It's titled "The Violence of Media as it Pertains to Reality" and I'm hoping that it's good. So like, comments or something.

This is going to be somewhat in the style of a map critique so...

You have a great topic, good command of grammar and vocabulary, and are capable of turning out attractive prose. However, I don't much like the structure of your paper. It seems to me that it is just a loose collection of Statement::Counter-statement pairs. Clearly I share your view of the topic, but I don't think I'd find this very convincing where I a fence-sitter.

You are quite articulate on the micros-scale of a single paragraph, but surprisingly inarticulate on the broader scheme of organization. I would outline the structure of your paper like this:

• Hook (an anecdote that draws the reader's attention)
• A very long list of sound bite like statements and your counter arguments to those statements.
• Conclusion (the best, most organized, part I thought)

While this is sort of okay for a short paper, it doesn't hold up in a work of the length that you have here. In my opinion the structure should run something like this:

• Hook (just like you did)
• Frame the argument.
• Tell us who the sides are and briefly outline their positions.
• Argument 1
• Outline in detail the "enemy" position. You my indulge in pointing out some weaknesses that you see in it, but only minimally.
• Argument 2
• Outline your counter argument in detail, with reference to specific points from argument 1, but again be brief on the attack.
• Compare and contrast the two arguments on the basis of supporting data, and logical validity. This is where you can be scathing, and hopefully demolish the other side.
• Draw your conclusions
• Summarize

I'm sure there are any number of ways you might organize this, mine is only one. The sin you have committed is to almost entirely eschew organization. Anyway, I hope this was helpful. That's all it was meant to be.