FREE ESSAY ON A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO TELEVISION VIOLENCE

A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO TELEVISION VIOLENCE

As difficult as this issue is, I believe it can be 
addressed. My report shows that some progress has already begun in 
several areas. Attention needs to be focused on how and why some 
programming has begun to move in the right direction and why the rest 
has not. What this issue needs, more than anything else, is cool heads 
on all sides of the problem: the network executives, the creative 
community, the government, researchers and advocacy groups. All sides 
need to worry less about how each development affects only them and 
instead look at the needs of everyone.(U.C.L.A. 5) 
In the broadcast world, the four television networks, ABC, 
CBS, FOX, and NBC, have begun to get the message about television 
violence. The programming they completely control, series and 
television movies, has, for the most part shown some promising signs and 
now reflects, on the whole, relatively few issues of concern as compared 
to other network television formats. I contend that this is a result of 
consumer pressure, rather that governmental regulation. The violence 
contained in the most disturbing television series is minor in 
comparison to that contained in theatrical films shown on network 
television. And that violence, edited as it is, is tame compared to 
films shown in theaters, in home videos and on pay cable. 
Today, we see few programs with violence as their central 
theme. More programming uses violence well or does not use it at all. 
The public seems to be responding. Of the top 30 shows of the season, 
only two are listed as raising concerns about violence. It is possible 
to create popular programs that do not resort to inappropriate uses of 
violence. Advisories need to be more consistently applied here.(U.C.L.A. 
13) 
Ultimately, however, it was the regulatory framework 
established by the Communications Act of 1934 and a belief and trust in 
the strong private broadcasting system that has been allowed to evolve 
within that framework that proved most crucial. Section 326 of the 
Communications Act provides the abiding standard. In matters of 
content, nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to 
give the [Federal Communications] Commission the power of censorship 
over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio [or 
television] station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated 
or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free 
speech or radio communication.(U.S.C. 31) This body of laws clearly 
define any governmental involvement as a non-viable scenario. The only 
group involved in this volitile debate that feels otherwise is, 
ironically, the government. Must we, the people, obey the dictates of a 
government that refuses to obey those same dictates itself? 
The tension over potential content regulation that filled 
the air in the late 1960's and early 1970's, however, remains with us in 
the 1990s as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Communications 
Act. While more hearings and reports littered the landscape throughout 
the 1970s and into the 1980s, Congress assiduously avoided any acts 
that smacked of direct content regulation.(House 64) 
In 1990, however, this began to change as Congress took two 
significant steps that threaten to alter drastically the delicate 
balance previously maintained in this area. First, Congress passed the 
Children's Television Act of 1990, which not only sets advertising 
limits in children's programming but requires the FCC, for the first 
time, to consider the extent to which a TV licensee has served the 
educational and informational needs of children when reviewing that 
station's application for renewal of license. (Childrens 16) 
As the 1993 Senate hearings drew to a close, an illuminating 
exchange took place. The committee chairman, Senator Earnest Hollings 
(D,S.C.), after hearing witnesses from the major networks, sought to 
discredit their position by playing a video tape, in the hearing room, 
of a short clip from the half-hour situation comedy Love and War. The 
clip was from an episode in which the cast of male and female actors, 
departing from their usual comedic wit in a restaurant that serves as 
the show's regular set, engaged in a short slapstick barroom brawl 
scene. Senator Hollings seemed appalled, strongly suggesting that this 
type of prime-time violence was indefensible. Senator Conrad Burns 
(R,Mont.), sitting on the same panel, expressed a different view, he 
thought the scene was funny. 
The problem is compounded by the fact that virtually 
everyone concedes that some violence is good or acceptable simply 
because it is essential to a story line, necessary to depicting human 
conflict, or vital to reporting history and showing reality. No one 
would seriously regulate violence on news or sporting events or movies 
centered on the Holocaust of the Second World War. Even so,called 
objective: criteria would not help. How many punches or bullets are 
too many? Does it matter whether the specific program is a serious 
drama, a situation comedy, or an action/adventure? Or should the 
criteria be applied indiscriminately to all programs as long as they 
are likely to be viewed by significant numbers of children comprising a 
certain age group? Many of the legislative proposals that began to 
surface in 1993 have been justified on the grounds that since Congress 
can regulate many of the finest creative works, is clearly not the 
equivalent of indecent material. Any governmental effort to sanitize, 
channel, or otherwise direct the depiction of violence on television 
would undoubtedly be so overboard as to have a severe chilling effect on 
all entertainment programming. 
The continuing controversy over violence on television has 
largely been spurred and shaped by members of Congress and not the 
expert agency on communications. The FCC, in fact, over its long 
history, has rather steadfastly avoided becoming a national censorship 
board on any topic,especially one so illusive and complicated as 
violence. Even after coming under intense congressional pressure in the 
mid,1970s to study and possibly step into this policy quagmire, the 
Commission pointedly rejected any direct governmental role in overseeing 
television violence: As a practical matter, it would be difficult to 
construct rules which would take into account all of the subjective 
considerations involved in making such judgments. (Report 22) 
Predictably, enactment of the Television Program Improvement 
Act of 1990 led almost immediately to increased public pressure on the 
television industry to institute voluntary measures, followed by a 
series of hearings in both the House and Senate designed to assess the 
industry's progress and performance.(Subcomm. 71) Moreover, unlike past 
deliberations, these most recent hearings were peppered with a number of 
specific legislative proposals. Included were measures that would, 
among other things, make it unlawful to distribute any violent video 
programming during hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise 
a substantial portion of the audience, (S.1383 11) A problem that 
becomes immediately apparent to me is there is no regulation that 
determines when children should be in bed. This may seem a bit 
rediculous, however, barring this form of regulation, any attempt at 
controlling violent content in the mass media through regulation would 
be largely ineffective. Parental enforcement is necessary. I would also 
like to know what constitutes substantial. 
One method of attempting to control the content of 
television that appears to be acceptable on the surface, though quite 
minipulative, and subject to bias by the differing perceptions of the 
meaning of violence has been suggested by congress. This would require 
the FCC to  issue quarterly violence television report cards ranking 
both programs and sponsors according to violence, (S.973 3) require 
all television programming deemed violent to carry video and audio 
warning labels, (S. 943 7) and require all new television sets sold in 
the United States to be equipped with a so,called V-Chip that would 
enable viewers to block the display of channels, programs, and time 
slots containing material previously rated or labeled by the television 
industry as to violent content.(H.R.2888 3) 
After decades probing the issue in one congressional 
committee after another, it is time to acknowledge, emphatically, that 
the simple choice is between censorship and responsible voluntary 
conduct. There is, on this topic, no middle ground. While the 
government can cajole the industry, even talk over the industry directly 
to the American public, it is ultimately the public that must decide 
whether to watch, protest against, or turn off particular violent 
programming. It cannot be legislated on a program, by, program basis. 
We face a far more diverse information and entertainment 
marketplace than existed when Senator Pastore squared off with three 
over the air television networks which then controlled more than 90 
percent of prime-time viewing. Policymakers must recognize this reality 
in their continuing efforts to monitor and influence a program content 
issue such as television violence. Indeed, with rapidly advancing 
communications technologies capable of spreading more sources of 
information and entertainment to a large audience, the role of 
government in such matters should be diminished, not strengthened. 
Violence will not and should not disappear from America's 
television screens. There will always be stories worth telling that 
contain conflict and violence. Our founding fathers had the wisdom to 
recognize the importance of freedom of expression to a democratic 
society. The architects of the Communications Act had the foresight to 
incorporate that fundamental principle of the 1934 Act when they 
specifically denied the government the power of censorship over 
broadcast content. And, those who have been entrusted with the 
responsibility for overseeing and administering the Act for the past 
sixty years have displayed similar wisdom in guarding this principle. 
The almost continuos forty-year record of congressional 
investigations, culminating in the 1993 violence hearing and numerous 
new concrete legislative proposals, provides compelling evidence that 
this principle cannot be taken for granted. However strong our common 
concern with violence on television, it is essential that the industry 
continue to police itself in response to legitimate criticism from 
viewers and their elected officials. 
Congress passed the Television Program Improvement Act of 
1990 which granted a specific temporary exemption from the antitrust 
laws relative to any joint discussion, consideration, review, action, 
or agreement by or among persons in the television industry for the 
purpose of, and limited to, developing and disseminating voluntary 
guidelines designed to alleviate the negative impact of violence in 
telecast material. (Judicial 84) 
Thus, after many years of a relatively healthy interplay 
between industry and government that always stopped short of 
legislation, Congress enacted a measure effectively demanding action on 
the violent content of television programs. While this first 
legislative step only voluntary self-regulation, it still poses a new, 
more menacing threat to the no censorship standard of the Communication 
Act. 
In sum, violence laws would represent the worst possible 
form of content regulation, engaging those entrusted to administer such 
laws in a process destined to highlight both the harm and futility of 
government action. 
It is my heart felt position that the issue of television 
violence can be dealt with in a mature, responsible manner without 
having our public officials, who are foresworn to uphold our ever 
precious Constitution, and ALL of the laws of our great land, pass 
legislation which will violate our right to view any and all programming 
that WE see fit. 
In the spirit of cooperative societal decision making, the 
following suggestions appear to be unequaled in their non-partisan 
advisory quality. Furthermore, this would appear to be the only 
thoroughly contemplated reasoning that has occurred on any side of this 
issue. We will now examine what the role of each individual participant 
in this quandary should, in my opinion look like. 
Recognize that Practices and Standards departments are an 
inexpensive investment for the networks' own peace of mind. The 
executives who run these departments at all four networks are extremely 
knowledgeable and should have unimpeded access to the highest levels of 
senior management. Except in very rare instances, these departments 
should have the final say on the treatment of issues of violence. To 
program standards executives: apply to yourselves the standards you 
would apply to your competitors. (UCLA 16) 
The television creative community should recognize the risk 
that violence in television and film can be used to substitute for good 
writing. The best writers and producers in television can create 
characters and compelling stories without unnecessarily filling the 
program with the scenes of violence. Through your own organizations 
such as The Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors, the guilds and 
the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences hold meetings and 
discussions on issues related to the use of violence: showing 
consequences, graphic-ness, the need for context and techniques to avoid 
over reliance on scenes of violence. Include the network's development 
executives in these discussions. (UCLA 16) 
The government must understand the important role that it 
plays in the issue of violence in the media. Do not underestimate your 
power to shape public opinions. As much as possible, speak to the 
television industry with one voice. Use your powerful voice to 
encourage, persuade, cajole and, when necessary, threaten. Recognize 
when progress is made. The television violence issue needs sustained 
leadership from the government. Broadcasters should not have to fear 
all understandings and arrangements disappear after every election or 
change in government. (UCLA 17) 
Network affiliates must put pressure on the networks. Let 
them know what programming you do not like or which is unsuitable for 
your area. Do so with examples and with detail of the format, themes or 
scenes of violence you do not consider suitable. In conjunction with 
the network's practices and standards department, create your own 
standards for network promotions and your own local and syndicated 
programming. Network promotions designed for 10:00 should not be run on 
your station in the afternoon or very early evening. (UCLA 17) 
In our schools, media literacy should never replace social 
studies or science in the curriculum. But television is an important 
part of students' lives. Teachers should ask their students about what 
they watch and how accurately it reflects their lives. Discussions of 
how television deals with gender and racial stereotyping, depictions of 
historical events and social trends can all be incorporated into 
existing lesson plans. Teachers can be more media literate and include 
these concepts in their teaching. (UCLA 18) 
In the school of my own children, there is already in place 
the perfect format for just such a course. This is refferred to as Tech 
Ed., or, technical education. There is not currently a media literacy 
course offered, why not, certainly television is technical, and no doubt 
requires some form of education. 
Most importantly advice to parents. You cannot watch all 
television with your children, but you can occasionally watch your child 
watch television. You can ask them about what they watch. What lessons 
are they assimilating? Can they distinguish between animation and live 
action? Do they realize that they can settle disputes without resorting 
to violence? Why do they like some television characters and not 
others? Explore some of the technological devices now or soon to be on 
the market to help you control what your children watch. If your 
television already has a channel block feature, learn how to use it. 
Whether or not there ultimately is a V-Chip, look at devices such as The 
Telecommander or TV Guardian that not only control which programs your 
children watch, but how much television and at what times. Make your 
views known to television stations and broadcast networks. (UCLA 18) 
Bibliography; 
UCLA Center for Communication Policy, Television Violence 
Monitoring Project 
Published 10/10/95 
207 U.S.C. 326 (1988) 
See, e.g., Subcomm. on Communications of the House Comm. on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., Report on 
Violence and Television 1 (Comm. Print 1977). 
Children's Television Act of 1990, Pub. No. 101,437, 104 Stat. 
996(codified at 47 U.S.C. 303a,303b,393a,39(Supp. IV 1992)). 
Report on the Brdcst. of Violent, Indecent, and Obscene Material, 
Report 51 F.C.C.2d 418,419 (1975). 
(Subcomm.) See Implementation of the Television Program 
Improvement Act of 1990: Joint Hearings Before the Subcomm. on the 
Constitution and the Subcomm. on Juvenile Justice of the Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993); Violence on Television: 
Hearings Before the Subcomm.on Telecommunications and Finance of the 
Comm. on Energy and Commerce,103d Cong., 1st Sess.(1993); Hearings on 
Bills to Regulate TV Violence Before the Comm. on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, 103d., 1st Sess. (1993). 
S. 1383, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1993) (introduced by Sens. 
Earnest F. Hollings (D,S.C.) and Daniel K. Inouye (D,Haw.)). 
S.973, 103fd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (introduced by Sens. Byron L. 
Dorgan (D,N.D.) and Kent Conrad (D,N.D.)); H.R. 2159, 103d Cong., 1st 
Sess. (1993) (introduced by Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D,Ill.)). 
S.943, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (introduced by Sen. David 
Durenberger (R,Minn.)). 
H.R. 2888, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (introduced by Rep. Edward 
J. Markey D,Mass.) 
Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101,650,501(c),104 
Stat. 5089, 5127 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 303c (Supp. IV 1992)).