 |
 |
 |
Concerns about the messages of mass media, particularly television, have come not just from the academic community, but also from citizens and public interest and advocacy groups. Action for Children's Television (ACT), founded by Peggy Charren and succeeded by the Center for Media Education, was a constant thorn in the side of those who resisted quality children's television. Rev. Donald Wildmon and the American Family Association (AFA) were unhappy with the amount of sex and violence they saw in television and film. In the 1980s Michigan housewife Terry Rakolta, alarmed at what she saw as the negative depictions of family life in Married with Children, mounted a well-publicized campaign to inform advertisers about the program content their advertising dollars were supporting. The Center for Media and Public Affairs and The National Coalition on Television Violence have conducted studies examining television violence.
Reacting to criticism from Congress, the scientific community and advocacy groups, the four television networks took a series of steps to address the issue of television violence. Until 1990, antitrust laws prohibited the networks from meeting and working together on any cooperative efforts. Senator Paul Simon (D-Ill.) sponsored legislation that created a special three-year exemption from the antitrust law, thereby allowing the networks to coordinate their policies on television violence. In December 1992, the networks issued a uniform set of 15 guidelines on the subject of television violence. The networks agreed that "all depictions of violence should be relevant to the development of character, or the advancement of theme or plot." Banned were scenes that glamorized violence, that showed excessive gore or suffering and that used violence to shock or stimulate the audience. The networks also agreed to avoid portrayal of "dangerous behavior which would invite imitation by children." Sen. Simon called the agreement "a first big step" in addressing the problem.
Despite Sen. Simon's hopes that the network efforts would eliminate the need for more legislation, the issue of television violence reached a fever pitch during the May 1993 "sweeps" period. The sweeps months of February, May and November are critical periods in which ratings are conducted in every locality. Doing well in a sweeps period enables a station to charge more for advertising. To win a sweeps month, stations and networks air programming most likely to attract a large audience. Such programming often consists of highly popular theatrical films, special episodes of television series and original television movies or mini-series. Sweeps are the most competitive periods of the television year. Network-originated television movies with violent titles and themes in the May 1993 sweeps included the following: Ambush in Waco; Terror in the Towers; Stephen King's The Tommyknockers; Murder in the Heartland; Love, Honor and Obey: The Last Mafia Murder and When Love Kills. Some of these television movies featured detailed and graphic scenes of murder and other crimes of violence.
National attention was focused on the violent content of broadcast television. Called before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the top network executives promised less violent programming in the future. At the end of June, the networks announced a plan to place parental advisories at the beginning of programs containing violence and on promotions that feature those programs. The plan was unveiled at a Capitol Hill press conference that included Sen. Simon and Democratic Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Rep. Markey is a leader in the fight against television violence and was then chairman of the House subcommittee that regulates the television industry. Except when special circumstances warranted different warnings, the advisory would read: "Due to some violent content, parental discretion is advised." Rep. Markey called the agreement "the dawning of a new era."
Throughout the entire summer, the issue of television violence and its effects was hotly debated. On August 2, 1993, the National Council for Families and Television sponsored an Industry-Wide Leadership Conference on Violence in Television Programming. The costs of the conference were underwritten by all four broadcast networks, many cable networks and all of the major Hollywood motion picture studios.
Sen. Simon, the keynote speaker at the conference, recommended ways in which the television industry could positively address the issue of violence:
Some sort of ongoing monitoring of the status of television violence is needed, and I would prefer that the federal government not be involved. If those gathered here would form a committee of respected citizens--perhaps called the Advisory Office on Television Violence--who would employ a small staff, headed by someone who has an understanding of the field, and that committee would report to the American people annually, in specifics, it would indicate a desire to sustain better programming. Those specifics should let us know whether glamorized violence is increasing or decreasing, on each of the broadcast and cable networks, and whether there is an attempt to avoid the time periods when children are more likely to observe. They should tell us what is happening with the independents, affiliates, syndication and with the entire industry...
Sen. Simon put the television industry on notice that if it did not quickly and adequately deal with this issue, there were those in Congress who would. The debate about the respective roles of government and the television industry in addressing television violence consumed the rest of the year. Sensing that the political climate might be conducive to legislation regulating their programming, the broadcasters worked hard to convince Congress that they were seriously addressing concerns about violence on the television screen. They pointed to the 1992 guidelines on violence and the 1993 agreement on the use of advance parental advisories as evidence of their important efforts to deal with the problem.
Early in 1994, the broadcast and cable networks reached an agreement with Sen. Simon. If they would each hire an independent monitor as outlined in his August 1993 speech, members of the industry would be given another chance to demonstrate that they could regulate themselves. In the interim he would do his best to forestall any governmental initiatives. In June 1994, Sen. Simon and the broadcast television networks chose the UCLA Center for Communication Policy to conduct the monitoring of broadcast television over the following three television seasons.
Before agreeing to undertake the project, UCLA and the Center for Communication Policy secured an ironclad agreement that the researchers would have total independence in selecting methodology, conducting research and formulating and presenting the conclusions. Neither the Center for Communication Policy nor the University itself would take part in this project if research independence was not guaranteed throughout the entire process. Nothing that follows in this report will have any significance if the issue of UCLA's independence on this project is not so clearly stated that, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "no honest man can misunderstand me and no dishonest one successfully misrepresent me." This project was, and is, free to raise any issues, examine any programming or move in any direction whatsoever without any interference or guidance from the government, the television industry or anyone else. This is absolute.
That the four broadcast networks are paying for this project raises some issues which should be directly and fully addressed. This is an industry-funded project, not an industry-initiated one. People unfamiliar with the details of the project might see parallels with the tobacco industry studies that have tended to minimize the role of cigarette smoking in causing health problems.
The television networks did not initiate this project. It came about only because of the 1994 agreement between governmental officials and the television industry. Were there not the fear of governmental legislation regulating television programming, the monitoring that we conducted over the past two years probably never would have occurred. Since it is the television industry which is being challenged to do more to address the issue of television violence, it is fitting that they, rather than the taxpayers, pay for the research. We completely support this view as long as there are proper guarantees for independence. After elaborating our own non-negotiable demands of independence in the agreement with the networks, that agreement was reviewed by Sen. Simon's office and by relevant officials on the UCLA campus. We have guaranteed our independence from anyone who might attempt to influence the findings in the following ways:
To their credit, the television networks have not attempted to change the terms of the agreement or to interfere in any way. Every request for information or explanation has been handled quickly, fully and agreeably. Whenever we have needed information about a specific area of television programming, such as on-air promotions, the networks have always made the relevant material and staff available to us.
Were this report funded by the government, a foundation or the University itself, not one single word would be changed, added or deleted. We knew from the first day of the work that we had complete independence and conducted the project and all of its inquiries with this knowledge consistently in mind. This report is not motivated by a desire to please the television industry, the government or any other interested party. Our commitment is to the standards to which our University is dedicated: a fair and impartial quest for truth.
Although we examined all varieties of television programming, this is primarily an intensive look at broadcast network television. Today's video signals come not only over the air but also through cable, satellites, home video cassettes and even through video game cartridges. Even though there are a number of different sources, each with different rules and obligations under the law, most people still think of anything they watch on the set as "television." Few viewers make distinctions between network and syndicated programming, or even, in many cases, between broadcast and cable programming. Even fewer make distinctions between programming supplied by the broadcast networks and that supplied by their local affiliates. We approach this study aware of the fact that to most of the world it is all just "television." Therefore, although this is primarily a broadcast network study, we have taken a look at all of the following television sources:
We did not examine video sources such as CD-ROMs which play on a home computer instead of a television set. Relatively new services, such as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DirecTV, USSB and Primestar), use revolutionary delivery systems, but their content replicates that of broadcast and cable. Should that change, we will examine their programming in subsequent years. Newer services on the horizon for the next year--such as the Disney-telephone company video service, Americast, and the CAA (originally)-telephone company venture, Tele-TV--will also be examined if they introduce new television content into American homes.
The primary purpose of the study is to examine the content of broadcast network television during the hours of prime time and Saturday morning. We reserved the right to extend these boundaries when necessary and, in many cases, we did so. Even though the audience share of network television has gone from a high of 90% in the mid-1970s to a more modest 60% in the mid-1990s (and this is now divided among four networks instead of three), a majority of people still spend most of their viewing time watching network television. It is the form that produces the most original programming (with the highest budgets) and it is still the program source most people watch and talk about the next day. When Congress and most of the nation think about television, they are, for the most part, thinking about broadcast network television. Therefore, the monitoring study placed its heaviest emphasis on the four broadcast networks.
The project examined every television program scheduled during the hours of prime time and Saturday morning except those shows produced by the networks' news divisions. Those times were as follows:
* Monday through Friday, from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (and later when prime
time was extended, as in the case of a long-running theatrical film)
Every regularly scheduled show was monitored at least four random times throughout the television season. If, after at least four examinations the program contained absolutely no violence, it was no longer regularly monitored, although we continued to record every episode of the show. At mid-season shows no longer regularly monitored could be monitored one additional time to look for changes in theme and content. We reserved the right to continue to monitor any show at any time for any reason and in many instances we did so. Shows that ran fewer than four times were examined each time they aired. Every television movie, mini-series, theatrical film and special for the 1995-96 television season was examined. We felt that we could generalize about some of the series after a minimum of four airings, but all one-time-only programming had to be monitored because we could not make generalizations about such programming. Television series that did raise issues of violence were monitored more than four times. We continued examining such series until we felt we could generalize about their content. Some shows were monitored for the entire season. The season was defined as running from the premier of a new episode in September or October 1995 through the end of the May 1996 sweeps. (A complete list of all the programming we examined and the number of times it passed through our system is in the appendix).
The economics of the syndication market dictate that a show cannot be successfully syndicated unless it is sold to the second biggest American market, Los Angeles. Therefore, we concluded that examining all three Los Angeles independent VHF stations would yield a complete picture of syndicated programming specifically and independent television programming generally. A randomly drawn two-week sample of programming on television stations KTLA (5), KCAL (9) and KCOP (13) was monitored, examining prime time and Saturday morning hours as we did with the broadcast networks.
In January 1995, both WB (Warner Bros.) Network and UPN (United Paramount Network) began airing original programs. They intended to compete for the niche of youth-oriented programming that Fox has been so successfully targeting. This season UPN continued to air in Los Angeles on KCOP on Monday and Tuesday nights and added Sunday mornings as well. They then added Wednesday nights in March 1996. WB continued to air on KTLA on Sunday and Wednesday nights and also added Saturday mornings. When KTLA and KCOP were airing WB and UPN programs, we treated them exactly like the other four commercial broadcast networks and examined their programming at least four times. For those periods when these stations did not air original network programming, we treated them like other independent stations, monitoring a sample two-week period.
The Los Angeles public television station KCET (28) was monitored for a randomly selected two- week period during prime time and Saturday morning hours.
Eight cable channels (three pay and five basic) were monitored for randomly selected two-week periods during the hours of prime time and Saturday morning. The channels monitored and the reasons for their selection were as follows:
The eight cable networks monitored were carefully chosen as the ones most closely resembling the broadcast networks or because of their youth appeal. There was little reason to include stations not relevant to the study of television violence, such as C-SPAN, The Weather Channel and The Nashville Network, or other cable channels not significantly different from those above.
Although home video replicates theatrical content in most instances (occasionally extra scenes are added), the VCR is attached to a television set and therefore is part of the world of television. We examined the top ten home video rental titles as listed by Billboard magazine each quarter. We began with the August, 1995 list and continued with the lists of November 1995 and February and May 1996. A complete list of the 40 films is in the appendix. In several instances a film such as Interview with the Vampire was both a top ten home video (in 1995) and aired on cable television (in 1996). In those instances it was monitored in both forms.
6. Video Games
Our examination was limited to the video games that are played on the television set and therefore can also be construed as a form of television. The two most popular companies producing these cartridge video games are Sega and Nintendo. Other game formats requiring computers, CD-ROMs, virtual reality goggles or other special, non-television paraphernalia were not examined. We monitored the top five video games of the year as listed by the Interactive Digital Software Association. In most instances those games were available in both Sega and Nintendo formats.
On our own we added programs in the old prime time access rule period (PTAR) and the fringe period from late afternoon until prime time. In May 1994 the Center for Communication Policy conducted a survey of leaders of the entertainment industry with U.S. News & World Report. When asked to name the most violent programs then on television, many identified shows in the access or fringe periods such as Hard Copy, A Current Affair or Real Stories of the Highway Patrol. To see if these charges had merit, we added a wide sampling of earlier time-period shows to the monitoring.
8. What We Did Not Monitor and Why
Programming after 11:00 p.m. was not monitored because of the small number of children in the audience at that time and the fact that most original, late-night programming, such as The Tonight Show and Late Night, was extremely unlikely to raise any issues of violence. Although the independent stations do run theatrical films and made-for-television movies in those periods, this content was accounted for through prime time monitoring.
We have little doubt that television talk shows would top most Americans' list of problematic programming in 1996. While these shows might raise important questions of taste and judgment, especially in regard to sex, rarely do they raise issues of violence important enough to justify their monitoring on the scale of other programming. Occasionally, there is pushing or shoving on these programs (it is unclear whether the producers provoke these altercations or not), and at least one murder was allegedly linked to a talk show. But for the most part, violence is not depicted on these shows. The issues raised by and associated with television talk shows deserve a clear and intensive examination, but not in a report on television violence.
The agreement between Sen. Simon and the networks precluded the monitoring of television news. While we understand and respect the First Amendment rights of journalists, we also know that many people feel that news programming contains some of the most serious violence on television. The May 1994 UCLA-U.S. News & World Report survey clearly demonstrated that many people feel that news, especially local news, is a problem. We did everything we could to treat the definition of news as narrowly as possible. We did monitor the television tabloid programs.
Each night, many local news programs lead with reports on murder, rape and mayhem. One problem with monitoring television news is that violent stories such as the Rodney King beating or war in Bosnia might be construed as problematic programming. Some recent studies on television violence have criticized stations for airing reports on Rwanda or other strife around the world. This is a dangerous precedent. To serve as an important source of news and information, broadcasters must be free to report these stories, no matter how unpleasant they are for the audience. But broadcasters should guard against gratuitous images shown merely because they exist as good tape. Many critics do feel that "if it bleeds, it leads." It is our judgment that the network news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) rarely pander to those tendencies. In far too many instances local news and syndicated tabloid shows do. We believe a comprehensive study of local news across the country--big markets and small, network owned and operated stations, affiliates and independent stations--should be conducted in the near future.
The rationale and methodology of this monitoring project are based on the belief that not all violence is created equal. While parents, critics and others complain about the problem of violence on television, it is not the mere presence of violence that is the problem. If violence alone was the problem and V-chips or other methods did away with violent scenes or programs, viewers might never see a historical drama like Roots or such outstanding theatrical films as Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Forrest Gump and Schindler's List. In many instances, the use of violence may be critical to a story that actually sends an anti-violence message. Some important stories, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, a history of World War II or a biography of Abraham Lincoln, would be impossible to convey accurately without including portrayals of violence.
For centuries, violence has been an important element of storytelling, and violent themes have been found in the Bible, The Iliad and The Odyssey, fairy tales, theater, literature, film and, of course, television. Descriptions of violence in the Bible have been important for teaching lessons and establishing a moral code. Lessons of the evils of jealousy and revenge are learned from the story of Cain and Abel. Early fairy tales were filled with violence and gruesomeness designed to frighten children into behaving and to teach them right from wrong. It was only when fairy tales were portrayed on the big screen by Walt Disney and others that the violence contained in the stories was substantially sanitized.
The issue is not the mere presence of violence but the nature of the violence and the context in which it occurs. Context is key to the determination of whether or not the violence is appropriate. If parents could preview all television, film and literature for their children, we do not believe they would remove all violence regardless of its nature or surrounding context. Parents know that violence can be instructive in teaching their children important lessons about life. What parents would do if they could preview all content for their children is remove or modify the inappropriate or improper uses of violence. Examples of these are applications of violence which glorify the act or teach that violence is always the way to resolve conflict. Our discussions with parents indicate that they know violence is a part of storytelling, but that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of depicting violence. For example, the consequences of violence should be shown and those persons using violence inappropriately should be punished. We would also note that when violence is used realistically, it is more desirable to accurately portray the consequences than to sanitize the violence in a manner designed to make it acceptable.
Over the years, scientific research has focused both on the quality and quantity of violence on television. For example, the most important and prominent scholar to investigate this issue, George Gerbner, whose work stretches back into the 1960s, conducted extensive quantitative and qualitative analyses of violence on television. Most attention, however, was focused on the
quantitative aspect of the content analyses of Gerbner, including his mechanism to determine whether the amount of violence was increasing or decreasing.
Some of the early quantitative research that counted acts was limited in its ability to examine the context of television violence. The same is true of the numerical counts often favored by public interest groups. (Numerical counts generate big headlines but we believe they do not fully address the issue of television violence.) That work required elaborate and exact definitions of violence to determine whether the act was counted or not. It was necessary to decide if verbal violence should be counted or whether comedic violence such as cartoons (what Gerbner calls "happy violence") would be registered. A precise definition determined whether the particular act would be counted. Everything had to be neatly included or excluded so that the conclusions with regard to the amount of violence would be consistent with the definition of violence.
No matter how well the definitions were drawn, there would be those who felt that some important aspect of the problem should or should not have been included. Almost everyone has his or her own definition of violence. People have often attempted to validate or invalidate quantitative research based on how much the scholar's definition resembles their own. Children's animation is a good example of this phenomenon. Consider a cartoon in which a character is hit over the head with a two-by-four, a funny sound effect is heard, the character shakes his head and merrily continues on his way. Some people consider this the worst type of violence because it is unrealistic, there are no consequences and it might encourage children to imitate it precisely because it shows no consequences. Others feel they watched these cartoons growing up and did not imitate them because they knew these cartoons obviously were not "real." Scholars have had to decide whether to count this type of violence and usually have included it. Anyone who feels this inclusion is silly would reject the entire definition and might ignore the conclusions of the research. The same is true with slapstick humor. Sports programming provides yet another example. Many feel that violent sports such as football or hockey make violence an acceptable or even desirable part of American life. Whether to count unrealistic cartoon violence, slapstick humor or sports within a definition of violence is a difficult decision.
Looking at violence within a contextual framework makes these definitional distinctions less critical. There is less need for a narrow definition because the focus is not on inclusion or exclusion in a count. We avoid the problems associated with narrow definitions by defining violence broadly. We put our focus not on establishing a correct, narrow definition of violence, but rather on distinguishing between violence that raises issues of concern and that which does not. Our broad definition includes sports violence, cartoon violence, slapstick violence--anything that involves or immediately threatens physical harm of any sort, intentional or unintentional, self-inflicted or inflicted by someone or something else. More precisely, violence is the act of, attempt at, physical threat of or the consequences of physical force. We also occasionally considered verbal threats of physical violence, although these were of secondary importance. Verbal phrases such as a teenager exclaiming, "If I don't get home by midnight, my dad'll kill me," would only raise issues if the teenager's father was a homicidal maniac.
Our broad definition might yield high numbers of scenes of violence on a given show. However, unlike previous studies, this is not our primary focus which is instead on whether the violence raises concerns within the context of the show. It is possible that a situation comedy such as Home Improvement or 3rd Rock from the Sun might yield several scenes of "violence." But the nature of the violence and the context in which it occurs might lead us to conclude that none of these scenes raised concerns.
In sum, all violence, in our view, is not created equal. The focus of the project is not on counting the number of acts of violence but on the contextual analysis of each of these acts. We examine acts of violence and the context in which they occur to distinguish between uses of violence which raise concern and those acts which, because of their nature and the context in which they occur, do not raise such concerns.
All of the programming described in the previous sections was videotaped at the Center's headquarters on a daily basis. The television networks and others offered to provide the programming, but we felt it was better and more reliable to obtain the programming on our own. Furthermore, we wanted to examine the advertising, promotions and other content which surround the programs themselves. We were curious to see what material the local stations in Los Angeles inserted into the schedule of programs. Since the local network stations in Los Angeles are all owned and operated by the broadcast networks themselves, we also examined some programming from affiliates in other cities (stations that run network programming but which are independently owned).
During each of the quarters of the 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years, the Center interviewed students for the position of project monitor. Many of the selected students were affiliated with UCLA's Communication Studies Program, the most academically selective program on campus. From day one, the students were outstanding. The students reported to assistant project coordinators, Jim Reynolds and Scott Davis, who reported to the project coordinator, Dr. Michael Suman. The project was administered by the associate director of the Center, Marde Gregory, and the administrative specialist, Phoebe Schramm. All reported to the director of the Center, Dr. Jeffrey Cole.
When the monitors reported to work they were randomly assigned a tape to examine for violent content. From the beginning, it was decided that no monitor should specialize in any type or format of programming. No one could pick his or her favorite programs or focus on a specific network, genre or evening in prime time. All monitors watched all types of programming and never knew what they would be monitoring until they reported to work. Logistical reasons dictated that each tape contain two successive days of programming from the same network or channel.
Once assigned a tape, a student would sit at a video monitor and examine the content of the programming. We created scene sheets (attached in the appendix) for the students to use in their monitoring. These sheets allowed each student to "brief" a scene of violence. The sheets asked a series of questions about every scene of violence. These questions will be discussed in detail in the criteria section of the report.
After completing scene sheets for the entire program, each student monitor then filled out a program report. This form asked for his or her written summary of the program and the number of violent scenes which required a scene sheet. Some series or movies required over 50 full scene sheets. This was an extraordinarily time-consuming process, but it was necessary to properly examine the violence and the context in which it occurred.
When the student had finished one program, he or she went on to the other programming on the tape. The students filled out separate forms for on-air promotions or advertisements. When the entire tape was finished, it was cued and the scene sheets were prepared for the weekly meeting.
Once a week, the monitors and the staff met in the monitoring room to examine the programs that had been reviewed. Reporters, writers, producers, television executives, academics, members of advocacy groups and others were occasionally guest observers. Although these meetings often lasted more than four hours, everyone involved felt they were a fascinating and invaluable part of the process.
The highly trained students were an important part of the project. At no time, however, did they have any control over decisions about, or definitions of, violence. They were trained to include all types of violence in their sheets. We asked students to fill out a scene sheet for any act of violence falling within the very broad definition that we had established. At these meetings a student would sit at a monitor and say something like the following:
I watched Fox on Friday night. The first program I examined was The X-Files, which contained four scenes of violence. The most intense was the second scene, which aired at 16 minutes into the program. It involved an attack by three aliens on an unsuspecting woman...
The monitor would offer more detail establishing the context. Members of the group would ask questions such as:
After a short discussion, the student monitor would show the scene to those at the meeting. Sometimes it would be watched several times. Then more questioning would ensue. The purpose of the meeting was to ultimately decide whether or not the program raised concerns about television violence. (The criteria are discussed in the next section.) Nothing could be declared a problem without a ruling from the director of the Center. In many instances, the senior staff of the Center reviewed entire programs.
Essential to a strong, contextual analysis was the establishment of a set of criteria that could be applied to every scene we monitored and clearly understood by readers of this report. From these criteria we could derive a comprehensive understanding of the context of that scene. The goal of these criteria was to make 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 these distinctions, which underlie 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 violent content that it would 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 upon whether it is deemed contextually appropriate. This determination is based on the application of the following criteria:
a. What time is it shown? Children are less able to comprehend 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 more to 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.
b. 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.
c. 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 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 measure of gratuitousness. A frequent test of gratuitousness was whether the integrity of the story would be compromised without the violence. A character's motivation for using violence and the overall justification of that violence are also important aspects to consider when examining the relevance of the violence to the story. Violence, for example, used by the hero or protagonist tends to be justified. Research suggests that such violence may be more likely to produce acceptance, if not aggressive behavior, in the viewer. This violence is more prone to be imitated and lessens social inhibitions against aggression. On the other hand, unjustified violence is more likely to make viewers more fearful.
d. 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.
e. Is the violence unprovoked or reactive? 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.
f. How many scenes of violence are included and what percentage of the show did they comprise? This is the closest our research gets to counting. Normally, a judgment is made about a violent act or acts within the context of an individual scene. The number of scenes becomes a concern only 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. Too much violence may desensitize the viewer and/or promote the "mean world syndrome."
g. 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 unnecessarily elongated simply to fill out the time allotted, it may raise concerns. Some series routinely end with scenes of violence as long as five minutes, while some theatricals have violent 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. Last season, one program, Hard Copy, repeated the same scene of violence 11 times.
h. 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 networks' 1992 statement which said that graphic violence should not be used to shock or stimulate the viewer. It must have a contextual purpose to not raise concerns. A few of the scenes monitored this season, showing throats being slowly slit or people impaled on spikes, added nothing important to the story. Graphicness for the sake of graphicness was a frequent problem. Repeated graphic portrayals may desensitize the viewer and/or promote the "mean world syndrome."
i. Is the violence glorified? Does the story serve to make the violence exciting? Music, sound effects and other techniques can frequently enhance or mitigate the sense of excitement. Are the other characters shown supporting the use of violence? Is the decision to use violence 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 exciting theme music.
j. Who commits the act of violence? Is it a hero or an appealing character with whom the audience identifies or is it an unsympathetic villain who commits the violence? 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 Dirty Harry or Billy Jack, does raise concerns. In addition, if a character is like the viewer in terms of sex, age, race, etc., the viewer may be more likely to imitate that character. These same considerations also apply to the victim of the violence.
k. How realistic is the act of violence? Few viewers expect animation to be very realistic. Shows that contain a "realistic" sense, however, 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 war films such as Braveheart, but not many contemporary action films. Anything that makes realistic violence seem less serious than it really is may raise some concerns.
l. What are the consequences of the violence? Similar in some ways to the above concept of realism is the concept of consequences of violence. 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. Studies show that the portrayal of consequences, i.e., pain and suffering, elicits sympathy, inhibits the learning of violent behavior, and decreases the likelihood that the violence will be imitated. An important question regarding the consequences of the violence is whether the violent act is rewarded or punished. Acts of violence that are rewarded are more likely to be imitated and encourage aggressive behaviors.
m. 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?
n. 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. Also of greater concern because of possible imitation is the use of ordinary, readily available household implements such as scissors or kitchen knives as weapons.
All of these factors are weighed together. No one factor determines whether a 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 the networks could use advisories and 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. For example, there are some similarities between Beavis and Butt-Head and The Simpsons (they are both animated and contain subversive humor) and, therefore, it might be tempting to evaluate them similarly. However, the programs are quite different in the level of satire they use. Moreover, Beavis and Butt-Head uses an advisory and runs late in the evening while The Simpsons runs at 8:00 p.m. without one. Thus they warrant separate and different treatment. Another consideration is the presence of graphic violence which by 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 because of its historical importance and necessity to the plot, the violence does not raise concerns.
All of 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. At times when we were buried in scene sheets or mired in endless discussions applying the above criteria, we longed for the ease of counting. Even though our method necessitated long, difficult applications of standards, we feel it ultimately produced the kind of results people needed 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 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. An extreme example is the film 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 include 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 America's Funniest Home Videos or theatrical films such as Home Alone, which are 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 directly accessible and understandable to anyone interested enough to read this report.
There are some fundamental premises emerging from the aforementioned criteria that must be understood before one can examine whether an act of violence within the context of a story raises concerns. Awareness of these basic premises should help the reader to understand the monitoring process and the ultimate decisions that have been made. Our operating premises have been as follows:
1. There is no such thing as an accident in fictional programming.
In the course of the monitoring, questions frequently arose about accidental violence. Examples of this include a tree falling on someone during a hurricane and someone losing his or her footing and falling down the stairs. Clearly this violence is unintentional and unprovoked. Nevertheless, in the world of fictional programming everything is created by a screenwriter (with input by, and perhaps at the instigation of, the network, producer or director). There are no real "accidents" in these cases. A screenwriter has to decide that there will be a hurricane and that a tree will fall on the character in a particular way. Then the screenwriter has to decide on the extent of the resulting injuries. In fiction, a screenwriter has a whole range of choices, and the decision to have something violent happen is only one of a variety of options. The director also has a variety of options with which to depict the "accident." Camera angles, musical score and level of graphicness are all within his control. Nevertheless, the motivation of the character is important. In our contextual analysis, accidentally running into a wall is less serious than a character consciously and intentionally hitting someone else.
The obvious exception is non-fiction programming, in which the screenwriter is following a set of facts established by what really happened. Although decisions are still made about how to interpret the actual event and how much dramatic license to take, there does not exist the wide variety of choices available in creating fictional programming. In fiction, all violence is the result of writers' and producers' decisions that violence should occur.
2. Violence is important in character and plot development to establish the bad guy as the bad guy.
Establishing the villain as a key character in many stories is important. Even stories that virtually no one would find objectionable feature a villain. Disney's Beauty and the Beast needs to establish why Belle could not possibly be interested in Gaston, the handsome muscle man who is determined to make her his wife. Viewers know that Belle is interested in ideas and books and not just an attractive partner. We learn Gaston's villainous nature when, to the tune of the song bearing his name, he punches innocent townspeople in a bar and acts like an all-around brute. These scenes are necessary to establish what kind of person he is and why Belle will turn her attentions later to the far less attractive but more caring and sensitive Beast. Likewise, in Schindler's List, the commandant of the camp is shown exploding in rage and shooting prisoners without purpose or warning. We also see him shoot random human targets with his rifle from his balcony. All of this is necessary to demonstrate his character and the evil and vicious nature of the Nazis.
We may respect creators' needs to demonstrate why and how certain characters are bad or evil but this, of course, has its limits. In Beauty and the Beast, a family entertainment, establishing Gaston's brutishness allows him to engage in violence but does not include entitling him to break townspeople's necks or sever their heads. On the other hand, at least two theatrical films this season contained graphic throat slashings or decapitations, clearly exceeding the demands of character development.
3. Audiences like to see the bad guy "get it good."
After watching a series for an hour, a film for two hours or a mini-series for as long as five hours, there is a natural tendency for the audience to want to see the conflict resolved and the villain punished or killed--getting what he or she deserves. The worse the villain, the more the audience wants some kind of vengeance, justice or final resolution. Sometimes viewers even want to see the bad guy die a gruesome, brutal death. Everyone has been to a movie theater and witnessed the audience cheer as the bad guy is shot, knifed or impaled. This desire to see the villain suffer and pay for his evil deeds is exemplified by the conclusions of the following theatrical films that aired on broadcast television: The Last of the Mohicans, In the Line of Fire and Cliffhanger. While each of these films contained an intense climactic scene where the score is settled with the bad guy, those scenes were generally well edited by the broadcast networks. ABC's cut of The Last of the Mohicans was a model of how to limit excessive violence without affecting the integrity of the story or the film maker's vision. There is a need for the viewer to see the evil villain punished, but there are limits as to how this should be depicted on television.
The earlier a program is shown, the more likely children are to be a significant part of the audience. For the networks, prime time television consists of the three hours from 8:00 to 11:00 p.m. On Sunday, network prime time begins at 7:00 p.m. On Fox, prime time ends at 10:00 p.m. Until this season the FCC maintained a prime time access rule allowing the broadcast networks to program no more than 22 hours of prime time a week. Now that this rule has been eliminated, there may be more hours of network programming in the future. A network can demonstrate its responsibility by scheduling more violent programs later in the evening. Such responsibility has been exhibited when prime time has been extended to 11:30 p.m. in order to accommodate a theatrical film with violent themes. (Television movies are produced to run with commercials in a two-hour block. Theatrical films, however, are made for the movie theater with no such constraints and, when commercials are added, they may end up at odd lengths for the purposes of television.) Extending prime time usually incurs the wrath of affiliates which have turned their 11:00 p.m. hour into a lucrative franchise with advertising revenues that are not shared with the networks. If prime time were not extended, films with violent themes would have to start at 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. This has been a particular problem for Fox Broadcasting since it does not have a 10:00 p.m. block of prime time and therefore must start its theatricals and television movies at 8:00 p.m.
Time slot is an important consideration on Saturday morning children's programming as well. Networks schedule the tamest programming at 7:00-8:30 a.m. when the youngest children dominate the audience. When their older brothers and sisters start watching at 9:00 or 10:00 a.m., they see more action and violence. Viewers would not expect to see the most intense programming in the earliest hours and, in most cases, they do not.
In 1975, FCC Chairman Richard Wiley and the broadcast networks tried to establish the earliest hour of prime time as a "Family Viewing Hour." While many in the nation applauded this goal, it had the effect of censoring situation comedies like All in the Family and M*A*S*H. The creative community filed suit, charging that the rule violated the First Amendment. After the courts struck down the hour, the networks announced a voluntary effort to be sensitive to family viewing concerns during the earliest hours in prime time. The 8:00 p.m. period was seen as a time when families could sit down together and watch programming free of most violence and sexuality. But the voluntary effort never really worked. Fox runs Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210 at 8:00. Audiences responded favorably to these shows at 8:00 and NBC responded by scheduling its popular adult situation comedy Mad About You at 8:00. The following season NBC did the same with Friends. CBS ran Due South and ABC switched Roseanne to 8:00. Most of these shows raised issues involving matters of sexuality which are beyond the scope of this report. In terms of violence, we think that the networks should be sensitive to the fact that there are a large number of children in the 8:00 p.m. audience. There are other time slots, especially 10:00 p.m. (except at Fox), that can be used for more adult programs. Typically programs with violent themes are appropriately scheduled in the 10:00 p.m. time period. Many of these programs are of high quality and reached new levels of popularity in the 1995-96 television season.
5. Consequences or punishment must occur within the specific episode for context to have an impact.
In some shows, the consequences or punishment might not come until several or many episodes later. But the nature of television does not ensure that the viewer who watched a violent act will definitely be watching to see it punished or resolved several episodes or months later. The consequences or punishment must occur within a particular episode of the program or movie. While there is no guarantee that the viewer who watched a violent act will be there 15 minutes later when it is resolved, without this assumption there would be no way to allow for normal plot and character development. The only exception to this is the mini-series in which there is a reasonable expectation that the person who watches the beginning installment will also watch the final episode.
There has been some discussion over the past year whether some viewers, particularly children, need to see the consequences immediately following an act of violence. Not all children may be able to fully discern consequences if they occur later in the program. However, to compel a program to show consequences immediately after a scene of violence is to interfere with the processes of creativity, character development and the unfolding of the story. Under such a narrowly defined stricture, Sherlock Holmes would be required to immediately identify the perpetrator of a violent crime and see him punished within moments of the crime.
There are issues regarding the way advisories are used and whether they are used at all. We would like to see advisories used more often than they are, especially in the case of made-for- television movies. Many critics, perhaps with a tinge of cynicism, argue that advisories promising scenes of sex and/or violence actually do the opposite of what is intended: they encourage people who might not otherwise watch to do so. In fact, a recent study by Joanne Cantor of the University of Wisconsin suggests that for boys, particularly those aged 10-14, parental discretion advisories and PG-13 and R ratings make movies and programs more attractive. Advisories are designed to provide warnings to concerned viewers, especially parents. But even if they do encourage some such viewing, we accept them as primarily providing beneficial warnings to prospective viewers. Advisories might be more effective if they were made more available ahead of time in printed materials describing upcoming programming, such as TV Guide. (It should be noted that there is some reluctance to use advisories because of advertiser concern about what might be perceived as problematic or controversial content.)
Music adds texture to the story and often, in regard to violence, a cue to warn or reassure the viewer. Sound tracks can exaggerate, intensify or glorify the violence on screen. Scary movies are not nearly as frightening without the music, and some viewers turn off the sound during some scenes to lessen their fright. On the other hand, music can trivialize the seriousness of violence or make it seem acceptable.
It is impossible to separate the violent shower scene in Psycho from Bernard Herrmann's musical score that accompanies it. The music sends a message about the evil and appalling nature of the crime. Similarly, the James Bond theme frequently accompanies shootings, chases and other scenes of violence and tends to glamorize or glorify the acts on screen.
Television music is equally important in telling the viewer about what he or she is watching. Light or funny music implies that what the viewer is seeing is not so serious or profound. The same scene of a shooting or stabbing can leave vastly different impressions depending upon the background music. In our monitoring meetings, there were frequent discussions about music. We often scrutinized the music to discern the producer's intent or goals. Music helps viewers understand the context of a scene or program.
Some shows use music as an important, if not essential, part of the show. New York Undercover uses hip hop, rap and R&B music to establish an urban grittiness. The Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers uses fast, upbeat music to energize the scenes of combat and involve the audience, while America's Most Wanted uses music to create a sense of foreboding or impending danger. The music on Murder, She Wrote serves to downplay the violence of the crime so viewers will instead focus on the mystery. Sometimes the music in Due South serves to emphasize and underscore the violence.
Many cinematic techniques are used in an attempt to lessen the impact of the violence or to make it seem more artistic. On Melrose Place and other dramas, slow motion is used to emphasize or draw attention to an act of violence. Police dramas like Homicide use a stroboscopic effect to break up the horror of a murder scene. The strobe simulates a police photographer rapidly snapping pictures to create a record of the scene. Sound effects also are used in a variety of shows, especially comedies, in an attempt to mitigate the severity and impact of "funny" violence. Such sound effects are a staple of America's Funniest Home Videos where they are used to accompany people getting hit in the head or crashing into objects. Walker, Texas Ranger also uses sound effects to add emphasis to punches during fist fights. New York Undercover frequently uses music and lyrics (as in a music video) as virtually the only sounds accompanying an act of violence. Sometimes the lyrics are relevant to what is on screen and other times they are not. The only sound viewers hear other than the music is that of the violence, usually a gun shot. While some may feel that the music frames the act of violence and gives it a sense of realistic grittiness, repeated monitoring found that it minimized a serious act and created a surreal sense of distance from the act and its horrific impact.
We found that the use of sound and music in America's Funniest Home Videos, New York Undercover and Walker, Texas Ranger tends to aggravate the violence and increase concerns, while the use of the flash technique in Homicide tends to lessen concerns about the violence in the scene. Therefore, it is not possible to draw hard and fast rules about whether the use of these different cinematic techniques tends to raise or to reduce concerns. Their use is examined on an individual basis. In many cases the music and sound effects constitute a crucial contextual factor heavily influencing our overall judgment of the violence in the scene.
9. "Pseudo" guns are only slightly better than real guns, if at all.
In some television movies and science fiction series, such as Space: Above and Beyond and SeaQuest, characters shoot futuristic ray guns. Some networks and producers argue that using these kinds of guns is an improvement over regular guns with bullets and that the futuristic context further fictionalizes the gunplay; in either event, making it less realistic and, therefore, less likely to be imitated. This raises an interesting issue since a child cannot grab his or her parents' ray gun, but he or she may grab their real gun. Moreover, the scene still involves a gun and shooting and, therefore, we treat these kinds of weapons in the same way we treat real guns. At most, in our judgment the use of non-realistic weapons represents only a slight improvement and, in most cases, not even that.
10. "Real" reality is given more latitude than re-creations.
After reaching a high point in popularity several seasons ago, the reality genre on television seems to be diminishing in appeal. Next season promises to see even fewer reality shows. Within the reality genre, there are shows, such as Cops and America's Funniest Home Videos, that use actual footage of a crime or some other incident, and there are shows that re-create situations, such as Rescue 911, America's Most Wanted, Unsolved Mysteries or Real Stories of the Highway Patrol. Shows using real footage need responsible editing and cannot use the fact that "it really happened" to justify showing anything on television. Nevertheless, we did hold shows using re-creations or re-enactments to a higher standard in determining whether their use of violence raised concerns for the following reasons.
In many instances, real film footage comes from actual events in which there is no pre-planned intent to use the tape on television. There is a compelling human interest in seeing the real tape of the real situation with real people. Programs such as Cops provide a more genuine view of what police are like and how they handle the pressures of the job than what is seen on shows with actors as police. Since Cops is real and uses actual film, we gave it more latitude to make its case. Still, producers must exercise care in their editing.
Re-creations, however, have all the choices in the world. Unlike "real" tape shows, they hire actors to portray characters. This allows them to influence how viewers process the scene. Producers can choose between sympathetic actors who will elicit support and unattractive "thugs" who incur anger. Producers of re-enactments can decide how close the camera will get during a crime and whether there should be a gallon of blood or a thimble-full. Producers of "real" tape shows cannot make these decisions; they are limited by what is on the tape. Re-enactment shows have a wide range of options and alternatives not available to the other shows and, therefore, we hold them more accountable for what ends up on the television screen.
| |
|
|