Ken Robles 

Professor Sara Johnson  

17 November 2025  

Influences of Media on Political Violence  

As time passes, many media platforms are open to discussions about politics and the stands of different points of view. People from around the world are open and direct with what they believe in and what they don’t believe in. While having these open spaces in media may seem beneficial it shown otherwise that people often take their beliefs and convert them into acts of violence either through the internet or in real life. The effects of mass media on political violence around civil disputes and societal change on the government is an intensifying sequence that has a never-ending cycle. By analyzing the roots of political violence and its effects, it can be argued that it escalates these types of violence on various vulnerable groups. Although many may say a higher official in media platforms may be able to reduce violence, because of their presence, it is shown that it is not an effective way of minimizing these acts. In other words, nonviolent methods should ultimately always be used when discussing politics no matter the situation as it can lead to a better tomorrow. Although many solutions may come to light when analyzing these violences, Individuals must understand the roots of political violence in the digital world.  

Moving on to the digital roots of political violence, politics and media have been around for quite some time, and just now the media has certain algorithms and is promoting data that shows people from various angles on a certain subject. While these media platforms have the ability to show different perspectives of a specific situation and or issue, it comes to a point where extremist posts are more promoted and shown more on an algorithm to focus on the negative of the situation. According to Jay Van Bavel, he concludes that sharing news about political enemies can dramatically increase the odds of content being shared by huge margins. His statistical analysis of media algorithms shows that positive posts and negative posts prove to be antithetical to each other. “Headlines containing both negativity and identity language increased the click rate by 9.9%”. (Bavel 15). The reason behind this is that when algorithms promote more of the negative posts, they are viewed more by society. Modern society finds them more entertaining and objectively viable to exploit others’ views and go on counterattacks to attack on another on a certain belief to prove their points and be shown as an ego booster to make themselves feel superiors than others. He also states that because of these posts, “social media platforms, driven by the desire to maximize user interaction, often promote divisiveness by prioritizing content that pits us against one another” (Bavel 16). He explains that these posts are creating divisiveness groups that are being put against each other because they have different ideologies and points of view on a problem that is being put in place. Over time being exposed to these types of violences will lead to a more hostile and dehumanizing environment in media platforms which would soon become reality.  

Although mass media may seem to promote more of these negative posts, it was also discovered that the more they promote, the more civil disputes there are. According to Lacy Y. Hunter, she states that the more time spent on social media, the greater social media penetration… how elites use social media to spread false information. (Hunter 1129). While this may seem like a problem for higher- ups, modern society is affected because individuals are not able to differentiate when information is verified or not, causing emotions to spur up and cause violence in all sorts of ways. While this cycle of spreading false social media information continues, people around will start harassing each other rather than having a civil conversation where both parties do not feel targeted. All of it seems like an everlasting cycle of misinformation spreading, Such as violent posts online for hours and images that may not be true. Lacy also brought up the topic of going against each other and called it political polarization. She informs that groups are being formed based on political views and standpoints: “Increased online activity and social media disinformation affect political polarization and radicalization, which influence domestic terrorism.” (Hunter 1145). She explains that the more time spent on these platforms, the more political tensions will rise in account that individuals will begin to normalize their haziness acts as normal behavior, over time as these acts continue society norms will change and alter as is being affected in the real world.  

Politics involving women is often discriminated against because seen through the effect of mass media women are viewed as sensible and incapable to uphold power in politics, but this is further from the truth. The internet is creating spaces with extremists and individuals including those with discriminatory viewpoints on women in politics. These extremists want attention for themselves and feel the right to bring others down for them to feel satisfaction and pleasure. According to Mona Lena Krook, she believes that women get harassed and belittled because they are viewed as less than a regular political man, and that many users online usually do not like seeing women in power throughout politics. She states that, women in Malawi who enter political standing in an address to gain power are usually put through “psychological violence as part of being disciplined.” (Krook 95). Through the media, people usually speak about stereotypes and discrimination because of gender. When people influence negative ideologies, they usually hide their identity because they are behind a screen, meaning that they can say whatever they’d like without having any repercussions. This proves Krooks point on having harassment comments and not allowing the inclusivity of women around politics because of the challenges that the media is making women face. Overall making it harder for women to follow their dreams and aspirations in finding a better tomorrow.  

Accountability has to be a measurement of how society views and deals with these types of violence that are happening around the world.  Mass media should be held accountable for informing the user of what is happening during these types of violence. Not only should media platforms hold some responsibility, but also society should have responsibility to admit their wrongdoing when it comes to violence in politics. According to Virginia Held, she believes that all acts of political violence and terrorism should be labeled accordingly and accurately. Virginia argues that the media should bear the responsibility of “covering truthfully rather than as a drama that can be exploited for increased ratings”. (Held 192). She explains that social media really only cares about profit and not fixing the issue at hand. Which, therefore, should they step up and make sure that people are not against one another but instead supporting each other. She explains how the media has a certain amount of power in reforming and shaping political violence. In detail, she explains that minor reframing of words in certain posts can misdirect and give the wrong idea to specific groups of individuals who then take it to the next level of violence. Although this may minor reframing may seem small to the naked eye, people are still going to be affected no matter the cost. Either by spreading biases and anger through the media or by having real-world attacks that can end up losing someone real life, there are cases on where violence has crossed the line and certain people have lost their life due to the media having a huge negative effect on the induvial from many cases of what is seen and said in the media which leads to them losing their own life.  

On the topic of political violence, government officials also play a huge role in how media is being used for their own personal gain. Having discussed the topics of mass media and its control on people through various tactics of misdirection and political polarization. The government can control the media to some extent that allows them to hide their actions when political violence is headed towards them to act with violence. The government can use the media as a way of denying any allegation towards them but also reframing what they believe they did wrong and view it as a right. According to Sabine C Carsey, she explains when the government has control of media the government can “disguise the escalation of repression” (Carsey 444) but also “reframe its actions to make them appear excusable or justifiable” she explains how if when the government has control of mass media they tend to exploit and misguide users around the world to make them seen more favored at the end of the escalation, leading to the question is media really just a place where government shouldn’t control? The answer is ultimately yes; the government only likes to protect their own image no matter the cost leading to misinformation spreading widely which is already being done by extremists and AI usage. Artificial intelligence has skyrocketed in modern times and has been used and seen to spread misleading information by users having certain tools to alter details and images to their liking. To manipulate the users, mind believing what is on their screen. Carsey brings up the idea of “law of coercive responsiveness” (Carsey 455). She explains that violence fights with violence when the government is involved and therefore if journalists and other media outposts report freely, the government is less likely to increase the violence in fear of being held responsible for their actions.  

  In conclusion, the media and political violence are deeply connected. As digital platforms continue to expand and promote vast amounts of information every day, there has been a negative and divineness in people and their viewpoints. As the evidence states, it shows how media platforms are flooded with extremists, political polarization behavior and misinformation that misguide and not inform the people with real news. Not only do these actions affect government disputes, but it also intensifies them. These actions also affect vulnerable groups such as women in politics and their position in power who are being harassed and put in phycological harm.  There comes a time where individuals need to be held accountable to their actions at every level and so every aspect, among all media platforms. Mass has shown the tendency of having a more negative report which in many cases leads to violence through misleading information to the users and certain vulnerable groups. Looking at a positive note, social media should be a platform that allows respectful, moderate behavior with good boundaries that does not lead to violence. Having a positive and more healthy relationship within the media can have safe spaces in which dialogue can be presented. The ultimate goal of social media is to spread awareness on how pollical violence is not the right way to go for a more prosperous future.