Go to previous section
Go to Table of Contents
It is impossible to monitor close to 3,000 hours of television programming without developing an overall impression of the medium. Everyone uses television for vastly different reasons. Some look to it as their prime source of entertainment or as a way to pass time. Others want to know what is happening in their world and in their neighborhood. Many people pay close attention to television while others use it as background noise or to help them fall asleep. It has been simultaneously praised for creating the most sophisticated and aware generation in America's history and condemned for producing the least literate and most violent.
Television can be wonderful. With little direct costs to the viewer, it supplies a steady diet of entertainment and information. It can teach important lessons long before a child enters a classroom and inspire that child to become a good citizen and a productive member of society. If it does not do this, television will become, in the words of the man who used it better than any other, Edward R. Murrow, "merely wires and lights in a box."
All the good that television does is in danger of being eclipsed by an angry public and government demanding that something be done about violence on the screen. The world of television, from broadcast networks, to syndication, to cable, to home video, is not as violent as we had feared and not as wholesome as we might have hoped. There is room for substantial improvement. This report is intended to open the pathway for that improvement.
In the broadcast world, the four television networks 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. The violence contained in the most disturbing television series is minor in comparison to that contained in theatrical films shown on network broadcast 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 in this report as raising concerns about violence. It is possible to create popular programs that do not resort to inappropriate uses of violence.
Television movies also show some hopeful signs. While 23 out of 161 still raise concerns about violence, there are fewer television movies that focused on the minute and graphic details of gruesome crimes than in May of 1993. The practices and standards departments and programming executives at the four networks are having an important influence in dealing with violence in television series and television movies.
Even with the positive indicators we see in these two areas, there is still room for much more to be done. The scheduling of shows with violence early in the evening, particularly on Sunday, needs to be reconsidered. Television movies should avoid focusing on violent themes or using violent titles. They also need a better and more consistent use of advisories. Almost all of the television movies that raised concerns lacked advisories. Only Fox makes liberal use of advisories and this is because it has to run its films earlier than the other networks.
The networks seem to have a policy prohibiting the depiction of bullets or knives entering the body. Instead, the viewer typically sees the victim after the shooting or stabbing. When violence is necessary to the story, this successfully alleviates some concerns by avoiding the need for graphic images. We raise the question: where are the alternatives to violence? Our concern is not only whether it is contextually appropriate for someone to reach for a gun and shoot, but rather, must someone always reach for a gun? There needs to be an exploration of other alternatives. In many instances, excessive violence seems to come from a poverty of creative ideas. The best writers are able to create multi-dimensional characters whose motivations are more important than acts of violence. Many theatrical action films must have scripts that describe the last 15 minutes as: "A big car chase, crash, several explosions and a fight to the death." It takes good writers to do better than that.
There are still serious problems in theatricals films on television, on-air promotions and children's television. These areas require considerable attention. The question of what theatricals can run on network television should be rethought. The networks agree that some films simply cannot be shown on television. They ought to examine whether theatrical action films with 30-50 scenes of violence belong in this category. These are the films that must be edited beyond recognition, and even then their consistent theme of violence cannot be minimized. All that can be edited are the absolute worst moments of violence such as the glass entering the body in Ghost. Advisories need to be more consistently applied here also.
On-air promotions continue to raise important concerns. Some of the writers and producers we spoke with expressed frustration at trying to deal with violence intelligently only to see their shows promoted by the scenes of violence--stripped of any context. Promotions have to sell the viewer on the show. They need to grab attention and violence is one of the ways to do it. Even if this premise is accepted, there is no compelling need to put every scene of violence in the promo, thereby overwhelming the viewer's attention. If a promo must feature a scene of violence, it can do so with one scene while trying to establish some surrounding context for the show. In some ways, the most honest promo we saw all season was the one for Walker, Texas Ranger which showed Chuck Norris throwing several punches. The promo promises a fight and this is what Walker delivers. But promos provide important opportunities to do much more. Scheduling is also an important area of promos and the networks need to pay much more attention to the shows in which they place promos. A review of standards for promos and theatrical film ads should be made over the next season.
Many of those who work in children's television will be surprised at our concerns about violence in some of these programs. They will point out that the amount of violence has decreased and no one is ever killed in children's programs. Producers of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers might argue that the Rangers only fight monsters and the show is all fantasy. The point defenders miss is that the shows we classify as sinister combat violence are only about violence. Alternatives to violence are rarely discussed. The shows send the message that fighting, if not fun, is at least the norm. It is true that people rarely die on Saturday morning, but it is not true that they rarely fight. While the programs featuring sinister combat violence raise the most concerns, the other shows continue to raise issues that will be examined in subsequent reports. It is ironic that programming geared largely to adults, prime time, is showing promising signs in regard to violence, while that created especially for children continues to have serious problems.
This is the first of three annual reports that the Center will issue on the state of television violence. Future reports will be able to analyze both how the issue of violence in the next television season has improved or worsened and also how the industry itself has responded to our recommendations. This is an unprecedented situation. We know that we have the industry's attention and plan to focus that attention on ways to improve the television picture of violence. After the release of this report, the Center is prepared to work with the industry on how to implement its recommendations. One of our recommendations suggests that the follow up to this report begin with a series of discussions with the networks to identify what is and what is not working in the effort to improve the situation in the area of television violence.
In any serious cooperative endeavor, success is predicated upon the involved parties having at least a modicum of respect for each other. In the present project, this is especially true in regard to the target of the criticisms, the television industry. Members of the television industry are not children in need of training, nor are they insensitive ogres whose concerns for the bottom line outweigh those for the quality of society. There is a tendency among academics to believe that if only television people knew the results of the scientific studies, they would change their evil ways. There is a tendency among moral critics to forget that members of the television industry have parents, children, brothers and sisters too, and that they care about making society a healthy and peaceful place. The industry could profit from a closer look at some of the evidence and conclusions of the scientific studies, but that is not to say that a huge knowledge gap exists between the scientific community and the television industry. Survey after survey, including one the Center conducted last year with U.S. News & World Report, clearly indicate that the industry knows it has a problem with television violence and wants to do something about it. Having said that, it is also important to recognize that the television business is competitive, and growing more so each day. In order to enable broadcast networks to make significant improvements in this area, their competition, including cable television networks, will have to address this issue as well. Increasingly, viewers simply do not distinguish among broadcast and cable channels as they "surf" through their television dial.
Though the members of the industry should not be regarded as ignorant and uncaring, there is certainly something to be said for holding their feet to the fire with an eye toward making the necessary improvements in programming. There is a tendency for the industry to make the proper noises and then wait for the danger to blow over. There needs to be some mechanism put in place whereby the industry will feel pressured to make real changes. The government needs to recognize when change occurs. If the industry is not held accountable in some concrete way, nothing will be accomplished.
In producing this report we have spoken to leading network executives, producers, writers, researchers, advocacy and public interest groups and parents. All have impressed us with their concern for the issue and their commitment to make things better. Frequently, in dealing with each other, these groups misunderstand or mistrust the others' motives. All too often they have tried to demonize the other side. An issue, like a war, is easier to fight if you are convinced the other side lacks your own standards of decency. Despite what some in the industry say, much of the study of television violence has been well-conceived and meets the highest standards of scholarship. It is not created by "bean counters" with elitist notions that television is only pablum for the masses. And despite what the critics say, television executives are not money-grabbers willing to put on anything to make a buck. Both sides are full of intelligent people who care about the quality of their society. If some of the leading executives had gone to work at a university they might be conducting the very research they have come to distrust. And if many of the prominent researchers had gone into the television business they might be producing or scheduling the programs they criticize so often.
Most of our criteria for whether a program raises concerns about violence in its context are similar to those at the networks. These were the standards the networks adopted in 1992 and we evaluate them according to those standards. They too talk about consequences, punishment, graphicness and relevance to the story and believe that the programming they air reflects these standards. Many of their discussions are very similar to discussions we held at our weekly meetings. With two systems so similar, how do they frequently come to such different conclusions? Some differences can be credited to honest differences of interpretation. But others reflect programmers' tendency to justify their decisions through the prism of their own programming. The network that runs reality programming claims that no matter how graphic the images are, they are realistic and better than the cartoon violence of an action science fiction program. The programmers of the science fiction show believe the audience knows their show is not serious and really just becomes a fantasy for the viewer. The networks are able to look at each other's programming and easily see the problems. They have a harder time making the same judgments about their own programming.
Violence on television is a contentious social and political problem. Many of our friends and colleagues advised us to stay out of the fray. There is no way, they argued, you can please everyone and you may end up pleasing no one. It is not our goal to "please" anyone, but, it is our goal to act as an independent, objective and honest intermediary, able to make and defend sound judgments about issues of violent content on television and then to be available to recommend means and areas for improvement. The problem has been that programmers and their practices and standards departments have no one to talk to about these issues other than themselves, except for advocates whom they see as lacking objectivity or simply furthering their own cause. Hence, the need for an independent, outside monitor, not beholden to the networks, to the advocates or to the government.
As difficult as this issue is, we believe it can be addressed. Our 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.
Our full focus is now on all that follows this report. Believing that all sides are serious about fully addressing the problem of television violence, we conclude this report with our recommendations about what can be done. The next annual report, due in the Fall of 1996, will begin with an assessment of the response to this report and the action that followed its release.
Go to next section
Go to Table of Contents