Cybermobbing and the Art of War

Media are a window to the world; that's a legitimate view. They show things we would not see without them. They don't, in the first place, create things. It's worth to have a closer look on how media shape trends and support cultural changes - but that's another story.
Today I'm just wondering about the assumptions that make teachers, journalists, parents and who else wants to join the choir of the concerned grown ups worry about new online media as place, tool or even cause for increased mobbing among kids and teenagers.
How can media create violence?
What are necessary prerequisites that make this assumption work?
I don't want to focus on eventual transactional powers and the force of imitation (if we see more violence, we become more violent) - that addresses content and not tools. That's not the primary issue with new online media or social media: In the beginning, they don't have any content; there is nothing in them, that users have not created before.
So if there is violence, hate, bullying in new online media, it has been out there before. You can't even say that this content has been created by greedy irresponsible people, like you may say regarding movies or games (even though that's not correct either).

The assumption I want to focus on is that of the blind, deaf and mute monkeys: To blame new online media for cybermobbing means to assume that what we don't see does not exist.
As long as kids just beat and mob in the schoolyard or on the schoolbus, we don't care. If they start to spread the word, we suddenly notice the problem. That's nothing extraordinary, but how to we come to the decision to relate the existence of this problem to the existence of media?
A similar phenomenon accompanied the perception of the Iraq wears in the early nineties. Bombs and missiles with cameras delivered pictures of destruction directly to peoples living rooms, you could watch the moment (hopefully military) targets were put to ashes in your TV. That also caused discussions: did it present war as a game? Or did these pictures show war like it was never seen before, did they add valuable and unprecedented truth?
War, until then, was something younger people in the western world new from history books and monuments. Memorial plaques on buildings in german cities remind you, that this building has been destroyed an rebuilt during a war, sites like the Gedaechtniskirche in Berlin are a cosy symbiosis of art and destruction. - All of it is far away and gone long before. The live-transmission of destruction brought up other questions: Have people been in this building? What kind of building was it actually? Why did it have to be destroyed?
Why was it actually possible to ask at all, if TV should show this footage? The question to be asked was rather: Why at all did this happen? And this is then quite trivial.

If we feel uncomfortable with watching pictures of hate and violence, that does not say anything about the fact of hate and violence at all, nor does it touch anything in the context of media.
This feeling to me represents the fact that we are loosing control: We see more than we want to see, we have to deal with views that we used to ignore - and have been very comfortable with. Now we have new tools to extend our perception. It ued to be technology, then it was the news media, now it is the new online media.
Technology just created pictures (or movies), it introduced reproduction, but did not help spreading things. News Media brought the reproductions of reality in nice bits to our homes. New Online Media reproduce facts that would remain completely unnoticed otherwise; they produce more (and easier) and they spread faster (and sometimes further). - We get more information than we want, and it's easier to learn more about new perspectives or different points of view than we would like it to be.
There is so much content around, there are so many ways to find and filter them - there is simply no excuse not to know or not to care about something. Ignorance is not something that happens anymore, to ignore things is a very distinct and conscious decision.
To get used to this, to accept that there are many different points of view, different ethics and values just around the corner, and that they sometimes badly attack what is important and valuable to us, makes us feel uncomfortable.

My prediction is, that this will get worse, the closer media get to our lives. Once augmented reality will start to be usable, the realities from other will be as close to our lives as our own realities - we will probably literally be able to see the world with different eyes.
Even if we stick to values or beliefs now - that will probably be the end of this attitude.

Maybe this will also cause us to stop blaming media: The closer strange realities get, the smaller the media parts become - the closer we get to the fact, that this (other) reality (where it's ok to bomb others or beat classmates) is reality - and not a media thing.