Nora Ephron’s “The Boston Photographs” and Gerard Jones’ “Violent Media is Good for Kids” articles focus on violence indicated on the photos, explained by the authors in a real life situation. Gerard Jones wrote the article since he was involved in watching violent photos which significantly influenced his life. Nora Ephron embarks on criticizing journalism. Her argument is based on the work of journalists and the pictures captured in photo journalism. She argues that photo journalism is more powerful than written journalism, since most people believe in what they see. The two authors express similarities and differences in pictures and videos as they impact people’s lives. It is evident that Gerard Jones’ career was influenced by the kind of videos and pictures that he was exposed to at his early age. Jones is skeptical and highly encourages parents to have children exposed to such violence pictures as cartoons. She claims that these images enable them to control their emotions, handle their gender differences and provide a stepping stone to their future career.
However, she also acknowledges that there are a few drawbacks that are associated with violent pictures, for example, the images may influence an individual in such a way that he or she may become naturally violent. Ephron emphasizes that there should be an explicit focus on violence, particularly in media. She is against any obstacle that may hinder people from getting a clear view of the violent incidence. She argues that the role of photo journalism is to give in-depth details of what is happening, and, therefore, there should be a clear focus on every aspect of the violence. However, she does not openly focus on the negative side of exposing everything through photojournalism. There are also differences and similarities in the tone, level of readability, ethos, and logos. This paper empirically focuses on comparing and contrasting of Nora Ephron’s “The Boston Photographs” and Gerard Jones “Violent Media is Good for Kids” by considering major thoughts and responses to the topic of media violence.
Most importantly, the two authors display similarities to a great extent. In Gerard Jones’ critique, he views most pictures and some video aired in media and other photo journalism as the primary source of violence. Ephron also criticizes some pictures that were published by the US newspapers. She argues that printing pictures of dead people does not make sense in any way. Jones in his book reckons that his English teacher taught him that violence was wrong. It was something that ought to be overcome through cooperation rather than engaging in conflict. The two authors embark on presenting the fact that photos should focus on the positive purpose, but they should be taken in such a way that they trigger violence. It is clear that the two authors are against certain pictures that are taken with an intention to fuel violence. Gerard Jones also realized that violent stories are harmful to kids. It was after he heard the pop psychologist on about the same as he was urging parents to keep their kids away from junk culture.
The two authors express another similarity in that pictures should be focusing on the intended message. Ephron is against those photo journalists who do focus on the speculated photos. She argues that though printing photos of dead bodies raises attention, “death happens to be one of life’s main events”. Thus, it is inaccurate and irresponsible for newspapers not to show it. She proceeds to argue that “most papers covering fatal car accidents print pictures of mangled cars”. She is very bitter about the journalists’ approach. The author wonders why they have to focus on the twisted steel of mangled cars, while the main objective should be people dying as a result of accidents. She argues that the dead bodies should be shown, because this is what accident is about. Gerard Jones also supports this media approach. He argues that photos which are taken with such target have impacted people’s life positively. Emily is an example of a person who has been exposed to violent videos and pictures that have impacted in her positively. “As other students divide themselves along the gender lines in the field she acted out as sailor moon fights”. In her class she undertook the role of pulling girls and boys together and was able to compose herself during chaotic family situations. She possessed such character traits as invulnerability and strength, and, therefore, was able to handle adolescence with gang star rap. People who saw the photos from the fire incident had their fire escape path strengthened. Similarly, Emily is able to cope with the challenges that she encounters in her life, for example, the separation of her parents, or gender differences that exist in her school.
The two authors also express some differences. Gerard Jones acknowledges the fact that despite violence’s positive impacts, it also has negative influences. Ephron, on the other hand, does not show clearly the negative impacts of violent videos and photos. She also does no appreciate the fact that photos have limits, for example, they should appreciate the privacy of death. Her argument seems to be driven by the positive impacts of focusing on the violence pictures. Jones in his writing urged that parents try to keep their kids out of junk culture. Those moms who let their children access these videos and pictures are termed as bad moms who let their children watch cartoons and eat sugary cereal. He also points out that children use violent stories in an unhealthy manner while meeting their developmental and emotional needs. Children may also identify themselves with destructive and rebellious heroes. He concludes by saying that violent entertainment has inspired individuals to real life violence. Ephron is prejudiced in his critiques, he strongly advocates focusing on violence pointing out that it is important, however, he is not open enough to point out the predicaments associated with it. For example, he does not take the photo when the girl is hitting down, because he does not want the results to be associated with the violent pictures. He is also protecting all photographers who are taking violent and dehumanizing photos claiming that they are a reflection of the truth and people should be allowed to see. He claims that “the pictures are classics, old fashioned, but perfect examples of photojournalism at its most spectacular”. He supports those newspapers that depict photos invading the privacy of death. Additionally, he argues that photojournalism should expose everything, and that is the reason why it is more powerful than written journalism.
The authors also express differences in the way they use ethos, logos, and pathos. Ethos refers to the convincing character of the author, image, or a narrator. For something to possess ethos, it must be credible and ethically appealing. Therefore, ethos is an artistic proof or mode of persuasion. Gerard Jones uses stronger ethos than Nora Ephron, since his pictures are of high clarity. Someone watching these pictures will be compelled easily, and, therefore, they are more ethically appealing as compared to the picture of Nora Ephron.
Logos is the way of the persuasive use of reasoning, and it also involves numerous sensory details. Similarly, Gerard Jones’ pictures are more persuading, since they contain additional explicating details. For instance, he includes such words “shut up!” and “shut” among others.
Lastly, pathos is the emotional appeal. It comprises of the language choice which affects the audience’s emotional response. The two authors use different pathos techniques to capture people’s attention. Gerard Jones uses masculinity to bring out a violent aspect. Ephron captures the woman at different instances as she falls and hits things in order to bring out the violence of the situation.
In conclusion, both authors incorporate various artistic approaches in order to highlight their arguments. However, it is clear that the two authors have noticeable differences regarding violence and its impacts on children, adults and society at large. On one hand, Nora Ephron seems to be prejudiced, since he argues that violence should be shown entirely without hiding anything. She mainly focuses on the advantages of exposing violence, but she merely mentions its disadvantages. On the other hand, Gerard Jones is skeptical in a way that he demonstrates the two sides of violence. He acknowledges that as long as violence plays a great part in modeling people’s life, it can impact them negatively if it is not controlled. The two authors also incorporate artistic devices such as pathos, ethos and logos in order to compel the viewers and readers concerning the impact of violence. These styles help to influence people and the success of the authors depends on them. It is, therefore, clear that violent pictures and videos have influence on people’s lives, but individuals should be responsible for determining the extent of this effect. Additionally, the violence captured in pictures should have limitations.