People's Reactions on Entertainment
It seems almost inevitable that children witness sports violence on television, not only because competitive contact sports like soccer and hockey are extensively broadcast but also because these broadcasts receive high ratings among children. Especially during highly broadcasted World Championships when the ratings are high. Young viewers may at least partly derive their values of what is and what is not appropriate…. How television commentary affects judgment on a sports match. The first hypothesis of this study is based on Bandura’s theory and the aforementioned research showing that (a) children’s perception of televised violence is influenced by commentary from adults, and (b) adult’s perceptions and enjoyment of sports contests is affected by sports commentators. Hypothesis: People are most critical of a player’s behavior if the commentator disapproves the behavior, less critical if the behavior is neutrally described, and least critical if the behavior receives approving commentary. Hypothesis 2: People’s sensitivity to commentary effects does not depend on their viewing experience. . . .
But when asked if after enough exposure a person would begin to use these fallacies in real life, the majority said yes. The one that stood out most was the Ad Hominem fallacy. Since the commentary was primarily neutral, when asked the question; do you feel the commentators’ remarks affect you view of Tiger Woods and golf?: most answered no. For each excerpt, three types of commentary were recorded (neutral, disapproving, and approving). When asked how the commentators’ comments might affect children’s judgment most responded that it hyped him up to appeal more to kids in a way that makes them want to be more like Tiger. In the approving version, the commentator questioned the aggressiveness of the behavior and whether the call on the play was justified. When asked if the commentators’ remarks had any affect on the view of the action most said no. The fallacy that was most prominent was Ad Hominem (attacking the person). After each clip, those involved in the study answered the following question: e. When posed the question that asks if the commentators’ comments would affect children’s judgment, most said that it might change their views on their favorite team or player is just because the sportscaster on ESPN said so. The announcers have a way of manipulating the views and opinion of the viewer without being as obvious as something such as a political campaign, but is still a prevalent occurrence in the world of televised sports. This study also showed that it was much easier for people to be persuaded into believing the negative commentary than the positive commentary. They pretty much felt that the hype of Tiger and golf was slowing down. This was mainly because the announcers are directing their comments straight toward one of the wrestlers trying to get you, the viewer, to either love or hate one of the wrestlers in the match. This study applies with our class because it can be associated with Causal Fallacies (post-hoc).
Common topics in this essay:
Ad Hominem, Involved Study, Validity Results, Tiger Woods, Attacking Person, Research Question, Results Samples, Tiger WWF, Hypothesis People, Commentary Type, player team, ad hominem, remarks affect view, comments affect, version commentator, remarks affect, attacking person, commentators remarks, affect view, commentators comments, commentators remarks affect, commentators comments affect, negative commentary, positive negative commentary, affect childrens judgment, |
Acceptance Essays
