I feel like this is a little too important to the discussion at hand to just leave unexplained. Like...what is a 'strong influence'? How specifically do you think media influences consumers? Do you think it compels them to do things, want things, say things, believe things?? How much?? In what ways? How many people, or which kinds of people, do you think are susceptible to this phenomenon...?
Like, all of ^that is the reason you're even asking the question, right?? I don't see how you can be replying to people and trying to converse with them on this sensitive, complex subject without explaining any of your own views. Just saying "I believe media has a strong influence" is not an 'answer'; it's essentially meaningless...gives me the feeling that you either don't know how you feel about the issue or you know exactly how you feel, but don't want to admit it.
For example, you said you disagreed with this:
You didn't explain why, so let's examine it.
I actually agree with it quite a bit; I think both @Tubacabra and @remiquise pretty well expressed my thoughts on the matter. ^^ To go in a bit more depth, I think the idea of attaching 'responsibility' to a creator for a story they've written hinges on the societal definition of 'story' itself. What is a story, what is it for; what is it meant to do?
If you take it to mean 'a fictional exploration of a concept', as I think most writers and most media-literate people do, then the responsibility lies with society itself to teach its members that definition, even if it's as simple as the phrase 'it's just a story'. A fantasy, an interesting idea someone came up with, to be engaged with on the level of examination. What's interesting about the idea; why did the author decide to write it that way; what does it say about their thought process? What does it say about ours?
If ^this is the accepted definition of 'story', and someone grows up thinking that a story is meant to be engaged with as an instruction manual or as moral doctrine, then the fault lies not with the person who wrote it, but by the influences in that person's life who failed to teach them the right definition.
To put it another way: if we all agree that soap is for bathing and one person decides soap is for eating, the manufacturer of the soap is not at fault if they eat it and get sick. Even if the soap smelled and looked yummy (as it often does), someone in that person's life should have taught them what soap is and how you are supposed to use it. That its yummy smell is there to make you smell good when you're clean, not to entice you to eat it.
Conversely: let's say we take 'story' to mean something besides the current accepted definition. After all, definitions can grow and change, and stories have been used for different things throughout time...what if we say that a story is meant to be more like a model kit for society, where the author constructs a sort of simulacrum of what a life for a person should look like. The types of choices they should make, and what the consequences of those choices should be.
There are definitely stories like ^this around. In fact, I'd say elements of that thought process exist in most stories (especially concerning how writers treat MCs), and usually get brought up when we argue that a story 'endorses' something harmful....which does happen, unfortunately.
Is that what a story is FOR, though? Is that what all stories intrinsically are?
If you would say 'yes', then I can see why you'd disagree the quote. It would explain why creators ARE at fault for their reader's temptations: because they created a misleading model of society, that taught readers it works differently than it should.
Unfortunately, I gotta say I think that's media illiteracy talking. ^^;
First of all, deciding that all stories have only ONE overall purpose is absolutely ridiculous from any kind of scholarly perspective. One of the purest, rawest forms of human creativity...and it's all meant just to teach people right from wrong. Throughout time, across cultures; that's the only reason stories are told, and that's the only lens you should view them through. ---> Absurd. If you genuinely believe that, you do you, but you clearly don't have the credentials to be spreading it around to other people. One introductory lesson on the mere concept of anthropology would immediately shatter that assumption.
Second of all, I believe this is closely related to what people are talking about when they say 'media literacy is dying'.
A large part of the moral outcry over fictional characters is just from people trying to win internet arguments; you'll see a lot less of it IRL. HOWEVER, because people are increasingly living their lives on the internet, because media consumption is increasingly becoming the only hobby many people have...the lines between fiction and reality are getting blurred. As third spaces continue to disappear from society, I think for many people fiction IS their reality.
Their lives are tied intrinsically to the stories they consume, so there is a greater demand for it to be 'correct'. To be something that represents their own values, something they can feel comfortable talking about constantly, especially as internet censorship starts to take root. Like, in a world where people 'unalive' themselves and others, I'm not surprised that people might start giving the side eye at the mere discussion of suicide and murder. They're being conditioned to reject it; to think of these concepts (not even swear words; just the real life CONCEPT of being killed!) as unmentionable. :T
I still don't think this is as huge a problem as it seems, and as the internet evolves it may just resolve itself someday. ^^; However, for that to happen, I think we do need to actively shut this argument down, and keep shutting it down. No, stories are not moral arbiters; they are as complex as the members of humanity who create them, and each story needs to be criticized and examined WITH the context of its creation. Thus, blanket statements, or even blanket questions, about the 'responsibility of creators' are useless-- which creators? Which stories? You can't just leave those specifics out or gloss over them. They're vitally important to anyone trying to have a mature discussion about this...and as a discussion topic, it's fine. But as an actual argument to use within the discussion, it's sorely lacking in nuance, to the point of lacking rationality.
...Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. ^^;
