 |
|
 |
This report was not intended to merely add another study on television violence to the hundreds already conducted. That has been done and, in many cases, it has been done well. What attracted us to this work was that the broadcasters were committed to the monitoring process. Through an annual public report and discussions throughout the year, we believed we could address this important issue in a new and potentially effective manner.
Over the years, academics, advocacy groups and interested persons have conducted research on television violence. Broadcasters usually scrutinized the conclusions or methodology in order to refute the findings or discredit the work. Some of the previous work has been conducted by people or organizations with personal, political or religious agendas, using unsound methods or unreliable samples to prove what they already believed to be true. Others conducted important, sometimes groundbreaking, work only to find that it was not fully understood or appreciated by those working in television who could best implement the results of the research.
The monitoring of broadcast network television violence conducted over the past two years has been distinct from any work that came before. Through the arrangement with Congress, the broadcasters are tied to this project. The fact that we have met with them over the past year to discuss our work and its findings has meant that they had to carefully examine the report and discuss its conclusions. Any misconceptions or misunderstandings were quickly identified, clarified and settled. Our communication with the broadcast networks was not by press release, television interview or academic journal. The process Senator Simon created allowed us to communicate directly with the networks so as to meaningfully and effectively deal with these issues.
Each network took the findings of last year's report very seriously. At the networks, each page of the report was color-coded, annotated and cross-referenced and then placed in a three-ring binder. Each section, such as those on promotions or theatrical films, was distributed to the relevant departments of the networks. Each network provided an in-depth response to the substance of the report and its findings and recommendations. Though these discussions were frequently heated, they were always constructive and conducted on both sides with a desire to learn from each other and make real progress on the violence issue. Comments in conversations demonstrated that all of the networks had carefully read and evaluated the report and were completely familiar with all of its content.
The discussions with the networks were open, comprehensive and constructive. In the conclusion of last year's report we noted that:
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.
Over the course of the year we came to realize how true this was. We believe that the broadcasters as well came to recognize the value of an outside monitor. Though they did not fully agree with all of our findings, they were willing to discuss any aspect of television programming. In some areas, such as on-air promotions, they fully reviewed their policies and created internal changes (such as new policies, reporting relationships or additional personnel). This year's report demonstrates that these changes effectively dealt with the problem. Other programming areas will be slower to change and are discussed in detail in this year's report. Never once, however, did we find any of the four networks unwilling to examine any part of their programming or to make any member of their staff available to answer our questions. At some of the meetings throughout the year, as many as 18 network executives, from the president of the company or the network to the heads of all of the departments, attended the discussions.
Throughout the year we also received calls from at least half a dozen producers of programs that were identified in last year's report as raising concerns. In only one instance did those producers call to complain about the way their show was examined. In all other instances the producers felt that because we named shows, dates and specific issues, they could understand the basis of our criticism and agreed with it. Several mentioned that our analysis of their show mirrored internal production discussions. Several producers felt that the criteria of last year's report were clear enough to begin to incorporate them into their own production process. Most of these shows demonstrated mild to significant improvement over the course of the second season.
While much work still needs to be done and this report demonstrates that some new problems, such as television specials, have emerged, the overall message is one of progress and improvement.
Last year's report showed that television series raised relatively few concerns in the area of violence. In the world of television series, violence usually means punching or kicking or, less often, shooting. Here the violence is sometimes unnecessary or runs too long but it is seldom graphic or overly intense. Last year, nine television series on the four broadcast networks raised frequent concerns. This season the total drops to five and, of those, two ran for only a few episodes during the season. Considering that series are the staple of prime time television, the overall picture is not one of excessive violence.
Television movies were also relatively free of concerns about violence. Television movies, while sometimes about violent crimes, typically handle the violence well. Last year 14% of television movies raised concerns about violence. This year the figure drops modestly to 10%.
Theatrical films shown on television were where the real violence was found last season. Not only was there more violence than in series or television movies, but the violence also was far more intense and graphic. It was not uncommon to find grisly shootings, throats being slashed and even impalements or decapitations. This year, theatrical films are still where the most intense and disturbing violence is found. However, the number of theatrical films that contain this kind of intense violence has dropped in just one season. Last year 42% of all theatrical films shown on television raised concerns. This year the overall total is 29%. This is an area in which we expected to see little improvement over the first year. Networks buy their theatrical films in packages, sometimes several years in advance, and usually air each film several times. If the networks were to be influenced by our findings in theatrical films at all, we did not expect to see that influence for several years until all films already purchased had been aired. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, we saw important improvement in the first year. Still, this is the area in which most of the serious television violence remains.
On-air promotions is the area in which we did expect to see significant improvement. As described in the promotions section, this is an area over which the networks have complete control and can quickly institute changes in policy. During this past year, policies were changed and on-air promotions improved significantly. While we were quickly able to find dozens of examples last season of non-violent shows yielding action promos or violent promos in inappropriate time slots, it was far more difficult to find similar examples this season. Some problems, such as responsible shows yielding promos containing violence taken out of context, almost disappeared this season. We believe that if broadcasters continue this year's policies, this should almost completely deal with the issue of on-air promotions. Violent action films still produce violent promos but they are handled better and aired at more appropriate times. The one important problem that still remains in the promo area is advertisements for films about to open in the movie theater. These "mini-trailers" are still filled with countless scenes of violence, almost always completely out of context. Although the networks bear ultimate responsibility for airing these ads, the problem can best be dealt with by the motion picture studios or advertising agencies that produce them. These ads will be a priority for the third year of the monitoring process.
Children's television is also an area that demonstrated some improvement, and the creation of the three-hour educational rule should accelerate this trend. The area of greatest concern is "sinister combat violence" in which heroic characters eagerly resort to violence that is glorified and the center of the program. Last year there were seven shows on the four networks that featured this type of violence. This year there were four. We were encouraged by some of the new programs that seemed to find alternatives to violence or fighting and that were even able to add some educational components. Now that there is motivation to create quality educational children's television, it is our hope that children's television will continue to improve over the coming season.
Despite the overall progress, there are two disturbing issues arising in the 1995-96 season. Television specials emerged as a new area of concern. While the overall percentage of specials raising concerns is quite low, the success of several programs that contain real and re-created footage of animals attacking and, in some cases, killing people raises considerable concerns. Of greatest concern is that the success of these programs (which ran five times last season) will spark imitation. Perhaps, in order to be noticed, these imitations will become even more graphic or shocking. Also of concern is the frequent use of violence on one of the new broadcast networks, UPN. It alone aired four television series that raised frequent concerns while the four older networks together had five shows raising such concerns. The discrepancy becomes even more dramatic when one considers that UPN programmed six hours altogether while the four broadcast networks combined programmed 81 hours. For the 1996-97 season UPN has changed most of its programming and next year's report will examine the effects of those changes.
Despite the above reservations, the message of this year's report is still one of some progress and improvement. While we believe that the monitoring process has contributed to some of the progress, there are also other important factors.
First, the government has played a significant role in the television violence issue. Concerns about television violence have become bi-partisan. Both men running for the presidency in 1996, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, have made television violence an important issue in their campaigns. They have correctly read the public's concern and focused attention on it. The President has called two summits at the White House and former Senator Dole has made two major speeches on the topic. Congress has also paid great attention to the violence issue. Congressman Ed Markey has been an unrelenting advocate of the V-chip and children's television, both as Chairman of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee and, since 1994, as its ranking minority member. The efforts of retiring Senator Paul Simon have been instrumental in raising political awareness of this issue, and those efforts resulted in television monitoring and this report. The actions of Senators Ernest Hollings, Joseph Lieberman, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad have also focused attention on the issue. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt has been an important force in dealing with television violence and, especially, children's television. In Canada, home of the V-chip, recently retired Chairman of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) Keith Spicer has been a tireless champion of improving television for children and his final report on the issue was entitled "Respecting Children."
All of this political action has demonstrated that this is an issue of great concern. The involvement of these government officials clearly shows that this is an issue that is not going away and that it resonates with the American public. Poll after poll unambiguously indicates that this is an area the American people care deeply about and want to see changed.
The networks themselves, however, have proved to be important agents of change. First, they have read the handwriting on the wall. Last year's report stated that there was something to be said for holding their feet to the fire on this issue. They have felt the flames. It would be wrong, however, to create the impression that the networks have responded only because they have felt great pain or fear great risk. The networks are full of highly intelligent, caring people who are concerned about the world their children will live in. When they can remove themselves from the extraordinary competition of their industry, they too want to make programming less violent and more friendly to families. While we frequently hear them complain about competitive pressures, especially from cable, never once have we encountered a network executive who does not care about the effect of the programming his or her network airs or who cynically feels that violence is simply a competitive tool to be used without consequence.
Television continues to be something about which everyone has an opinion. The next year promises changes in the world of television for every American. Parents hope that the new labeling system will provide them with more information about the television programs their children watch. The creative community is concerned that these changes may stifle the creative process. Networks are concerned about the effects of the labeling system on advertisers and their ability to ward off a continued erosion of their audiences.
It is essential to repeat that much still needs to be done. It is the purpose of the next report to ensure that the gains of the past season are solidified and continue for subsequent seasons. The monitoring process represents one of the best and most effective ways of dealing with television violence.
Last year's report concluded with a set of ten recommendations to the broadcast networks and one recommendation each for the creative community, the government, affiliates, schools, parents and even kids. In order to assess the effectiveness of last year's report and to outline the work that still needs to be done, we will reprint each of the recommendations in italics. Each recommendation from last year is followed by an evaluation of how it was dealt with by the broadcast networks this year and the work that still needs to be done. In addition, we issue two new recommendations for the 1995-96 television season. The Center for Communication Policy continues to be prepared to discuss any aspect of this report and to fully work with the networks in implementing its recommendations.
1. Scheduling: Programs containing violent themes or images should be programmed in the later hours of the prime time schedule, specifically 9:00 p.m. or later. Special attention should be paid to what has been a trouble spot: Sunday evening. Action theatricals and television movies should be run as late as possible. Until Fox schedules a 10:00 p.m. hour of prime time, it should be especially vigilant in this area, continuing its liberal use of advisories.
With one exception, the series raising frequent concerns ran at 9:00 p.m. or later. However, quite a few of the series raising occasional concerns continued to run at 8:00 p.m. and, in some cases, even earlier. While these series raise fewer problems, they would benefit from later scheduling. With the exception of Fox, television movies and theatrical films ran at 9:00 p.m. There is still an important need for Fox to program a 10:00 p.m. hour of prime time so that its films do not have to begin at 8:00 p.m. Fox did, however, continue its liberal use of advisories. Beginning with the 1996-97 television season, one network, CBS, scheduled the 8:00 hour as "family friendly programming." While this is an encouraging development, it remains to be seen if CBS will be able to compete successfully with the other networks and cable with "family friendly programming."
2. Promos: The networks should re-examine their policies regarding promos. Attention should be focused on the lack of context in promos, the time periods and shows during which the promos run and how non-violent shows can produce action promos. All promos and theatrical advertisements should be reviewed by the practices and standards department.
The networks did review their policies regarding promotions and made significant progress in dealing with this issue. This year's monitoring found very few promotions for the network's programming that raised concerns. Advertisements for theatrical films about to be released continue to raise concerns, and the networks should work on this problem with the motion picture studios.
3. Theatrical Films: Rethink which films cannot be made suitable for broadcast television, especially action films with 30-50 scenes of violence. These are the films that are nearly impossible to edit. Even if they are edited, little of the story would be left. Continue and expand the practice of extending prime time hours for difficult films.
Fewer theatrical films (29% this year as opposed to last year's 42%) raised concerns about the use of violence. This area is still where most of the "real" violence on broadcast television is found. The networks need to continue their policies of editing out the worst moments of violent scenes and continue to consider whether some films are unsuitable for broadcast television.
4. Children's Television: Examine those shows that feature combat as the highlight of the program. Study those shows that attract children and maintain their interest without using extensive fighting.
Fewer children's shows featured "sinister combat violence" and more contained alternatives to fighting, as well as educational aspects. The FCC rule calling for three hours of educational programming a week for children represents an important effort in dealing with this issue.
5. Television Movies: Some crimes and other dramatic stories are so compelling they must be told. But many television movies are about crimes and only serve as a vehicle for violence without a larger context or purpose. These stories do not always need to be told. Be careful about unnecessarily violent titles. Advisories should be much more liberally applied.
There was modest improvement in the area of television movies over the past season. Next year's schedule promises fewer television movies about sensationalized crimes or stories that feature the worst of human experience. The number of violent titles dropped significantly this year. Advisories still need to be more consistently applied to television movies.
6. Advisories: Advisories serve an important function for parents. They need to be applied much more consistently, especially to television movies and theatricals. This is much less a problem for series. Fox has shown that liberal use of advisories does not alienate viewers or advertisers.
As mentioned above, more television movies need advisories. This season saw a much greater willingness to use advisories for theatrical films and television specials.
7. Tonnage: A few shows contain so many scenes of violence that the overall context of the show is violent. These programs are in the greatest need of better writing to find plot devices other than just violence to move the story. This is a particular challenge to development executives.
This recommendation still stands with regard to the writers of some series and, although they are in a different industry, to the writers of motion pictures. Fewer television series this season featured so many scenes of violence that the overall context of the show became violence.
8. Cinematic Techniques: Emphasis should be paid to techniques that can overly accentuate scenes of violence. These include music, close-ups, slow motion and sound effects. All these techniques can improve a scene, but often are used just to enhance the violence. These are not merely incidental areas of television. Reality programs using re-creations are under a special obligation to be careful in the area of technique.
This year's report continued to examine which of these techniques mitigated violence and which aggravated it. Of greatest concern this season was the use of music in minimizing the real impact of violence in a story. This year's report points out which shows use music, slow motion or special effects in a manner that raises concerns.
9. Practices and Standards: Recognize that these 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.
The practices and standards departments continue to serve as the "conscience" of the networks and provide a very valuable service in applying standards. Our observations show that they continue to have an important influence with the upper management of the networks and are respected as important arbiters of taste and judgment. Our conversations with these executives show that their internal discussions of standards in television often parallel our own internal dialogue.
10. Shows That Deal With Violence Well: Examine how these programs can feature conflict, crime and tension without resorting to contextually inappropriate scenes of violence. Identify the qualities that make these shows successful.
Many of the 10:00 p.m. dramas are, in our judgment, of higher quality than those aired at any other time in the history of television. The list of shows that deal with violence well has more than doubled this year. It is very encouraging that these shows can deal with issues of violence so well and, at the same time, earn consistently solid or high ratings.
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 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, graphicness, the need for context and techniques to avoid over reliance on scenes of violence. Include the network's development executives in these discussions.
Understand the important role you play in the issue of violence in the media. Do not underestimate your power to shape public opinion. 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 that all understandings and arrangements disappear after every election or change in government.
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 p.m. or later should not be run on your station in the afternoon or very early evening.
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.
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?
Make your views known to television stations and broadcast networks.
Question what you watch on television. Discuss what you watch with your parents. When you do not understand something or it seems confusing, ask about it. Compare the world of television with the world you live in. If there are differences, why do you think this is so? How do your favorite shows deal with conflict and with people fighting? Ask yourself: how would you change television? You, too, make your views known to television stations and broadcast networks.
In addition to renewing some of last year's recommendations, we issue two new recommendations for next season.
1. UPN and WB: We hereby extend an invitation to UPN and WB to join the monitoring process. They both consider themselves broadcast networks, now collectively program six nights of television each week and have begun to attract audiences. This year's study shows that one of the new networks airs programming that raises concerns about television violence. As broadcast networks competing for the same advertising revenue and audiences as the other four networks, they should consider this work part of their broadcast responsibility. We would be delighted to fully brief them on our methods and results and hope to include them as participants in next year's study. We hope the new networks and their corporate owners, Viacom and Time- Warner, recognize the importance of this process.
2. The Monitoring Should Continue: By any measure this has been a successful effort. This year's report demonstrates that the process of an annual public report, followed by discussions of the report's findings, has been an important contributing factor in dealing effectively with the television violence issue. We believe that much has been gained by having an independent, outside monitor examine the world of television violence and then report its findings. We believe that the networks would agree that this process is useful. If it is continued each year, the monitoring has the potential to make an important difference in addressing an issue that has been contested for over 40 years. The overwhelmingly positive response of the networks, creative community, advertisers, advocacy groups and academics to this monitoring process, coupled with the improvement from the first season to the second, all clearly establish the need for continued monitoring.
| |
|
|
