industry – wants people to believe that the scientific evidence is inconclusive.

Nevertheless, many scholars of media and human behaviour agree that media violence – film, TV, video games – increases aggression, but they disagree about its impact on violent or criminal behaviour. Pinpointing a direct causal relationship between media and violent crime remains elusive. Sociologists and criminologists are sceptical that those who commit violent crimes are motivated solely by media violence, but they are apt to concede that media may be influential in shaping how some offenders commit a crime.

In a lengthy review of whether media portrayals of violence are a serious problem and, if so, how society should respond, Nickie D. Phillips writes:

“Criminologists and sociologists are generally reluctant to attribute violence and criminal behaviour directly to exposure to violence media. They are, however, not dismissive of the impact of media on attitudes, social policies, and social control as evidenced by the myriad of studies on moral panics and other research that addresses the relationship between media, social anxieties, gender, race, and class inequalities.”⁵

This is the well-trodden ground of the potential links between violence in media content and violent behaviour in society, including the usual caveats regarding correlation vs causation, complex social factors etc. Today, however, there are powerfully direct influences in the form of digital platforms and social media, which operate differently from the “legacy media” with which communicators and sociologists were previously concerned.

We now know that social media have the potential to damage, for example, democratic processes, public understanding of social issues, and gender relationships. Algorithms skew content towards whatever corporate promoters think will gain them the most profit. As a result, people’s views of what is “normal” or “acceptable” are often dictated by what gets the most hits or “clicks”, including what is extreme and/or violent. In this way social media serve to amplify or reinforce prejudice and hatred.

In the context of digitalisation today, we need to revisit the connections between sustained exposure to representations of violence on mediated platforms and both online and offline violence, especially violence against women. In this respect, we also need to challenge and transform public attitudes and national policies.

Violence against women

The media’s role in perpetuating gender-based violence against women (VAW) is acknowledged in international instruments such as the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA), which recommends, among other actions aimed at eliminating such violence, awareness-raising on the important role of the media in informing and educating people about the causes and effects of violence against women and in stimulating public debate on the topic. According to UN Women:

“The Platform for Action imagines a world where each woman and girl can exercise her freedoms and choices, and realize all her rights, such as to live free from violence, to go to school, to participate in decisions and to earn equal pay for equal work.” ⁶

The BPfA’s Section J called on government agencies and civil society to increase the participation and access of women to expression and decision-making in and through the media and new technologies of communication; and to promote a balanced and non-stereotyped portrayal of women in the media.

Section D of the Beijing Platform for Action called for integrated measures to prevent and eliminate violence against women (VAW); research into the causes and consequences of violence against women and the effectiveness of preventive measures; and the elimination of trafficking in women and assistance for victims of violence due to prostitution and trafficking. However, both sections J and D of the BPFA, despite occasional references to information and communication technologies (ICTs), were essentially concerned with the same “legacy” media that provoked concerns about violent content and its likely impact.

In May 2022, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information issued a Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Gender Justice.

The Declaration noted that, “eliminating discrimination against women requires a ‘whole of society’ approach. States, the private sector and civil society should work together to address discrimination, stereotyping and interpretations of culture, religion and tradition that subordinate and disempower women and are a root cause of sexual and gender-based violence as well as gendered censorship.”

The Declaration underlined that, “The prohibition against sexual and gender-based violence applies online as well as offline. Online violence against women has particular significance for freedom of expression as it encompasses harmful speech as well as behaviour facilitated by digital technology, including threats of physical or sexual violence, online bullying and stalking, doxing, harassment, targeted electronic surveillance, coercion and non-consensual exposure of intimate images.”

It also stated that, “Gendered disinformation that does not constitute incitement to violence or hatred should be addressed through non-legal and multi-stakeholder strategies implemented by States, companies and civil society, including public education, community awareness, digital, media and information literacy, de-incentivising the spread of disinformation on social media platforms, fact-checking and fostering of diverse and credible sources of information including independent media, and legal, social and digital safety support to empower and build the resilience of those at risk.”

The contemporary “information environment” – those places people see and hear themselves and discover information/disinformation – is more interconnected, more pervasive, and more open to abuse than it ever was in the past because of the prevalence of digital technologies. It offers a confusing ambience of news, films, documentaries, novels, reality TV, soap operas, magazines, advertisements, and a perplexity of social media platforms. How are issues of gender (in)equality represented in these media and how do they influence each other to contribute to violence against women?

A recent scientific study concluded:

“The level of gender equality in the media is to some extent linked to gender equality in the society as a whole, specifically gender equality legislation and gender awareness in general within societies… In media legal frameworks where gender equality is referred to, the focus is most often on women’s representation in media content, particularly when it comes to combatting or avoiding sexist prejudices and stereotypes. Proper and proportionate provisions might be considered in this area provided they do not interfere with media freedom in the right to freedom of expression.”⁷

Many studies and articles have appeared on digital/social media, especially in relation to the safety of journalists, hate speech, and harassment. In 2021, the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) published The Chilling: A global study of online violence against women journalists.⁸ It stated unequivocally:

“Online violence against women journalists is one of the most serious contemporary threats to press freedom internationally. It aids and abets impunity for crimes against journalists, including physical assault and murder. It is designed to silence, humiliate, and discredit. It inflicts very real psychological injury, chills public interest journalism, kills women’s careers and deprives society of important voices and perspectives” (p.8).

Such research demonstrates that the problem of online violence has been repeatedly identified, but that the implementation of corrective measures has been painfully slow. In today’s societies, the many ways violence (physical, psychological, hate speech, disinformation) against women are mediated (traditional media, social media, and digital platforms) – need to be monitored and remedies (legal, regulatory, and public pressure) formulated for what Lucina Di Meco calls “actionable steps and evidence-based recommendations for traditional and social media outlets, policy-makers, political parties and women politicians for changing the narrative around women and power and promoting more gender-inclusive democracies.”⁹

Digital technologies and social media

The UN Pact for the Future, finalised in September 2024, commits to ensuring that science, technology and innovation improve gender equality and the lives of all women and girls. It pledges to “Address gender-related risks and challenges emerging from the use of technologies, including all forms of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, trafficking in persons, harassment, bias and discrimination against all women and girls that occur through or are amplified by the use of technology, including against women migrant workers” (p. 22).

The Pact’s annexed “Global Digital Compact” is more specific. “We must urgently counter and address all forms of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, which occurs through or is amplified by the use of technology, all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation, cyberbullying and child sexual exploitation and abuse. We will establish and maintain robust risk mitigation and redress measures that also protect privacy and freedom of expression” (p. 44).

Similarly, the Pact’s annexed “Declaration on Future Generations” calls for “policies and programmes to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence, harassment and abuse against women and girls, including sexual and gender-based violence, and ensure women’s full, equal and meaningful participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in all spheres of society” (p. 54).

Despite these laudable aims, there are major gaps in research, legislation, and regulation in relation to violence in the media, particularly regarding the role of social media platforms, and digital technologies. Many countries are taking positive – if contested – steps in response. The UK’s “Online Safety Act 2023” aims to protect children and adults online, imposing new duties on social media companies and search services to make them more responsible for users’ safety on their platforms. Australia has passed the “Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024”, mandating a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts, and requiring platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent users under 16 from having accounts. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to AUD $50 million.

Media companies are beginning to take the issue seriously. In the United Kingdom, the television series Adolescence (2025) has provoked public debate about what happens when boys – vulnerable, isolated, and struggling to understand their role in a rapidly changing world – fall prey to the toxic ideas peddled by influencers and online communities. In the USA, Can’t Look Away: The Case Against Social Media (2025) is a two-part documentary exposing the real-life consequences of the algorithms of Big Tech companies and their impact on children and teens. It explores “How social media addiction can harm – even kill – kids”, and online safety “The dark side of social media”.

Media literacy for children, adolescents, and adults is vital in tackling the potential harm that social media platforms can encourage. But that leaves the larger question of a media environment that extols and, therefore, normalises violence on screen and in society. It also begs the question of today’s agents of moral formation. They used to be parents, schools, and societal norms, but in an age when political leaders have abandoned moral precepts, when corporate entities have placed profit above lives, when religions have lost moral credibility, we have to ask, “What price accountability?”

What is lacking are:

• evidence-based policy ideas and reforms to tackle these challenges and to support positive change;
• new frameworks for making the beneficiaries of the digital media economies accountable;
• open conversations between adults and young people, together with increased social media literacy among parents so they can better understand the pressures their children face online.

There is an urgent need for legislation and policies to halt the unchecked spread of technology-facilitated gender-based violence, to regulate depictions of violence against women, and to guarantee the future psychological and physical safety of children and adolescents. These aspirations will ring hollow if another decade is allowed to pass without concrete actions and measurable results by organizations and governments the world over.

Notes

1. Huesmann, L. Rowell (2007). “The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research.” In Journal of Adolescent Health, December; 41(6 Suppl 1): S6–13.

2. Murray, J. P. (2008). “Media violence: The effects are both real and strong.” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol 51 Issue 8, April, pp. 1212–1230.

3. Media and Violence: An Analysis of Current Research. Common Sense Media. Winter 2013.

4. Furlow, Bryant (2017). “Media violence and youth aggression.” The Lancet, Child & Adolescent Health. Vol. 1 October 2017, pp. 91-92.

5. Phillips, Nickie D. (2017). “Violence, Media Effects, and Criminology”. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.189. Published online 27 July 2017.

6. Beijing Platform for Action.

7. Sarah Macharia and Joan Barata Mir (2022). Global Study: Gender Equality and Media Regulation. Fojo, Linnaeus University.

8. https://www.icfj.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/ICFJ%20Unesco_TheChilling_OnlineViolence.pdf

9. Lucina Di Meco (2019). #ShePersisted. Women, Politics and Power in the New Media World.

Philip Lee is General Secretary of the World Association for Christian Communication (WACC) and Editor of its international quarterly journal Media Development. His publications include Many Voices, One Vision: The Right to Communicate in Practice (ed.) (2004); Public Memory, Public Media, and the Politics of Justice (ed. with Pradip N. Thomas) (2012);  and Expanding Shrinking Communication Spaces (ed. with Lorenzo Vargas) (2020).