I was six years old living with my family in Tulsa, Oklahoma when I was invited on a date with my parents.

I never found out why they took a boy so young to a downtown theater for an evening showing of the classic motion picture Ben-Hur. I must give them credit for the overly optimistic and risky decision to bring me along. I won’t take my kids to a movie until they’re at least 10. But perhaps a babysitter cancelled at the last moment or there was nothing good on TV. Let’s check. In 1959 American television viewers had three options – what was showing on ABC, CBS, or NBC. If my mom and dad had stayed home on Saturday night they could have watched such classics as “Bonanza,” “Leave It To Beaver,” or “The Lawrence Welk Show.” Somehow they passed on those viewing choices and decided to get off the couch, get dressed up, and make their son watch a three-and-a-half-hour movie. Insane.

Their decision to take me along changed my life in a deeply, fundamental way.

Prescient motion picture studio heads, producers, and theater owners knew that the medium had to keep up with technological advances and the approaching interest-sucking tsunami, television. After the public was introduced to “talking pictures” with the embarrassing and culturally insensitive The Jazz Singer in 1927, Dorothy’s sensual overload walk on the yellow brick road in 1939’s The Wizard of Oz, a film as huge as the story it told in the 1953 religious classic The Robe, and James Cameron’s illusionary depth perspective and performance capture megahit Avatar in 2009, audiences craved more movies with sound, color, wide screens, and 3-D. The technological felines were out of the paper or plastic bag waiting for someone to make the ultimate cat video. And all this to prove to theatergoers that those who created motion pictures could produce better entertainment options than what was on television. Was it successful? Ultimately, yes. Sort of. Although television beat motion pictures in almost every metric devised, it is television that is declining in viewer interest. Many are writing that the real technological tsunami is not motion picture innovations or bigger television sets, but the web. Because soon, television, just as with movie theaters, desktop computers, and news on paper will cease to exist. These media will be overtaken by the almost infinite possibilities available on the web. And as an aside, what will eventually replace the web? Smartphone apps. And what will replace apps? They will be swapped with augmented reality glasses. And where will glasses go? Gone to flowers every one. When will we ever learn?

After the severe restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on materials, equipment, and personnel reserved for the war effort in the 1940s, the next decade – dubbed “The Golden Age” for television – was a time when the movie industry was doing its best to convince parents to bring their baby boomers to a fictional story that told of power, greed, love, religion, redemption, chariots, and the pecs of Charlton Heston.

Jon Solomon (2001) in his book, The Ancient World in the Cinema noted that the studios spent an unheard amount of $14.7 million (about $121 million today) on an extensive marketing effort to promote Ben-Hur with tie-ins to “candy, tricycles in the shape of chariots, gowns, hair barrettes, items of jewelry, men’s ties, bottles of perfume, ‘Ben-Her’ and ‘Ben-His’ towels, toy armor, helmets, swords, umbrellas, and hardback and paperback versions of the novel.” The promotional campaign for the movie worked. According to the website Box Office Mojo, the domestic total gross figure for the 1959 version of Ben-Hur was $74 million. In today’s dollars that amount represents $600 million – a smash by any calculus. By contrast, the 2016 remake only brought in about $20 million with a production budget of $100 million – a colossal box office fail.

Size Matters

Without question the signature scene in the movie, the one everyone who has seen it remembers, is the chariot race (“Ben-Hur,” 2015). For a six-year-old, everything shown in the movie before the race is a colossal bore. Hours of unexplained and unintelligible talk, talk, talk with adults in funny costumes does not sit well with a kid. However, I was adequately compensated. My parents, bless their hearts, bought my proper behavior with big cups of soda, candy, and popcorn. It was like enjoying a bag of treats on Halloween without having to trudge around the neighborhood begging. Despite the dull show, I was content and, more importantly, quiet. And just before I was going to explode in rage, despite the perks at being stuck in this dark place, movie magic happened. I perked up. I paid attention. I watched the movie. And I have to believe that part of the appeal for me on that late Saturday night was the size of the screen. Ben-Hur was an epic appropriately shot in widescreen and given my small stature, the screen was enormous and consequently the characters, the carts, and the horses were Donald Trump Yuge. The dimensions of the screen transported me to Rome. I was in the arena among the crowds and the competitors. I even got a laugh from my fellow audience members when during a particularly action-packed scene I uncontrollably yelled out, “Go Ben, go.” I became anxious when the “bad guy” (Messala played by Stephen Boyd) tried to destroy Ben’s chariot, but overjoyed when the running horses trampled Messala and Ben won the race.

And then, calamity struck. [WARNING: Spoiler Alert.] After the race, Messala is carried off into a side room. As he screams in agony, a doctor tells him that the only way to save his life is to amputate his legs. He convinces the surgeon to wait until he sees Ben. He doesn’t want his rival to see him without his legs. The screams, the grimacing, the blood, the candy, the popcorn, and the sugar drinks all combined to make me feel hot and dangerous. In a panic, I tried to stifle the natural urge to get relief, but once the feeling starts, not much can stop it. Sure enough, I couldn’t hold it in any longer. I hurled a stream as straight and sure as any bullet out of a gun. All of that sweet gunk from my restless tummy splashed on the back of a woman sitting in front of me.

I still recall her surprised and anguished cry. Horrible.

Regrettably, I never had a conversation with my parents as to why they brought me along and if they regretted my extreme reaction to the bloody scene accompanied by the cries of a man about to lose his legs. But the experience has a positive spin – I am cautious what my young boys watch regardless of the media in play. Ethical behavior, then, is not a topic reserved for professional dilemmas. Considering your ethical responses helps with personal predicaments as well. But you should know that by now.

I’m convinced that my six-year-old brain would not have been so involved with the story cast on my six-year-old retinas if not for the action projected on a gigantic screen. Since 1959 screens have grown larger in direct proportion to the public’s interest in larger screens with today’s IMAX screens as big as 40 feet wide and 32 feet tall. However, they are dwarfed next to the over-the-field monitor at the Dallas Cowboy stadium’s 160 feet wide and 72 feet tall screen (Shorr-Parks, 2014). Early television and computer screens included 12-inch displays while today you can buy a 90-inch screen for either technology – if you have a room large enough.

But you should ask yourself, why all this discussion on vomit and screens?

Screen size is related to ethics. Since my Ben-Hur experience and as an adult, I have had to leave a theater and my friends behind because of gruesome scenes shown in such movies as Bonnie and Clyde, Platoon, Dances with Wolves, and Reservoir Dogs. However, I learned that if I watched these pictures on the smaller screen of a television set, I could make it through the movie without discomfort. Interestingly, as screens get larger for public showings in multiplex theaters and private media centers in two-story houses, the screens of computers shrink as we all get used to watching whatever disturbing content we want to – from beheadings to eyewitness videos – on our tablets and smartphones. Consequently, more of us are able to watch horrific content, whether fictional or actual because the screens are smaller. And that’s an ethical issue. Small screens desensitize us to the violence around the world based on our sensational-seeking hedonistic nature.

Screen size matters probably as much as the content within the frames whether the silver substrate is bolted to a wall or held in your hand. If you think of motion pictures, television, computers, and the web as tools for presenting images on a screen, some pictures we simply watch and others we can manipulate and control, they nevertheless have similar technical and ethical considerations.

Violent content is ameliorated, made more sensual, and can affect a viewer in the long-term because of the size of a screen. Large displays especially combined with 3-D glasses propel a viewer into the action. Conversely, the same gruesome content is more easily digested visually when the monitor is smaller. And with that acceptance of the images there is a fear that repeated viewings will promote intolerance, callousness, dependence, and most troubling, indifference.

Motion Pictures. Offering the simplistic argument that the violence seen in motion pictures is responsible for all of the social problems in a society is always politically salient. Undeniably, action-adventure and horror movies are always popular genres and filled with violent acts. Think of Clockwork Orange, Die Hard, Fight Club, The Passion of the Christ, Saw, and Scarface. However, those mainstream releases pale when compared with independent efforts as reported by the website Bloody Disgusting (2017). Violence will always be a staple of American films because they are enormously popular. One of the main reasons that the number of movies with gruesome content has increased is the economic situation of the major studios. Studio executives need big blockbuster hits to maintain the economic health of their enterprises. And because about 80 percent of all movies shown in Europe are from the United States, executives have learned that these movies are trendy throughout the world because violence translates across cultures. Everyone understands a bullet in flight – no translation needed. For example, Resident Evil: Afterlife from the production companies Sony and Screen Gems earned $60 million in the U.S. and $236 million in foreign sales.

America has the First Amendment and a strong tradition of free speech. Ironically, movie studios don’t make as much as they could on mayhem because governments of some conservative countries have banned violent (and overtly sexual) films. One golden mean compromise offered by many was the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), originally founded in 1922 to oversee the economic health of the fledging industry. Soon, it became a tool to control the content of movies by imposing a production code that prohibited so-called indecent language and images as well as political speech. If a motion picture failed to get a seal of approval, the movie would be banned from American theaters. Criticism of the MPAA’s rating system, first established in 1968, became more public after two movies were given different ratings. A ticket buyer must be 17 years old to see an R-rated movie without an adult while many theaters will not show them. Bully (2012), a documentary that follows five bullied children throughout a school year, was given an R rating because of its multiple use of the word “fuck” while The Hunger Games about teenagers who must kill to stay alive received a PG-13 designation (Zeitchik, 2012). Obviously, words are viewed as more dangerous than violence by the rating’s board. However, after much publicity, Lee Hirsch, the director of Bully edited some of the obscenities and the rating was changed to PG-13 to get a wider audience. Hirsch said, “I think this [controversy] has given fuel to a conversation that’s long overdue about the double standard when it comes to rating movies.”

Television. As of this writing, television is still the most ubiquitous medium for mass communication, although the web is already challenging that distinction. Nevertheless, in one year, the average household will have a television set operating for almost 110 days continuously, or 30 percent of the time. No other medium can claim that percentage. Throughout television’s history there have been atrocious acts broadcast live to unsuspecting viewers at home. For example, the killing of Lee Oswald was played live on early television (“Oswald shooting,” 2010). The scene further traumatized the country after the President Kennedy assassination. School children watched the launch of the space shuttle Challenger live and saw it explode in 1986 because teacher Christa McAuliffe was on board (“Challenger disaster,” 2007). Pennsylvania State Treasurer Budd Dwyer, convicted for bribery gave a live press conference in 1987 killed himself with a 357 magnum, long-barrel pistol that was shown to young viewers at home whose kids’ program was interrupted by a news bulletin (“Budd Dwyer,” 2017). George Holliday had recently purchased a video camera when he recorded the police beating of Rodney King in 1991 that was shown numerous times around the world (Troy, 2016). Seven years later on a Los Angeles freeway Daniel Jones set his parked truck on fire and then killed himself with a shotgun that was shown live (“Infamous California,” n.d.). Before the twin towers of the World Trade Center fell because of the fires from the commercial airlines that slammed into them in 2001, about 200 persons jumped to their deaths out of smoke-filled windows with many seen in news reports (“9/11 jumpers,” 2017). Video was widely distributed of deposed President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was crudely hung by his neck after his conviction of crimes against humanity in 2006 (“Saddam Hussein,” 2017). Beheading videos produced by terrorist groups are easily available for viewing on YouTube and other sources (“Beheadings,” 2017). In 2015, a Roanoke, Virginia CBS television station aired a live broadcast of reporter Alison Parker and videographer Adam Ward conducting an interview when they were killed by a disgruntled former employee. He uploaded the first-person video that he took with his smartphone on Twitter and Facebook and highlighted a new and disturbing trend – the combination of video and social media. Further complicating the ethical dilemma of the reporter shootings was the frontpage coverage by the New York Daily News, not a publication known for its subtlety dating from the 1928 Ruth Snyder execution photograph (“Shocking slay of reporter,” 2015). The newspaper ran a series of three framegrabs from the killer’s smartphone that showed his arm extended, pointing his pistol at Parker, and her terrifying reaction. Readers were horrified by the images.

The reactions were best exemplified by the golden rule philosophy, the one that advocates not adding grief to others that is commonly cited along with hedonism by media critics including the general public, that the pictures were published to sensationalize the event and to make more money. However, Shane Ryan, a writer for the newspaper, defended the decision when he wrote, “Why am I glad that the images of Parker facing down the barrel of a gun made the front page? Because, sensational journalism aside, actually watching the sickening footage of a terrified young woman being murdered by a psychopath may actually get a point across (Ryan, 2015). Maybe it will stop the willful ignorance, and the ridiculous cycle of superficial recovery that ends with finding hope and meaning in something that is both hopeless and meaningless. Maybe it will wake us up to the pain that we cause each other, and the changes we desperately need to make.” Stop, Shane. You lost me at “sensational journalism aside.” Television and the print media combined to shock viewers. But for Ryan, the lessons learned from being confronted by violent visual news have a basis in utilitarianism, despite the difficult argument that hedonism is more likely the justification.

Hedonism rears its ugly head in other, less obvious ways. For example, a news story on ABC’s “Good Morning America” used yellow police crime tape as a prop to imply that a reporter was at the scene of a crime (“ABC News busted,” 2016). A wide-angle picture taken by someone from CNN (nice) clearly showed that the tape was tied to a piece of photographic equipment – not a usual police procedure. After being caught, the ABC News’ Vice President of Communication wrote, “This action is completely unacceptable and fails to meet the standards of ABC News.” You got that right. Those personnel at the scene should have known better, but hedonism clouded their judgment.

Computers. Probably no one who played the arcade game “Pac-Man” in the 1980s thought that the colorful, chomping, right angle controlled creature was actually eating the dots along the path or was consumed by other relentless foes. That’s because the decade was a more innocent time when computer-generated graphics weren’t as sophisticated and powerful as they are today. Try to find a copy of the first John Madden football game released in 1988 and compare the graphic appearance to the latest edition. Technical innovations of the 1990s changed video games as they became more sophisticated in their storylines, included more interactive features, and improved their realism (“The evolution of video,” n.d.). Due to such games as “Street Fighter II” in 1991, “Doom” in 1993, and “Grand Theft Auto” in 1997, violent games were established as a popular and profitable staple of the industry. In fact, games are more popular than motion pictures. David Mullich (2015) for Quora reports that “worldwide box-office revenue for the film industry in 2013 was $35.9 billion” while the video game industry made $70.4 billion during the same period. Part of the popularity can be attributed to the introduction of interactive “shooter” games after social critics raised important concerns about children and others who become obsessed with video game playing. The most popular games reward a player for committing some kind of violent act that tacitly teach anyone under its influence that conflicts are easily resolved, not through compromise, but through direct, violent action. Violence has a higher potential for contributing to adverse personality disorders than do motion pictures or television because the user is actually responsible for the actions in the game, rather than being a passive viewer.

The Web. If, as predicted by most media experts, the web will eventually replace all other media including print, motion pictures, and television, violent visual messages will continue to be easily accessed through a few simple keystrokes. With such obvious website names as Best Gore (2017) and Rotten (n.d.), these sites cater to those who seek extremely violent images from journalists, citizen eyewitnesses, and even murderers making video selfies, or vidsies, of their brutal acts as a form of entertainment. Mark Marek, the owner of the Canadian website, Best Gore, was arrested for violating an obscenity law in 2012 for hosting a video of a murder produced by the perpetrator. Regardless, the site’s homepage warns that it makes available to those 18 years old and older, “beheadings, executions, suicides, murders, electrocution, stoning, torching, drowning, car crashes, motorcycle crashes, workplace accidents, sexual accidents, animal attacks” and, well you get the picture. Justification for these images is also detailed on the webpage as based on the categorical imperative – it is their self imposed duty to show images censors and “petty tyrants” don’t want you to see – and utilitarian – users are educated by the content because “by not seeing things for yourself, you are opening the door to being lied to and persuaded in one direction or the other,” and, of course, hedonism – with its array of explicit sexual advertisements. Best Gore and other similar websites are largely a repository for pictures taken from news stories around the world. Journalists and their employers need to take some responsibility allowing access to images that most of the public would not see.

For visual communicators, one of the most important issues is that of free speech versus governmental censorship. Social critics have sometimes described the web as a huge, unregulated book or DVD store in which children can suddenly wander into a back room where all the pornographic magazines and lewd materials are shelved and all they need for access in many cases is a promise that they are at least 18 years old. Obviously, parents need to be responsible for the materials their children watch. But in a public setting – as in a university or library – adults should be given the opportunity to view a wide variety of materials available on the web.

The web is also made more ethically challenging by small, ubiquitous, often unseen cameras that monitor our movements, help catch and convict criminals, and occasionally save lives and spur policy changes. They also record some of the darkest interactions between the powerful and the powerless. The Mother Jones website documents incidences with links to videos recorded by police dashboard and body cameras, store security cameras, and bystander smartphones of fatal shootings of suspects (Lee and Vicens, 2015). The list of those killed under the color of authority is long and keeps growing: James Boyd, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Richard Ramirez, Billings, Montana; Jason Harrison, Dallas, Texas; Eric Garner, Staten Island, New York; John Crawford III, Beavercreek, Ohio; Dillon Taylor, Salt Lake City, Utah; Anthony Lamar Smith and Kajieme Powell, St. Louis, Missouri; Tamir Rice, Cleveland, Ohio; Jerame Reid, Bridgeton, New Jersey; Antonio Zambrano-Montes, Pasco, Washington; Charly Keunang, Los Angeles, California; Phillip White, Vineland, New Jersey; and Walter Scott, North Charleston, South Carolina. If seen on television, the clips are typically edited to about a minute with most of the gruesome content removed. The web, however, allows for the playing of videos in their entirety with the user able to enlarge the images, repeat the presentation as many times as desired, and pass them along through email and social media. Some of the videos begin with a message that warns the viewer of gruesome and disturbing content – clearly, a golden mean, but ineffectual solution to the dilemma of showing scenes that may evoke objections.

When violent content can be easily found, downloaded, repeatedly played, and shared on intimate hand-held devices, the impact of the gruesome scenes is lowered to the point of indifference. Such a mental state is alarming enough for fictional works, but the trend today includes actual news events. In addition to violence, screen size matters for the other issues for visual communicators – privacy, manipulations, persuasion, and stereotypes. The same work shown on a 50-foot width screen within most multiplex theaters and on a 4-inch smartphone display drastically affects a viewer’s experience whether it is composed of images that show violent content, violate the rights of privacy of innocent victims, alter reality through stage managing or computer manipulation, attempt to persuade users toward a way of thinking or a product to be bought, or perpetuate harmful stereotypical representations.

A visual communicator needs to consider the needs of all possible users of the technologies of display. However, those needs should be balanced with what the public ought to know with what the public needs to know. A decision to show a potentially disturbing image should not necessarily be based on what the public wants to know.

Case Studies

Case Study One

One of the most controversial issues in the 2016 American presidential campaign was that of the border between the United States and Mexico. Republican nominee, and eventual winner, Donald J. Trump, portrayed the border as a space of lawlessness and danger, and promised to build a giant wall between the two countries. “Build that wall!” became a popular line associated with his campaign.

However, statistics show that in the years leading up to the 2016 election, undocumented immigration to the United States over the Mexican border had been declining, and that fewer undocumented immigrants commit crimes than most people think, or is true of the population-at-large. So why was it so easy for Trump to stoke fears about the border? One possibility is the typical portrayal of the border on television and in film. Hollywood westerns, for example, almost always portrayed the border area as a place of lawlessness and danger. However, some recent productions programs, like the television program “The Bridge” and the film Sicario – have tried to offer a more complex portrait, where zone between the two countries – and the states of northern Mexico and the American south – are shown to be full of contradictions, populated by individuals who sometimes make good choices, and sometimes don’t.

Solórzano, F. (2017). “Trump’s border, as seen on TV.” Americas Quarterly. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/trumps-border-seen-tv.

See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.

Case Study Two

One of the most infamous Nazi’s ever to go on trial was Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was a relatively low level Nazi officer whose main job had been to manage the logistics of organizing and then mass deporting Jewish citizens, first into ghettos and then, later, into concentration camps. Eichmann famously claimed that he was not really responsible for his actions, because he was simply following the orders of others. At his trial in Israel, however, he was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death. Central to his conviction, of course, were photos and images of the holocaust atrocity, which worked against his claim that he had to do what he did. That is, in the case of the Nazi official, the pictures of genocide “unmasked” his administrative evil. What does this tell you about the importance of all war photography? Is there a possibility that even as it worked in this case, we must be careful not to discount other kinds of administrative evil that are less carefully set up or look less organized than was true in the Nazi case? Is there a possibility that photographs can somehow “set” a standard of what evil looks like, and so desensitize viewers to other kinds of harm?

Hartouni, V. (2012). Visualizing atrocity: Arendt, evil, and the optics of thoughtlessness. New York: NYU Press.

See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.

Case Study Three

Most people like the internet to be fast. They like using it to be easy. When reading internet web pages, most people only browse and skim – feeling like they’re getting the content, without reading every single word. Usually, this is okay. However, in some instances this opens users up to “dark patterns,” a kind of web interface that tricks individuals into doing things they might not otherwise do, like buying insurance, taking a gift card for a refund instead of actual money back, or signing up for newsletters or recurring emails.

Brignull, H. (n.d.). “Dark patterns.” Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://darkpatterns.org/.

See Appendix B for the 10-Step Systematic Ethical Analysis Form.

Annotated Sources

Czarny, M.J., Faden, R.R., and Sugarman, J. (2012). “Bioethics and professionalism in popular medical dramas.” Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 203–206.

This study analyzed a season of “House M.D.” and a season of “Grey’s Anatomy” to look at the possible ethical issues in the presentation of the medical dramas. In the analysis of the 50 combined episodes, the authors found 179 instances of distinct bioethical issues. They also identified 396 instances of questionable professionalism. In so doing, the authors raised concerns about how television series might be diluting what viewers think are ethical behaviors on the part of doctors, or what comprises ethical behavior among professionals, in general, including themselves.

Hoffman, M.C. and Gajewski, M. (2012). “The ten masks of administrative evil.” Administrative Theory & Praxis, 3(1), 125–132.

Here the author outlines 10 different “masks,” or ways in which administrations avoid doing what they are either legally or ethically obligated to do. They also describe “administrative evil” as that avoidance of the obligation. These masks are euphemisms, compartmentalization, instrumental rationality, legalism, accountability structures, dehumanization, mission supremacy, ethical fading, moral invasion, and reward and punishment. They then show how these masks have been portrayed in films, and make the notion of “administrative evil” visible to audiences, possibly causing viewers to accept less than acceptable behavior in their own elected officials.

Woodbury, M. (1998). “Defining web ethics.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 203–212.

An exploration into the ethics of coding, browsers, and the larger web, this article looks at the complications of interactions between different cultures as they intersect online. The authors argue that the Internet should look to librarians to learn how to build a marketplace which is accessible to all people, and which considers takes into account the myriad needs of users and the obligations users and designers have for paying attention to various external constituencies.

References

“9/11 jumpers.” (February 12, 2017). YouTube. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1FwibQhZoI.

“ABC News busted Faked crime scene for live shot.” (November 4, 2016). TMZ. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/04/abc-news-linsey-davis-fake-crime-scene/.

“Beheadings.” (2017). Google Video. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.google.com/search?q=beheading&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#tbm=vid&q=beheadings.

“Ben-Hur – The chariot race (1959).” (January 8, 2015). MovieClips. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frE9rXnaHpE.

“Best Gore.” (2017). Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.bestgore.com/.

“Bloody Disgusting.” (2017). Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://bloody-disgusting.com/.

“Budd Dwyer.” (2017). Daily Motion. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32el73_budd-dwyer_news.

“Challenger disaster live on CNN.” (July 24, 2007). YouTube. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE.

“The evolution of video game violence.” (n.d.). NAG. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/abizzel1/526296.

“Infamous California freeway suicide.” (n.d.). Live Leak. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bdd_1243483147.

Lee, J. and Vicens, A.J. (May 20, 2015). “Here are 13 killings by police captured on video in the past year.” Mother Jones. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/police-shootings-caught-on-tape-video/.

Mullich, D. (September 24, 2015). “Who makes more money: Hollywood or the video game industry?” Quora. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.quora.com/Who-makes-more-money-Hollywood-or-the-video-game-industry.

“Oswald shooting.” (September 27, 2010). Totally Amazing Videos. Accessed June 29, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n9VQ-dXrwQ.

“Rotten dot com.” (n.d.). Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://rotten.com/.

Ryan, S. (August 28, 2015). “Roanoke shooting belongs on the front page, images and all.” New York Daily News. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/roanoke-shooting-belongs-front-page-images-article-1.2339835.

“Saddam Hussein execution full version.” (2017). Daily Motion. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3aaau_saddam-hussein-execution-full-versi_people.

“Shocking slay of reporter, cameraman.” (August 27, 2015). New York Daily News. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2339834.1440715422!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/paste27n-1-web.jpg.

Shorr-Parks, E. (November 27, 2014). “How big is the Dallas Cowboys’ massive screen in AT&T Stadium?” NJ.Com. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2014/11/how_big_is_the_dallas_cowboys_massive_screen_in_att_stadium.html.

Soloman, J. (2001). The ancient world in the cinema. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Troy, G. (March 3, 2016). “Filming Rodney King’s beating ruined his life.” Daily Beast. Accessed June 29, 2017 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/filming-rodney-kings-beating-ruined-his-life.

Zeitchik, S. (March 28, 2012). “‘The Hunger Games,’ ‘Bully’ prompt MPAA ratings fight.” Los Angeles Times. Accessed September 19, 2017 from https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765563935/The-Hunger-Games-Bully-prompt-MPAA-ratings-fight.html.