There have been innumerable studies connecting screen violence with social and criminal media violence as the principal cause failed to take into account the plethora of other possible reasons. Much of the early angst was aimed at television rather than film in the belief that the film rating system prevented unwanted exposure. Video put paid to that idea. A rented video could be accessed by any and everyone in the family. A survey of primary school aged children in 2005 listed among the films they had seen Pulp Fiction, Saw and the Exorcist. How that affected them was not followed up and nor were their parent’s reasons for allowing access in the first place – if that was even a conscious decision. As film makers and distributors pointed out, it wasn’t their responsibility. The situation in 2025 is of course far removed from rented videos. Everything and anything is available for a subscription. Today TV, film and video have been rolled into one by streaming services with no promotion of acceptable ethical or moral standards.
A generalised view of Netflix content may well reveal just how limited the plot lines are. Many involve revenge with a gun. Collateral damage to property and people not involved in the indiscretions of the action are taken for granted as a new norm. Alarmingly for the American viewing audience, the prevalence of corrupt presidents, vice presidents and billionaires is just as much the norm as were gangsters in a previous age. This dystopian picture of society suggests to some minds that the end of civilisation may be close – a situation mirrored in the choice of news items on the daily news where violence headlines on a nightly basis and it is left to high-ranking police personnel to point out behaviours that should be acceptable.
Netflix has also achieved what no single nation or empire ever managed – total coverage of the planet. While steaming services provide unprecedented access to a vast array of films, television shows, and documentaries, they have also been criticized for their potentially negative impact on society. There are serious concerns about the subtitling of Netflix film content into American English. One of the primary concerns linked to the use of American street slang in subtitles is that particularly with foreign language films an insult in French, Italian or Icelandic has its own cadence and while translating the nuances into American street slang may resonate with an American audience, it raises important concerns not just regarding the integrity of the English language but how much the nuances and richness of other languages are being undermined. The street slang used is essentially urban, retrograde and hardly indicative of how people speak beyond cities and yet it is promoted as the norm.
Children and teenagers who consume media filled with informal expressions adopt these terms as part of their everyday vocabulary, not just in America but across the world. While slang has its place in informal settings and cultural expression, the rampant use of it can perpetuate stereotypes. Street slang often originates from specific cultural or social groups, and its widespread use in mainstream media can reinforce narrow perceptions of those groups. By portraying certain communities primarily through their slang, filmmakers intentionally contribute to clichés. It has always been accepted that language is inherently dynamic and evolves over time often to the detriment of meaning. However, an imposed slang simply distorts that process.
A combination of dystopian narratives that can also evoke feelings of despair and a degradation of language could lead one to believe that civilisation is on the brink of collapse. The distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between truth and lies no longer exists. Any guiding principles of ethics or morality were abandoned sometime in the early 20th century and according to Existentialist thinking, the onus is on the individual to make choices about how a life should be lived. That is hardly the view of Netflix or any other streaming service. The sheer volume of material presented each day across an endless array of platforms leaves no room for any decision making.
Relatedly, as television spread across the globe, nacent nations saw in television the real possibility that the ‘right’ values could be imparted. Too often the ‘right’ values though turned out to be propaganda. In essence TV though took little responsibility for enshrined beliefs that the media could regulate itself. Cutting edge TV was all about pushing the boundaries. It was a case of do whatever you want until there was a complaint about standards and then apologise. By that time a new precedent had been set and there was no going back. The same can be said of streaming services. The direction of society is closely linked to how society sees itself. The imposed and unrelenting surge of materials being presented undoubtedly gives film makers and TV program makers endless chances to keep producing products to meet an ever-expanding demand. However, quantity does not meet quality and with so many services and TV channels needing material to fill the demand, it is no coincidence that a superficial gratification of the need for violent and uncompromising solutions couched in the violent language of the urban street becomes reality. When there is no other code for behaviour being promulgated outside of increasingly poorly attended church services and school curricula bursting at the seams with undigested content, all that is left are the streaming services providing a vision of the world that aligns with their ideas of profitability at all costs.