Submitted by crinadmin on
PART I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview
The past 12 months have been the most momentous period in
the history of the television violence issue. A year ago there were
no V-chips, television content ratings, minimum air time
requirements for educational television or public discussions
about the context in which television violence occurs. Now these
developments frame the television violence issue.
In September 1995 the UCLA Center for Communication Policy
released its first report on the state of television violence. Rather
than examining a one- or two-week sample that might contain
unusually light or heavy concentrations of violence, the Center
thoroughly examined every series, television movie, theatrical film
and Saturday morning children's programming on broadcast
network television. In addition, we monitored every on-air
promotion and advertisement aired during this programming. Our
report found that while there were positive signs in the areas of
network television series and television movies, there were
significant problems in the areas of theatrical films shown on
television, on-air promotions and children's television.
Last year's report concluded with an analysis of the 1994-95
television season, a series of recommendations that we felt
would significantly address television violence and an invitation to
the broadcast networks to work with us over the next year on
this issue. Upon its release, the four networks promised to
carefully study the report and its recommendations and accepted
the offer to work together on this very difficult and contentious
problem.
Copies can be obtained from
While much work remains to be done over the third and
subsequent years of this process, we are happy to report that
the broadcast networks were serious in their desire to work with
us to improve the ways in which they deal with television
violence. Each of the networks carefully examined the first report
and responded directly to us regarding which recommendations
could be easily addressed and which would require much more
effort, sacrifice and time. A series of meetings, out of the spotlight
and the glare of the press, took place in which the networks
frankly described the efforts they were making to address
television violence. Subsequently, the Center continued to offer
suggestions and recommendations. These discussions were
unprecedented in the history of the violence debate. While the
networks were tied to the monitoring process and, through their
public statements after the report's release, were committed to
working with us on the problem, the Center remained fully
independent throughout the process. A
climate of mutual respect produced, as this second report will
demonstrate, some real and tangible progress.
Throughout this period, extraordinarily important events were
taking place on the political scene. Late in the summer of 1995
the United States House of Representatives joined the Senate in
requiring that V-chips be placed in newly manufactured television
sets. The V-chip, invented by Tim Collings of Canada, is an
electronic device that addresses a line of the television picture
(there are 525 lines) called the vertical blanking interval (vbi). The
vbi is the place where the electronic signals for closed captioning
for the hearing impaired are found. Each television program can
be encoded with a rating or label running from 0 to 5 or, if the
motion picture ratings are used, from G to NC-17. Parents can set
the V-chip at level 3 or PG-13 and any signals that exceed that
rating will be electronically blocked from appearing on the set.
The Canadians originally envisioned that the V-chip would only
address the area of television violence. By the time the V-chip
was field tested, it also included the areas of sexu
al content and language. In order for the V-chip to have any
usefulness at all, it required the development of a television
rating or labeling system.
In the United States a V-chip requirement was included in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 which in February of this year
was signed into law. The Act requires television manufacturers to
install V-chips in all television sets with screens larger than 11
inches by February 1998. The Act also calls on television
programmers to create a labeling system for their programs. If
they do not do so by February 1997, the FCC was directed to
appoint a non-governmental committee to develop such a
system, though the broadcasters are not be obligated to carry
that system in their signals. Though a small part of the
Telecommunications Act (which opened almost all of Americas s
cable, phone and telecommunications industries to competition),
the V-chip requirement was enormously important to the
broadcast and cable industries. The broadcasters considered
challenging the V-chip legislation in court as a violation of the
First Amendment. They were concerned that advertisers would
shy away from any programming that had a matu
re rating and that producers would alter their programming if
necessary to ensure a tame rating. Broadcasters were also
concerned that the V-chip would give an unfair advantage to pay
cable. Broadcasters have to sell every program to an advertiser
and therefore live and die by the Nielsen ratings. Pay services
such as HBO charge a monthly fee and do not have to sell any of
their programming to advertisers. Therefore they do not have to
worry about advertisers pulling out of a program.
In his State of the Union address in January 1996, President
Clinton invited broadcasters and cable companies to come to a
White House Summit on February 29 to discuss the recently
enacted Telecommunications Act. Each of the networks and cable
companies sent its top executives to the President's summit.
Despite their concerns about the V-chip, the broadcast and cable
industries decided not to go to court. Instead, they committed to
develop by January 1997 a labeling system for television content
under the guidance of Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA) Chairman Jack Valenti. The MPAA was the organization
that developed the well-known motion picture ratings system in
the late 1 960s.
Since the February White House Summit, the broadcast and cable
networks have formed an implementation committee to develop
the television labeling system. The committee has met several
times throughout the year and is committed to announcing its
system by the end of 1996.
In another development regarding television programming,
through the spring and summer of 1996 FCC Chairman Reed
Hundt attempted to adopt a rule requiring all broadcasters to
carry at least three hours of children's educational programming
each week as a condition of renewal of their broadcast license.
As they are not licensed by the FCC, cable programmers were not
affected by this proposal as they were with the V-chip legislation.
(Since approximately 70% of the nation now receives broadcast
stations through cable, the importance of distinctions between
broadcast and cable are becoming less significant every year.)
Though broadcasters claimed they were willing to create new
educational programming, they did not like the idea of the FCC
imposing a quantitative requirement. It was not until another
Presidential Summit on July 29 that broadcasters again came to
the White House, and an agreement for three hours of
educational children's programming was reached.
In the history of television there has never been a year like the
last one. The next year, however, promises to be just as
momentous and contentious. The labeling system will be
unveiled. It remains to be seen what effects the content ratings
will have on the creative community and television advertisers.
Broadcasters will begin to air what they consider to be
educational programming. Some forces in Congress are calling for
even more regulation of television programming. And perhaps
most significantly, the audience for the television networks
continues to erode as cable's audience increases.
Never could there have been a more important time to monitor
the state of television violence. This second report is committed
to continuing the significant work of the first report and to
injecting into this heated and confusing discussion some much
needed light in the form of an objective, comprehensive and
accessible analysis of the state of television violence.
Table of Contents
PART I. Introduction
A. Overview
B. Historical Background
PART II. The Study
A. Background
B. Independence
C. The Scope of the Monitoring
D. Methodology
1. Rationale and Definitions of Violence
2. The Monitoring Process
3. The Weekly Meetings
4. Criteria
B. Operating Premises and Stipulations
PART III. Findings in Broadcast Network Television
A. Overview
B. Prime Time Series
1. Comparison with Last season
2. Programs with Frequent Concerns
3. Programs with Occasional Concerns
4. Interesting Violence Issues in Prime Time Series
5. Programs that Deal with Violence Well
C. Television Specials
D. Made for Television Movies and Mini-Series
1. Leading Examples of MOWs and Mini-Series that Raised
Concerns
2. Other Titles Raising Concerns about Violence
3. Issues Raised by Made-for-Television Movies and Mini-Series
E. Theatrical Motion Pictures on Broadcast Network Television
1. Theatrical Films that Raise Concerns
2. Additional Theatrical Films that Raise Concerns
3. Issues Arising out of Theatrical Films on Television
F. On-Air Promotions, Previews, Recaps, Teasers and
Advertisements
G. Children's Television on the Broadcast Networks
H. The Emerging Broadcast Networks
PART IV. Findings in Other Television Media
A. Local Independent Television Programming and Syndication
B. Public Television
C. Cable Television
1. Home Box Office (HBO)
2. Showtime
3. The Disney Channel
4. Nickelodeon
5. Music Television (MTV)
6. TBS (The Atlanta Superstation)
7. The USA Network
8. Turner Network Television (TNT)
D. Home Video
E. Video Games
PART V. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. Conclusions
B. Status of Last Year's Recommendations
C. New Recommendations
PART VI. Appendix
A. Four Broadcast Network Comparison: 1994-95 and 1995-96
B. Scene Sheet
C. Television Series Monitored on the Broadcast Networks
D. Television Series Monitored on UPN and WB
E. Television Movies Monitored on the Broadcast Networks
F. Theatrical Films Monitored on the Broadcast Networks
G. Home Video Rentals Monitored
H. Description of the Center for Communication Policy
Owner: Jeffrey Cole