This paper shall specifically discuss the thesis that the media is responsible for societal increase in violence. This thesis shall be discussed based on strong philosophical argumentation. A sympathetic consideration of both sides of the argument shall be presented with arguments towards one conclusion established. An identification of the ethical issues at hand shall also be considered. Body Violence in the media is apparent with the coverage of different violent events happening around the globe. The media holds a significant amount of responsibility in terms of its content and the impact of its content on their audience. The narrow cultural imaginings which may directly impact on the beliefs of those involved in political violence is very much ingrained in the wider cultural milieu where the media is an important, as well as an overwhelming part. And in these instances political violence is a kind of violence worthy of consideration (Held, p. 132). In instances when the media supports a culture of violence, this may also lead to a promotion of political violence, and all violent activities that coincide with it. Reports provide support for the argument that media in the US does promote a culture of violence (Held, p. 133). Held (p. 133) declares that there is a significant relationship between violence in the media, however attempts to blame the media for such violent acts are tantamount to efforts towards diverting attention and responsibility from the actual causes of violence. Those who are not predisposed to admitting the social issues of society find the media an easier excuse or target. However, Held (p. 134) believes that this would not change the fact that the media are partly to blame for the increased incidents and social injustice in the US. Even as the media refuses to own up to their responsibility in the outbreak of violence, their impact on the viewing public remains persistent. The media decides what sort of descriptions to give to violent acts. A pertinent issue for the media is that the way they describe or label the violent activities is sometimes sensationalized or ‘tabloidized, ’making the violence seem grand or heroic. The media also often portrays sympathetic attitudes towards rebels or freedom fighters, and later such attitudes sends the wrong message to the people, making them think that it is acceptable to violently seek a redress for their grievances. In some ways, there is often a thin line between sympathy for these freedom fighters and sympathy for terrorists. Moreover, even the label ‘freedom fighters’ may be a problematic term because they make these people seem noble and heroic, where in fact, to their victims and to the governments they plague, there are nothing more than terrorists. The issue of terrorism or retaliation is also a major consideration in this case because some acts may again be labeled different by the media, and their labels can serve as basis for the people’s actions. The media deciding whether a certain act is terrorism or retaliation is filled with bias. However, responsibility for these labels and these acts cannot be avoided in the face of the actual negative influence that they potentially bring to the vulnerable population (Held, p. 134).