Copyright c 1994 by Nicholas Johnson Violence on Television/ Annual Spring Symposium/ Troy State University, Hall School of Journalism/ Troy, Alabama/ April 28, 1994 Televised Violence: A Road Map by Nicholas Johnson* Purpose and Scope. "TV" stands for "televised violence" -- and is so abbreviated throughout this paper. Aside from that provocative opener, the rest of this is neither "speech outline" nor polemic for a particular position on the "TV" issue/s. It's one person's road map of the territory potentially open for discussion. It doesn't pretend to be predictive of our discussion, precise, thorough or scholarly. It's simply a concession to the shortness of life. Our three hours of panel discussion and questions will go by very fast. Throughout, panelists and audience alike will be touching on a lot of issues from a number of perspectives -- not unlike those proverbial six blind men describing an elephant. Hopefully this guide can help all of us know, at any given moment during the day, what is being talked about -- as well as what perspectives and issues are not being dealt with. 1. Problem. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What's the problem here, anyway? Why are we even discussing this issue? What is the nature of the harm to society from TV? What empirical evidence (i.e., academic research) is there to support these assertions (that there is, or is not, any harm)? How much TV is there? Is it increasing or decreasing? Is evidence on such matters a necessary prerequisite to personal or societal action, or are "common sense" and intuition sufficient? 2. Definitions. What do we mean by "violence"? Much of the "TV debate" involves this question. a. Types of programs. What are the arguments for and against including cartoon violence, or violence shown in news and public affairs programs? What about violence in music videos (MTV) -- or contact sports? b. Violent acts. Regardless of setting, how should a "violent act" be defined? All might agree to include one human's physical assault against another. What about a comedic pie in the face? Shooting an animal? c. Motive. Is the questioner/speaker asking about definitions of TV because s/he wants to help shape the most useful definition possible, or to so trivialize and ridicule any efforts to define TV that nothing will be done? 3. Portrayal. a. How it's shown. Should it make a difference how the violence is portrayed? For example, is it (a) essential, (b) desirable, (c) sufficient/not sufficient, or (d) unnecessary that the perpetrator of an illegal violent act suffer some penalty? Is it desirable/undesirable that more gruesome consequences of violence be shown, rather than the victim just dropping dead (e.g., a close-up of a gunshot wound, or years of life with a physical handicap)? Would it be helpful to show the emotional impact upon the victim's family and friends, such as the grieving at a funeral service? b. Why it's shown. Should the quality of writing be relevant in evaluating the appropriateness of dramatic violence (e.g., it's acceptable in Hamlet but not in Terminator II)? Is TV less acceptable if violent acts are "injected" into mediocre scripts, sometimes over the writers' objections, to hold the audience through the commercial breaks in an inherently trite and rather boring story line? 4. Artistic creativity. What are the values for artists (i.e., writers, actors, directors), the corporations that profit from their product, the audience, or "society," in establishing and defending absolute and total artistic freedom for the creative community (including its use of TV when and as it chooses)? What limitations would a "responsible" creative person impose upon her/himself (with regard to the possible adverse consequences of TV)? What standards might reasonably be imposed externally by producers, advertisers, networks, local stations, cable operators? What remedies/review should be available to an artist who disagrees with the imposition of those standards? 5. The market and personal choice. "Regulation" (whether of the "industry self-" or "governmental" variety) is usually proposed only because of a "market failure" to produce a desired end. Is "the market" working in television? For starters, with rare exception (e.g., video rentals, "pay per view"), programming is not the product and the audience is not the consumer. Television is in the business of selling the audience (the product) to the advertiser (the consumer). Is TV, therefore, an example of a "market failure" or not? Is personal choice an adequate answer/remedy (i.e., if a viewer doesn't like violence they can just turn off the set)? Or is that approach just another case of "blame the victim"? The auto companies used to dismiss calls for safer cars with the line, "The only dangerous part in the car is the little nut that holds the wheel." Some things can be more efficiently and effectively provided at the source than the receiving end, such as fluoridation of a city's water supply rather than making every kid use a fluoride rinse every day. Is TV like that? Is there, as the Communications Act suggests, a "public interest" in television that creates an audience member's right to insist on programming s/he does want to watch? To what extent do video rental and cable (especially pay cable), change the issue (i.e., can you justifiably complain about the content of programs you have knowingly brought into your home)? 6. Hidden assumptions. Hidden assumptions, preferences (or "prejudices") often drive our discussion of issues -- whether consciously or not. Some think that "government" is just all of us acting together on our collective behalf to do those things that can more efficiently be done as a group: e.g., public education, rooting out the causes of crime, highway construction, or inoculation programs. Others see "government" as a worthless, evil, corrupt, paternalistic, fascistic thief of our privacy and tax dollars. This Symposium may well bring together Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Communitarians -- and the politically agnostic. Obviously, how panel and audience members feel about group action, in general, will heavily affect how they feel about efforts to do something about TV in particular (even, or especially, when such general beliefs are unspoken). 7. Technological fixes. What is currently available by way of technology for blocking violent programs from a home receiver? How effective are "lock out" devices for sets? Coding within the programs? Should such potential remedies be required of equipment manufacturers and program producers? Does the requirement of "labeling" for content in this way (not unlike what the Motion Picture Association of America does for films) raise problems of artistic and First Amendment freedoms? 8. Democratic control. If one is personally defamed there are legal remedies of libel and slander. In general, however, one cannot prevent (or punish) speech that one merely finds offensive. There seem to be an increasing number of individuals and groups that are, however, offended by speech of one kind or another. Put aside the First Amendment issues for a moment and ask: what should be the rights of citizens in a democracy to control the speech (i.e., television programs) of others? It has served the conservative cause to be able to dismiss, unexamined, any effort to address this issue by clustering all such complaints as the irrational and unjustified ranting of those who insist upon "politically correct" speech. But is there some point (and if so where is it) at which a democracy should respond to the speech preferences of its members? It is occasionally the case that citizens want to be saved from temptation by encouraging the outlawing of products/activities they might otherwise find attractive: "illegal" hard drugs, legal hard drugs (alcohol and tobacco), prostitution, or gambling. Suppose 85% want TV eliminated, but are unable to avoid watching it -- to the great profit of networks and advertisers (so "the market" doesn't work, and the violence continues). Should there be a means for that democratic majority to work its will? 9. Legal restraints. We can put aside First Amendment issues for only a moment. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." (And courts say "Congress" means state and local governmental units, too.) Should that prevent members of Congress from holding hearings, or meeting with industry executives on the subject of TV, or FCC Commissioners (or Attorney General Janet Reno) from speeches deploring TV? Where is "the edge of the envelope" -- the outer reaches of what courts and governments can do in discouraging TV? Might damage (or criminal) actions for the consequences of TV help discourage its use? The law occasionally imposes responsibility on one person for the actions of another. "Dram shop" laws sometimes make bar owners liable for injuries caused by their patrons (e.g., if they sell to someone obviously drunk). "Product liability" law sometimes imposes liability on manufacturers for harm from products used as intended -- even though the plaintiff cannot prove the manufacturer "negligent." Should similar legal consequences be imposed on the producers/networks/stations broadcasting TV that leads to violent actions by audience members (either general, or "copy cat," violence)? (Courts have almost always failed to find such legal liability.) Would such potential liability have a "chilling effect" on artistic creativity? Should the entire financial loss from such violence fall solely on the victim (as it does now)? 10. Other remedies. What can an individual, especially parents, appropriately and effectively do about TV for themselves and for society? Is it effective to write letters to broadcasters and advertisers? Are organized product boycotts effective? Do they threaten artistic freedom? Would it be possible, or desirable, to eliminate television entirely from one's home? Is "media literacy" education in schools (and home) the only answer (because individuals' choice of art is more consistent with First Amendment/democratic values, and because TV will never be eliminated, and thus individuals will have to rely upon their own values for making personal choices)? _________ * Nicholas Johnson served as an FCC Commissioner 1966-73. He now teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law in Iowa City and lectures through the Leigh Lecture Bureau. In the mid-1970s he chaired the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting in Washington, which (in consultation with Dr. George Gerbner) conducted one of the few successful efforts to reduce the levels of televised violence. He is the author of How to Talk Back to Your Television Set and Test Pattern for Living. [Box 1876, Iowa City IA 52244, Voice phone 319-337-5555, Fax phone 319-335-9019, Internet 1035393@mcimail.com] # # # *** Copyright c 1994 by Nicholas Johnson. Conditions: This material is copyright by Nicholas Johnson. However, permission is hereby granted to download, copy and distribute the text to others if (1) the text is not altered, and (2) there is no charge to the recipient, and (3) this copyright notice and conditions are attached. It is a copyright violation to distribute this material altered, or without the copyright notice and conditions attached, or to use the material in any way for which remuneration is received without the prior permission of Nicholas Johnson. Contact: 1035393@mcimail.com; Box 1876 Iowa City IA 52244; 319-337-5555. *** END OF FILE