Some people think that media outlets are making violence more popular in real life

violence and the media

Violence in the media promote violence in society. To what extend do you agree or disagree

Sensational stories, where actions or crimes are recounted in graphic details, prevail over other kinds of news because they indulge the curiosity of average people. Some people think that media outlets are making violence more popular in real life, and I totally agree with this view. The media with cheap, gratuitous violence are spoiling our mind, and children also suffer from this worrying trend.

The fact that we are fed on a diet of TV programs and movies rife with strong language and savagery leads us to falsely accept violence as a norm in societies. For example, while watching TV series such as Hell Kitchen or Master Chef, viewers can see people cursing, throwing food, or even physically attacking others. Shows like these offer a distorted view on life, where violence is actually not the solution of choice for coping with anger of conflict. People may gradually tolerate violence if they digest these products too often.

In addition, children's behaviors are set to be influenced heavily by the violent contents that they see. As a matter of fact, kids are likely to incorporate what they watch and read into their daily lives. For example, in Vietnam, under the effect of Chinese action movies, many boys in Vietnam naively believe that heroes are supposed to beat people up and, therefore, usually resort to their fists to exhibit their superiority. This behavior pattern can evolve into anti-social behaviors in the future, putting security at risk.

In conclusion, violence contents are now ubiquitous because of the media. This is a serious issue because not only adults but future generations are also being affected in undesirable ways. As children grow up in the culture where violence sells, there is no guarantee that they would not, out of habits, succumb to violence to solve their problems.

________________________
In the opening I had incorporated my view which directly answer the prompt.
Also I chose to develop only one idea for each body.
Please give me your opinions?

Dan, there are two types of writing methods for the Task 2 essay, one, is the direct opinion essay that references a response to a direct question such as "What are the reasons that the sky is blue?" The other is the opinion essay, which does not require a direct response in the presentation because of the 5 sentence requirement per paragraph. The extent essay is one of those essays. Your prompt paraphrase is overly complicated because of your direct response. In this instance, a simple paraphrase is required. Something like:

Mass media is perceived to be purveyor of violence in our society. This a statement that I totally agree with. In this essay, I will explain the reasons that I support this statement.

Somehow the prompt that you provided as the original feels incomplete. There seems to be a few missing details in the post but I worked with it, just to show you how to meet the 3 sentence minimum requirement for each paragraph. Yes, sometimes writing the task 2 essay is also about an ability to improvise when you know little about the prompt provided.

You have a subject-verb disagreement with regards to the plural-singular word choice for the term "are. Since the subject is "media" a "singular" reference word, then the singular reference "is" should have been used rather than the plural form "are". Then there is the problem with your conjunction use. Remember that you always need to use a comma after a conjunction such as after the word "adults", but before the phrase "future generations".

The overall discussion is acceptable. Though clarity and conciseness is still a bit of a problem for you in this essay, that occurred only once so I would not worry about it so much. It won't affect your gra because of the overall clarity of the discussion.

"media outlets" is plural. Thanks!