Violence On Television Essay, Research Paper

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 viewers to block the display of channels, programs, and time

slots containing material previously rated or labeled by the television

industry as to violent content.”(H.R.2888 3)

After decades probing the issue in one congressional

committee after another, it is time to acknowledge, emphatically, that

the simple choice is between censorship and responsible voluntary

conduct. There is, on this topic, no middle ground. While the

government can cajole the industry, even talk over the industry directly

to the American public, it is ultimately the public that must decide

whether to watch, protest against, or turn off particular violent

programming. It cannot be legislated on a program, by, program basis.

We face a far more diverse information and entertainment

marketplace than existed when Senator Pastore squared off with three

over the air television networks which then controlled more than 90

percent of prime-time viewing. Policymakers must recognize this reality

in their continuing efforts to monitor and influence a program content

issue such as television violence. Indeed, with rapidly advancing

communications technologies capable of spreading more sources of

information and entertainment to a large audience, the role of

government in such matters should be diminished, not strengthened.

Violence will not and should not disappear from America’s

television screens. There will always be stories worth telling that

contain conflict and violence. Our founding fathers had the wisdom to

recognize the importance of freedom of expression to a democratic

society. The architects of the Communications Act had the foresight to

incorporate that fundamental principle of the 1934 Act when they

specifically denied the government the power of censorship over

broadcast content. And, those who have been entrusted with the

responsibility for overseeing and administering the Act for the past

sixty years have displayed similar wisdom in guarding this principle.

The almost continuos forty-year record of congressional

investigations, culminating in the 1993 violence hearing and numerous

new concrete legislative proposals, provides compelling evidence that

this principle cannot be taken for granted. However strong our common

concern with violence on television, it is essential that the industry

continue to police itself in response to legitimate criticism from

viewers and their elected officials.

Congress passed the Television Program Improvement Act of

1990 which granted a specific temporary exemption from the antitrust

laws relative to “any joint discussion, consideration, review, action,

or agreement by or among persons in the television industry for the

purpose of, and limited to, developing and disseminating voluntary

guidelines designed to alleviate the negative impact of violence in

telecast material.” (Judicial 84)

Thus, after many years of a relatively healthy interplay

between industry and government that always stopped short of

legislation, Congress enacted a measure effectively demanding action on

the violent content of television programs. While this first

legislative step only voluntary self-regulation, it still poses a new,

more menacing threat to the no censorship standard of the Communication

Act.

In sum, “violence” laws would represent the worst possible

form of content regulation, engaging those entrusted to administer such

laws in a process destined to highlight both the harm and futility of

government action.

It is my heart felt position that the issue of television

violence can be dealt with in a mature, responsible manner without

having our public officials, who are foresworn to uphold our ever

precious Constitution, and ALL of the laws of our great land, pass

legislation which will violate our right to view any and all programming

that WE see fit.

In the spirit of cooperative societal decision making, the

following suggestions appear to be unequaled in their non-partisan

advisory quality. Furthermore, this would appear to be the only

thoroughly contemplated reasoning that has occurred on any side of this

issue. We will now examine what the role of each individual participant

in this quandary should, in my opinion look like.

Recognize that Practices and Standards departments are an

inexpensive investment for the networks’ own peace of mind. The

executives who run these departments at all four networks are extremely

knowledgeable and should have unimpeded access to the highest levels of

senior management. “Except in very rare instances, these departments

should have the final say on the treatment of issues of violence. To

program standards executives: apply to yourselves the standards you

would apply to your competitors”. (UCLA 16)

The television creative community should recognize the risk

that violence in television and film can be used to substitute for good

writing. The best writers and producers in television can create

characters and compelling stories without unnecessarily filling the

program with the scenes of violence. Through your own organizations

such as “The Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors, the guilds and

the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences hold meetings and

discussions on issues related to the use of violence: showing

consequences, graphic-ness, the need for context and techniques to avoid

over reliance on scenes of violence. Include the network’s development

executives in these discussions.” (UCLA 16)

The government must understand the important role that it

plays in the issue of violence in the media. Do not underestimate your

power to shape public opinions. As much as possible, speak to the

television industry with one voice. Use your powerful voice to

encourage, persuade, cajole and, when necessary, threaten. Recognize

when progress is made. The television violence issue needs sustained

leadership from the government. “Broadcasters should not have to fear

all understandings and arrangements disappear after every election or

change in government.” (UCLA 17)

Network affiliates must put pressure on the networks. Let

them know what programming you do not like or which is unsuitable for

your area. Do so with examples and with detail of the format, themes or

scenes of violence you do not consider suitable. “In conjunction with

the network’s practices and standards department, create your own

standards for network promotions and your own local and syndicated

programming. Network promotions designed for 10:00 should not be run on

your station in the afternoon or very early evening.” (UCLA 17)

In our schools, media literacy should never replace social

studies or science in the curriculum. But television is an important

part of students’ lives. Teachers should ask their students about what

they watch and how accurately it reflects their lives. “Discussions of

how television deals with gender and racial stereotyping, depictions of

historical events and social trends can all be incorporated into

existing lesson plans. Teachers can be more media literate and include

these concepts in their teaching.” (UCLA 18)

In the school of my own children, there is already in place

the perfect format for just such a course. This is refferred to as “Tech

Ed.”, or, technical education. There is not currently a media literacy

course offered, why not, certainly television is technical, and no doubt

requires some form of education.

Most importantly advice to parents. You cannot watch all

television with your children, but you can occasionally watch your child

watch television. You can ask them about what they watch. What lessons

are they assimilating? Can they distinguish between animation and live

action? Do they realize that they can settle disputes without resorting

to violence? Why do they like some television characters and not

others? Explore some of the technological devices now or soon to be on

the market to help you control what your children watch. If your

television already has a channel block feature, learn how to use it.

Whether or not there ultimately is a V-Chip, look at devices such as The

Telecommander or TV Guardian that not only control which programs your

children watch, but how much television and at what times. “Make your

views known to television stations and broadcast networks.” (UCLA 18)

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)).