Go to previous section
Go to Table of Contents

4. Criteria

Essential to a strong, contextual analysis was the establishment of a set of criteria that could be applied to every scene we monitored. From these criteria we could derive a comprehensive understanding of the context of that scene. The goal of this criteria was to make the following ultimate distinctions between programs which:

The analyses from the scene sheets coupled with the viewing and discussions from the weekly meetings allowed us to make the above distinctions which result in the conclusions found in parts III and IV of this report.

As previously indicated, our definition of violence is so all-inclusive that any program deemed to contain no violence is so free of problematic content so as to be acceptable to almost anyone. The real burden of our work is to look at those programs that do contain violence and determine whether the violence raises concerns within the context of the story.

The ultimate decision as to whether the program raises concerns regarding its use of violence is contingent on whether it is deemed contextually appropriate. This determination is based on the application of the following criteria:

  1. What time is it shown? Children are less able to determine context than adults. The earlier the show is aired, the more likely it is for violence to raise concerns. Conversely, the later the show is aired, the less likely it is for the violence to raise concerns. Shows aired at a later time, appealing to more adults, deserve more latitude to use violence to tell the story. Nevertheless, only in a few instances can time slot alone become a decisive factor.
  2. Is an advisory used? If a program contains scenes of violence, an advisory is considered an important warning, especially for parents and their children. An advisory alone does not excuse all that follows, but it does provide important information for viewers. While an advisory by itself seldom alleviates concerns, the lack of an advisory in some instances can raise concerns.
  3. Is the violence integral to the story? Violence historically has been important in the telling of some stories. If violent scenes are included, they should be used to move the story or in some way add to viewers' understanding of the characters or the plot. Violent scenes should not be included only to attract some viewers. Some programs use only one scene of violence but repeat it as many as 11 times. If the same violent scene is shown repeatedly, it must continue to be contextually relevant. Whether the violence was integral is the measurement of gratuitousness. A frequent test of gratuitousness was the question whether anything in the story would be lost without the violence.
  4. How graphic is the violence? Graphicness in and of itself is not a problem. In Psycho it is necessary to see Norman Bates' decomposed dead mother to understand the full depths of his mental illness. In that scene, the graphicness adds something important to the story. If scenes are graphic just to illustrate gore or demonstrate some cinematic special effect, that graphicness may raise concerns. We endorse the network's 1992 statement which said that graphic violence should not be used to shock or stimulate the viewer. It must have a contextual purpose so as to not raise concerns. A few of the scenes monitored this season showed throats being slowly slit or spikes driven into knees or eyes, but added nothing important to the story. Graphicness for the sake of graphicness was a frequent problem.
  5. How long are the scenes of violence? The scenes should be as long as they need to be to tell the story. There is no standard for appropriate length. If the scene containing violence seems elongated simply to fill out the story, it may raise concerns. Some series routinely end with scenes of violence as long as five minutes, while some theatricals have finales as long as 15 minutes. If the scene continues to add to the story, it is less likely to raise concerns. A related concern is the repetition of the same scene throughout the program. One program, Hard Copy, repeated the same scene of violence 11 times.
  6. How many scenes of violence are included and what percentage of the show did they comprise? This is the closest the research gets to counting. Normally, a judgment is made about the context of the individual scene. The number of scenes becomes a concern when there are so many acts of violence that the context of the show is little else but violence. There is no magic number for how many violent scenes are appropriate. "Tonnage" can be a problem when there are so many scenes of violence that they serve as the thread holding the story together. This is seen in some action theatrical films such as the Rambo films and a few television series.
  7. Is the violence glorified? Does the story serve to make the violence exciting? Music can frequently enhance or mitigate the sense of excitement as can sound effects and other techniques. How do the other characters in the story feel about the use of violence? Is that decision ratified and supported or do the other characters disapprove? What does the viewer learn about the acceptability of violence? Glamorized violence can be seen in the James Bond films, particularly when the acts are accompanied by the theme music in the background.
  8. Who commits the act of violence? Is it a hero with whom the audience identifies or was it an unsympathetic villain? Audiences naturally identify with the hero. If the hero easily uses violence or does not carefully consider his/her actions, violence may be affirmed as a desirable tactic. Conversely, a sympathetic character's reluctance to use violence or decision to use it only as a last resort and with some measure of restraint, sends an important message to viewers and raises fewer concerns. A hero committing acts of violence, particularly without examining alternatives, such as the leads in the Dirty Harry or Billy Jack films, does raise concerns.
  9. How realistic is the act of violence? Few viewers expect animation to be very realistic. Shows that contain a "realistic" sense are under an obligation to portray acts of violence close to how they would occur in real life. Most police shows, reality shows and anything that purports to show life "the way it is" are examined for the realistic nature of violence. A show resembling "real life" in all other ways would also be expected to be realistic with regard to violence. Grand Canyon, Lawrence Kasdan's story about life in Los Angeles in the 1990s, would be held to a standard of realism in its use of violence and it does portray the shooting of Steve Martin in the leg very realistically. The same would be true of some combat films such as Glory, but not many contemporary action films. Anything that makes realistic violence seem less serious than it really is raises some concerns.
  10. What Are the consequences of the violence? Closely related to realism, those shows that portray real life (most urban police shows, for example) should also demonstrate the realistic consequences of violence. Few would expect to see excessive bleeding in a cartoon or situation comedy, but would, in some instances, in a police drama. Psychological or emotional consequences can be as significant as physical consequences in dealing with scenes of violence.
  11. Is the violence used as a hook to attract viewers? Is it the promise of violence coming from a promo or theatrical advertisement that is attracting the viewer? Some programming uses violence as the salable quality of the show. This is true of many martial arts films. In some instances, there is a commercial break just before or in the middle of a scene of violence. Is the violent scene used as a vehicle to ensure the viewer continues watching?
  12. Are alternatives to violence considered? Is violence a knee-jerk reaction or do the characters consider alternatives to violence? The use of violence as a well-considered action after other alternatives have been exhausted raises fewer concerns than merely reflexively resorting to violence.
  13. What kinds of weapons are used? Do characters respond with much more force than is necessary? Do they use unusually brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage? Is the use of excessive weaponry endorsed or glorified? The police in urban dramas such as NYPD Blue use realistic weaponry, while the Dirty Harry films are filled with enormous guns capable of overwhelming fire power.
  14. Is the violence intentional or reactional? Do the lead characters resort to violence freely, or only when provoked? A character resorting to violence only when provoked raises fewer concerns than a character who instigates the violence or deliberately seeks a confrontation. Self- defense is also considered here.

All of these factors are weighed together. No one factor determines that the program does or does not raise concerns. For example, the simple use of an advisory does not excuse all that follows. If it did, then networks could use advisories and then air anything under the protection of that advisory. Similarly, a programmer cannot air gratuitous violence at 10:00 p.m. without raising concerns simply because the show aired in a later time slot. All criteria are considered and related to the specifics of the show, and as a consequence, each program is treated uniquely. There are some similarities between Beavis and Butt-Head and The Simpsons (they are both animated and contain subversive humor). It would be easy to evaluate them similarly. However, the programs are quite different in the level of satire. Moreover, close scrutiny reveals that Beavis and Butt-Head uses an advisory and runs at 10:30 p.m., while The Simpsons runs at 8:00 without one. Thus they warrant separate treatment. Similarly, the presence of graphic violence itself does not necessarily mean that a show raises concerns. That decision is based on why the program contains graphic violence and how it is integrated into the story. As mentioned earlier, Schindler's List does contain graphic violence but may not raise significant concerns.

All the above factors are part of a formula that leads to the decision of whether a show raises concerns. We recognize this is not as clean or simple as counting acts of violence and releasing our results. At times when we were buried in scene sheets or mired in endless discussions applying the above criteria, we longed for the ease and clarity of counting. Even though our method necessitated long, difficult applications of standards, we feel it ultimately produced the kind of results people need in order to assess the problem of media violence. We are particularly sensitive to the concerns of parents. Unfortunately, parents in America in the 1990s do not have the time or the opportunity to preview all programming for their children. This report aims to provide illumination for parents on the issue of televised violence. In fact, our methods are quite similar to those of a parent previewing television programming for his or her child.

From a practical point of view, there are four types of programs containing violence:

  1. Shows that raise concerns and almost everyone agrees they raise concerns. These are shows such as slasher movies or films such as Faces of Death (even though it has only been available on home video), which is a collection of real people being killed on camera.
  2. Shows that contain scenes of violence but almost no one would feel they raise concerns. This would be shows like Home Improvement, which contains workshop "accidents" within a wholesome family comedy.

    These two categories are easy to deal with. They produce near unanimous agreement. Harder to achieve consensus on are:

  3. Shows that do not have high levels of violence or in which the violence is not graphic, glamorized or gratuitous, but, because of context, the violence does raise concern. These are shows such as the American Comedy Awards, which included a Pulp Fiction clip of a man's brain splattered across the rear window after being shot in the head, or even America's Funniest Home Videos, which is elaborated upon later in the report. These are the shows that are likely to produce the "Oh, come on" response from some.
  4. Shows that contain high levels of violence or very graphic violence, but in which the violence is appropriate to the story and therefore does not raise concerns. This is where Schindler's List or the television series M*A*S*H fits in. The violence is absolutely necessary to tell the story.

Television violence is a complex issue and everyone approaches it differently. Trying to deal with an equally difficult subject, pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart threw up his hands in frustration and declared, "I know it when I see it." Although we sympathize with his dilemma, it is not enough that we know problematic violence when we see it. Our goal is to explain this problem in a way that has meaning for everyone concerned about the issue. Therefore, as readers examine our results section, they will be able to look over our shoulder and evaluate how our decisions were made. Most other research on this issue was written for either the academic community or special interest groups and then interpreted for the public, usually by the media. It is our strong desire that this study--its purpose, methodology and results--be accessible and understandable to anyone interested enough to read this report.

Go to next section
Go to Table of Contents

markup updated 10/10/95