Ten Things Wrong With the Media 'Effects' Model

While reading this article about how the "media effects model" does not conclude any substantial evidence on how the media effects its audience, I was reminded of the interview with Marilyn Manson on "Bowling for Columbine." In this interview, Michael Moore is asking Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) why his music is associated with violent behavior. His responses to this was that he could see why the public would blame him, because he is an easy "poster boy for fear" but at the time of the Columbine shootings, the president was shooting bombs over seas. Brain Warner goes on to say that people are blaming him for violent behavior because he sings some rock and roll songs, but who has a greater influence, him or the president of the United States?
I personally believe that even though our society is bombarded with violence in the media, and that we are becoming desensitized to such music, television, and other mediums are not to blame. I listen "violent" music, and if anything it acts as an outlet rather then a catalyst to violence. Also in the essay "Why we Crave Horror Movies," by Stephen King he makes the same point. He speaks of how we need that violent outlet found in media so that we don't feel the urges to actually perform violent acts.
Maybe that is why in "Ten Things Wrong With the Media 'Effects' Model," David Gauntlett speaks of a study done that divides violent behaviour from the media. He says, "Hagell & Newburn (1994) found only that the young offenders watched less television and video than their counterparts, had less access to the technology in the first place, had no particular interest in specifically violent programmes, and either enjoyed the same material as non-offending teenagers or were simply uninterested" (Gauntlett).
At the same time however, maybe everyone needs some sort of outlet for violent behavior whether it be through media or something completely different. Also, in comparison with the Marilyn Manson interview, Gauntlett speaks of how more influential the news may be to violent behavior, however it is very rarely studied. He says, " If the antisocial acts shown in drama series and films are expected to have an effect on the behaviour of viewers, even though such acts are almost always ultimately punished or have other negative consequences for the perpetrator, there is no obvious reason why the antisocial activities which are always in the news, and which frequently do not have such apparent consequences for their agents, should not have similar effects" (Gauntlett).
I agree with Gaunlett points, and have always believe that the media should not solely be blamed for violent behavior, but rather we should be looking, at the " perpetrators of actual violence as their first point of reference, rather than the media"

Gauntlett, David. Ten Things Wrong with the Media `Effects` Model. 16 November 2007. http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm