Term paper on Violence On Television

Free Violence On Television papers

Violence on Television
"There was murderers going around killing lots of people and stealingjewelry." This quote comes from the mouth of an eight year old girl afterwatching the evening news on television. The eight year old girl claimsthat she is afraid "when there is a murder near because you never know ifhe could be

Violence on TV
Violence on Television: Do Children Need Protected? What would you do if your children were watching cartoons one night when all of a sudden the characters pull out a gun and start shooting each other? Would you turn it off? I am sure most parents would. But if I were a parent, I would not. Sha

A Practical Approach to Television Violence

As difficult as this issue is, I believe it can be

addressed. My report shows that some progress has already begun in

several areas. Attention needs to be focused on how and why some

programming has begun to move in the right direction and why the rest

has not. "What this issue needs, more than anything else, is cool heads

on all sides of the problem: the network executives, the creative

community, the government, researchers and advocacy groups. All sides

need to worry less about how each development affects only them and

instead look at the needs of everyone."(U.C.L.A. 5)

In the broadcast world, the four television networks, ABC,

CBS, FOX, and NBC, have begun to get the message about television

violence. The programming they completely control, series and

television movies, has, for the most part shown some promising signs and

now reflects, on the whole, relatively few issues of concern as compared

to other network television formats. I contend that this is a result of

consumer pressure, rather that governmental regulation. The violence

contained in the most disturbing television series is minor in

comparison to that contained in theatrical films shown on network

television. And that violence, edited as it is, is tame compared to

films shown in theaters, in home videos and on pay cable.

Today, we see few programs with violence as their central

theme. More programming uses violence well or does not use it at all.

The public seems to be responding. Of the top 30 shows of the season,

only two are listed as raising concerns about violence. It is possible

to create popular programs that do not resort to inappropriate uses of

violence. Advisories need to be more consistently applied here.(U.C.L.A.

13)

Ultimately, however, it was the regulatory framework

established by the Communications Act of 1934 and a belief and trust in

the strong private broadcasting system that has been allowed to evolve

within that framework that proved most crucial. Section 326 of the

Communications Act provides the abiding standard. In matters of

content, "nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to

give the [Federal Communications] Commission the power of censorship

over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio [or

television] station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated

or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free

speech or radio communication."(U.S.C. 31) This body of laws clearly

define any governmental involvement as a non-viable scenario. The only

group involved in this volitile debate that feels otherwise is,

ironically, the government. Must we, the people, obey the dictates of a

government that refuses to obey those same dictates itself?

The tension over potential content regulation that filled

the air in the late 1960's and early 1970's, however, remains with us in

the 1990s as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Communications

Act. While more hearings and reports littered the landscape throughout

the 1970s and into the 1980s, Congress assiduously avoided any acts

that smacked of direct content regulation.(House 64)

In 1990, however, this began to change as Congress took two

significant steps that threaten to alter drastically the delicate

balance previously maintained in this area. First, "Congress passed the

Children's Television Act of 1990, which not only sets advertising

limits in children's programming but requires the FCC, for the first

time, to consider the extent to which a TV licensee has served the

educational and informational needs of children when reviewing that

station's application for renewal of license." (Childrens 16)

As the 1993 Senate hearings drew to a close, an illuminating

exchange took place. The committee chairman, Senator Earnest Hollings

(D,S.C.), after hearing witnesses from the major networks, sought to

discredit their position by playing a video tape, in the hearing room,

of a short clip from the half-hour situation comedy Love and War. The

clip was from an episode in which the cast of male and female actors,

departing from their usual comedic wit in a restaurant that serves as

the show's regular set, engaged in a short slapstick barroom brawl

scene. Senator Hollings seemed appalled, strongly suggesting that this

type of prime-time "violence" was indefensible. Senator Conrad Burns

(R,Mont.), sitting on the same panel, expressed a different view, he

thought the scene was funny.

The problem is compounded by the fact that virtually

everyone concedes that some violence is "good" or "acceptable" simply

because it is essential to a story line, necessary to depicting human

conflict, or vital to reporting history and showing reality. No one

would seriously regulate violence on news or sporting events or movies

centered on the Holocaust of the Second World War. Even so,called

"objective:" criteria would not help. How many punches or bullets are

too many? Does it matter whether the specific program is a serious

drama, a situation comedy, or an action/adventure? Or should the

"criteria" be applied indiscriminately to all programs as long as they

are likely to be viewed by significant numbers of children comprising a

certain age group? Many of the legislative proposals that began to

surface in 1993 have been justified on the grounds that since Congress

can regulate many of the finest creative works, is clearly not the

equivalent of indecent material. Any governmental effort to sanitize,

channel, or otherwise direct the depiction of violence on television

would undoubtedly be so overboard as to have a severe chilling effect on

all entertainment programming.

The continuing controversy over violence on television has

largely been spurred and shaped by members of Congress and not the

expert agency on communications. The FCC, in fact, over its long

history, has rather steadfastly avoided becoming a national censorship

board on any topic,especially one so illusive and complicated as

violence. Even after coming under intense congressional pressure in the

mid,1970s to study and possibly step into this policy quagmire, the

Commission pointedly rejected any direct governmental role in overseeing

television violence: "As a practical matter, it would be difficult to

construct rules which would take into account all of the subjective

considerations involved in making such judgments." (Report 22)

Predictably, enactment of the Television Program Improvement

Act of 1990 led almost immediately to increased public pressure on the

television industry to institute voluntary measures, followed by a

series of hearings in both the House and Senate designed to assess the

industry's progress and performance.(Subcomm. 71) Moreover, unlike past

deliberations, these most recent hearings were peppered with a number of

specific legislative proposals. Included were measures that would,

among other things, make it unlawful to distribute any "violent video

programming during hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise

a substantial portion of the audience," (S.1383 11) A problem that

becomes immediately apparent to me is there is no regulation that

determines when children should be in bed. This may seem a bit

rediculous, however, barring this form of regulation, any attempt at

controlling violent content in the mass media through regulation would

be largely ineffective. Parental enforcement is necessary. I would also

like to know what constitutes "substantial".

One method of attempting to control the content of

television that appears to be acceptable on the surface, though quite

minipulative, and subject to bias by the differing perceptions of the

meaning of "violence" has been suggested by congress. This would require

the FCC to " issue quarterly "violence television report cards" ranking

both programs and sponsors according to violence," (S.973 3) "require

all television programming deemed violent to carry video and audio

warning labels," (S. 943 7) "and require all new television sets sold in

the United States to be equipped with a so,called "V-Chip" that would

enable...

UCLA Center for Communication Policy, Television Violence

Monitoring Project

Published 10/10/95

207 U.S.C. 326 (1988)

See, e.g., Subcomm. on Communications of the House Comm. on

Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., Report on

Violence and Television 1 (Comm. Print 1977).

Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. No. 101,437, 104 Stat.

996(codified at 47 U.S.C. 303a,303b,393a,39(Supp. IV 1992)).

Report on the Brdcst. of Violent, Indecent, and Obscene Material,

Report 51 F.C.C.2d 418,419 (1975).

(Subcomm.) See Implementation of the Television Program

Improvement Act of 1990: Joint Hearings Before the Subcomm. on the

Constitution and the Subcomm. on Juvenile Justice of the Comm. on the

Judiciary, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993); Violence on Television:

Hearings Before the Subcomm.on Telecommunications and Finance of the

Comm. on Energy and Commerce,103d Cong., 1st Sess.(1993); Hearings on

Bills to Regulate TV Violence Before the Comm. on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation, 103d., 1st Sess. (1993).

S. 1383, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1993) (introduced by Sens.

Earnest F. Hollings (D,S.C.) and Daniel K. Inouye (D,Haw.)).

S.973, 103fd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (introduced by Sens. Byron L.

Dorgan (D,N.D.) and Kent Conrad (D,N.D.)); H.R. 2159, 103d Cong., 1st

Sess. (1993) (introduced by Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D,Ill.)).

S.943, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (introduced by Sen. David

Durenberger (R,Minn.)).

H.R. 2888, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (introduced by Rep. Edward

J. Markey D,Mass.)

Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101,650,501(c),104

Stat. 5089, 5127 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 303c (Supp. IV 1992)).