FCC Report: TV Violence Should Be Regulated

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it's okay to regulate sex and profanity, it's okay to regulate violence. Doesn't mean you have to ban it; just push the programming back an hour so 24 (or whatever) has a 10pm start. Keeps the younger kids from accidentally watching it; still allows it for older teenagers and adults.

The idea that a show couldn't mention a condom at 8pm but Jack Bauer can bite someone's carotid artery is a little ludicrous.

Exactly.

I pointed out 24, against which I have a particular bias. The show utilises extreme violence as a plot device on a regular basis. Guy won't do what you want - lets break out the power tools. Lazy writing IMO.

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

LOL, some of the laziest writing I've ever seen are in those soap operas.

Touche' ... also if you've seen some of the newest cartoons for children...epitome of stupidity.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

I agree - but you usually have to watch the show/movie before arriving at that determination. As in that other thread about the "teacher's vampire fiction", knee jerk reactions from people who react to the content regardless of context and without actually viewing/reading the offending material clearly aren't useful.

There's also the issue that what might be gratuitous for one person is not gratuitous for another. Hence I don't believe the FCC has any business here. Rather I would like them to impose some sort of quality control standards on programme makers - we pay $70 on cable and most of what is on is complete rubbish IMO. Too many reality TV shows, too many game shows - more to the point too many ###### commercials. But the FCC don't seem too bothered that you can't watch a clear 5 minutes of a TV show without it being interspersed with 4 minutes of ads.

American Idol is a particularly bad offender in that regards - they run these "Two hour events" which are an exercise in fluff and padding. After the obligatory commercial break you hear one guy sing for two minutes, then Ryan Seacrest says "we'll find out who's out after the break". Considering that programming standards on subscription channels like HBO are significantly higher than those on general network television, why is everyone focussed on violence, language and sex in a few shows and not the generally poor programming quality of the TV schedule...?

You make some valid points, but with regard to children - just my experience as a parent - I need all the help I can get. I can't monitor and filter out everything bad my children might be exposed to and I have enough confidence or faith that reasonable regulations during the time slots when children watch can be implimented.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

I agree - but you usually have to watch the show/movie before arriving at that determination. As in that other thread about the "teacher's vampire fiction", knee jerk reactions from people who react to the content regardless of context and without actually viewing/reading the offending material clearly aren't useful.

There's also the issue that what might be gratuitous for one person is not gratuitous for another. Hence I don't believe the FCC has any business here. Rather I would like them to impose some sort of quality control standards on programme makers - we pay $70 on cable and most of what is on is complete rubbish IMO. Too many reality TV shows, too many game shows - more to the point too many ###### commercials. But the FCC don't seem too bothered that you can't watch a clear 5 minutes of a TV show without it being interspersed with 4 minutes of ads.

American Idol is a particularly bad offender in that regards - they run these "Two hour events" which are an exercise in fluff and padding. After the obligatory commercial break you hear one guy sing for two minutes, then Ryan Seacrest says "we'll find out who's out after the break". Considering that programming standards on subscription channels like HBO are significantly higher than those on general network television, why is everyone focussed on violence, language and sex in a few shows and not the generally poor programming quality of the TV schedule...?

You make some valid points, but with regard to children - just my experience as a parent - I need all the help I can get. I can't monitor and filter out everything bad my children might be exposed to and I have enough confidence or faith that reasonable regulations during the time slots when children watch can be implimented.

Sure, but would you agree that what you consider "excessive" is not the same as what another parent might. So how do you reasonably regulate TV without further compromising programme quality. What specific shows do you object to?

This is probably a generalisation, but it seems to me that most of these "moral panics" are brought to the fore by people who are either heavily religious (and want to see nothing but religious TV) or people like Hillary Clinton, who jump on the band-wagon to further her own ends. That said, whatever regulations (which still have not been defined) you want to see implemented will not make this debate go away. And indeed - it hasn't.

[Heracles 417]

Again, not ALL single parents can be blamed for unstable households. I was a single mom for a while and my daughter is very well adjusted and does not exhibit violent tendencies at all. In fact, her life with me is far more stable than when she visits her biological father. However, I do agree when a child has little to no stability in their life, whether it is a two parent household or single, or living with grandparents (as I've seen an increasing trend of this lately) they will seek stability from other sources and not always the best of sources. You also have to remember, households are NOT the way they were when we were growing up.

yep. The research is out there though that kids in single households tend to be more unstable. I give a lot of credit to single parents who 'keep it together' for their kids and put them on the right path.. This is why I am not fond of modern day actors, singers, athletes, nascar drivers etc and tend to respect and appreciate people who are out there making a difference and battling to do the right thing in the real world. Unfortunately people like yourself do not get the credit you deserve..

[KarenCee 3]

Again, not ALL single parents can be blamed for unstable households. I was a single mom for a while and my daughter is very well adjusted and does not exhibit violent tendencies at all. In fact, her life with me is far more stable than when she visits her biological father. However, I do agree when a child has little to no stability in their life, whether it is a two parent household or single, or living with grandparents (as I've seen an increasing trend of this lately) they will seek stability from other sources and not always the best of sources. You also have to remember, households are NOT the way they were when we were growing up.

yep. The research is out there though that kids in single households tend to be more unstable. I give a lot of credit to single parents who 'keep it together' for their kids and put them on the right path.. This is why I am not fond of modern day actors, singers, athletes, nascar drivers etc and tend to respect and appreciate people who are out there making a difference and battling to do the right thing in the real world. Unfortunately people like yourself do not get the credit you deserve..

thank you

[Heracles 417]

Wow.. Check this article out. It is not exactly about TV violence but talks about TV in general, for kids..

Alarm sounds on TV's rising threat to children

February 19, 2007

WATCHING television poses an even greater risk to children's health than was previously thought, a new report says.

Analysis of 35 scientific studies identified 15 negative effects TV can have on youngsters, ranging from short-sightedness and obesity to premature puberty and autism.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Infidel

[Heracles 417]

People talk about TV violence and I can just take my life as an example. I grew up in a household where we watched a lot of Jerry Lewis, Abbott and Costello, Cary Grant, Elvis, Shirley temple etc.. My high school was a middle class school but the kids where always in trouble and breaking some sort of law..

My friends parents where busy working so they would watch movies along the lines of basic instinct and where quite into heavy metal from a young age. They would never ever watch any family friendly TV shows.. Whereas when I was younger my parents made sure I watched a lot of pre-70's films or shows like growing pains, who's the boss, family ties etc. Good family oriented TV shows. Shows about having a good time. You know those typical 50's and 60's film and 80's TV shows. We all hung around together in high school. We watched and did the same crazy stuff and got into quite a bit of trouble.

Fast forward to the present. I have 2 degrees, working on expanding my Christian beliefs and enjoy giving to other people much more than buying things for myself. Whereas those friends are still serving time in prison for robbery, assault and drug dealing offenses. Are abusing drugs and simply cannot be trusted..

Edited February 18, 2007 by Infidel

[DeadPoolX 9]

The problem with the FCC regulating violent television is the same problem as them regulation sex on TV as well -- it doesn't really work unless it's not allowed at all. Pushing violent programming back a few hours won't stop kids from viewing it if they're committed to watching the show, and then some parents aren't responsible enough to make sure that their kids are in bed by a certain time anyway, which would render late showtime moot.

What I'm saying is that even if the FCC does do this, it's not a replacement for good parenting. Some parents will believe that, and others won't.

There's no way you can really keep this sort of entertainment out of the way of children without blocking it all together. Kids are very resourceful; they'll find a way to watch it if they want to do so. I am not advocating the complete blockage of violent programming. I am merely stating that children are more intelligent than many believe and can figure out ways around their dilemmas pretty damn well.

[Heracles 417]

There's no way you can really keep this sort of entertainment out of the way of children without blocking it all together. Kids are very resourceful; they'll find a way to watch it if they want to do so. I am not advocating the complete blockage of violent programming. I am merely stating that children are more intelligent than many believe and can figure out ways around their dilemmas pretty damn well.

Heck the can just download it off the net. The only option is to restrict it form the source or leave it as it is and continue to feed the growing violence..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

I agree - but you usually have to watch the show/movie before arriving at that determination. As in that other thread about the "teacher's vampire fiction", knee jerk reactions from people who react to the content regardless of context and without actually viewing/reading the offending material clearly aren't useful.

There's also the issue that what might be gratuitous for one person is not gratuitous for another. Hence I don't believe the FCC has any business here. Rather I would like them to impose some sort of quality control standards on programme makers - we pay $70 on cable and most of what is on is complete rubbish IMO. Too many reality TV shows, too many game shows - more to the point too many ###### commercials. But the FCC don't seem too bothered that you can't watch a clear 5 minutes of a TV show without it being interspersed with 4 minutes of ads.

American Idol is a particularly bad offender in that regards - they run these "Two hour events" which are an exercise in fluff and padding. After the obligatory commercial break you hear one guy sing for two minutes, then Ryan Seacrest says "we'll find out who's out after the break". Considering that programming standards on subscription channels like HBO are significantly higher than those on general network television, why is everyone focussed on violence, language and sex in a few shows and not the generally poor programming quality of the TV schedule...?

You make some valid points, but with regard to children - just my experience as a parent - I need all the help I can get. I can't monitor and filter out everything bad my children might be exposed to and I have enough confidence or faith that reasonable regulations during the time slots when children watch can be implimented.

Sure, but would you agree that what you consider "excessive" is not the same as what another parent might. So how do you reasonably regulate TV without further compromising programme quality. What specific shows do you object to?

This is probably a generalisation, but it seems to me that most of these "moral panics" are brought to the fore by people who are either heavily religious (and want to see nothing but religious TV) or people like Hillary Clinton, who jump on the band-wagon to further her own ends. That said, whatever regulations (which still have not been defined) you want to see implemented will not make this debate go away. And indeed - it hasn't.

Yes, there has to be clearly defined graphic depictions of violence that would be considered inappropriate to be aired during a certain time slot. For example - no graphic depictions of someone being murdered. There are ways to show cinematically that someone has been murdered without showing the act itself.

In the video game industry, even though the ratings system is self regulated, our publisher has to give us developers clearly defined limitations as to what we can or can't show. There are areas where it's not so clear, but in general it's possible to regulate with some kind of consistency of content.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep. I was thinking the same thing about gratuitous sex and violence in TV and movies in general - it really has no redeeming qualities with regard to the story telling. It's done to arouse emotions in the viewer visually rather than using story context to build an emotional connection with the audience. Lazy writing for sure.

I agree - but you usually have to watch the show/movie before arriving at that determination. As in that other thread about the "teacher's vampire fiction", knee jerk reactions from people who react to the content regardless of context and without actually viewing/reading the offending material clearly aren't useful.

There's also the issue that what might be gratuitous for one person is not gratuitous for another. Hence I don't believe the FCC has any business here. Rather I would like them to impose some sort of quality control standards on programme makers - we pay $70 on cable and most of what is on is complete rubbish IMO. Too many reality TV shows, too many game shows - more to the point too many ###### commercials. But the FCC don't seem too bothered that you can't watch a clear 5 minutes of a TV show without it being interspersed with 4 minutes of ads.

American Idol is a particularly bad offender in that regards - they run these "Two hour events" which are an exercise in fluff and padding. After the obligatory commercial break you hear one guy sing for two minutes, then Ryan Seacrest says "we'll find out who's out after the break". Considering that programming standards on subscription channels like HBO are significantly higher than those on general network television, why is everyone focussed on violence, language and sex in a few shows and not the generally poor programming quality of the TV schedule...?

You make some valid points, but with regard to children - just my experience as a parent - I need all the help I can get. I can't monitor and filter out everything bad my children might be exposed to and I have enough confidence or faith that reasonable regulations during the time slots when children watch can be implimented.

Sure, but would you agree that what you consider "excessive" is not the same as what another parent might. So how do you reasonably regulate TV without further compromising programme quality. What specific shows do you object to?

This is probably a generalisation, but it seems to me that most of these "moral panics" are brought to the fore by people who are either heavily religious (and want to see nothing but religious TV) or people like Hillary Clinton, who jump on the band-wagon to further her own ends. That said, whatever regulations (which still have not been defined) you want to see implemented will not make this debate go away. And indeed - it hasn't.

Yes, there has to be clearly defined graphic depictions of violence that would be considered inappropriate to be aired during a certain time slot. For example - no graphic depictions of someone being murdered. There are ways to show cinematically that someone has been murdered without showing the act itself.

In the video game industry, even though the ratings system is self regulated, our publisher has to give us developers clearly defined limitations as to what we can or can't show. There are areas where it's not so clear, but in general it's possible to regulate with some kind of consistency of content.

As far as movies go I'm not a fan of the likes of Saw, or Hostel (which was mentioned earlier). Those movies, along with the recent remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes (there's a sequel to that out this year apparently) are exercises in gratuitousness. As I mentioned with lazy storytelling - which is the main problem I have with a lot of televised drama, there is a tendency in movies to expand that into excessive bloodlust. Resorting to make-up effects and throwing blood and guts around is the mark of a lazy director IMO.

Horror was never about showing the inside of someone's guts but about creating a real sense of fear, tension and suspense. Alfred Hitchcock was particularly good at that. Even the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre wasn't particularly graphic, but garnered the reputation as a 'video nasty' based on the title alone.

That said, there are exceptions - I still like the original George Romero zombie movies, which are still pretty gory even by today's standards. I rented Old Boy, from Netflix last week which is graphically and sexually violent, but is at the same time a tightly scripted revenge thriller which puts Quentin Tarantino to shame.

Of course its all subjective - no doubt others find any or all of these movies I mentioned highly offensive. Similarly there are very many well-adjusted people who like slasher pictures.

When my parents got their first VCR in the 80's I would record late night horror movies and watch them on sunday morning. By the age of 10-11 I'd seen a lot of things that would have been considered "highly inappropriate" for someone under 18. I never had any trouble at school or being socially "mal-adjusted".

Edited February 18, 2007 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

When my parents got their first VCR in the 80's I would record late night horror movies and watch them on sunday morning. By the age of 10-11 I'd seen a lot of things that would have been considered "highly inappropriate" for someone under 18. I never had any trouble at school or being socially "mal-adjusted".

Yes that is the case with a lot of people but as a civilized society it is our duty to eliminate things that can lead one to cause harm to others. No one seems to address the cause.. Hollywood sure as hell is not going to endorse or back any study into how children are affected by horror and violence on TV. That would cut into their profits.. The issue does not stop with violence and horror alone. Shows like American Idol advise kids that you are pretty much a loser or not good enough, if you are not selected.. What is it going to take for change? It is only a matter of time before someone takes the rejection in the wrong way and rocks up with a gun..

Kids need to be surrounded by positive, inspirational stuff that helps them grow. Not someone having their head hacksawed off or being told they are a loser and ugly because they do not make it on Americas next top model..

Edited February 18, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When my parents got their first VCR in the 80's I would record late night horror movies and watch them on sunday morning. By the age of 10-11 I'd seen a lot of things that would have been considered "highly inappropriate" for someone under 18. I never had any trouble at school or being socially "mal-adjusted".

Yes that is the case with a lot of people but as a civilized society it is our duty to eliminate things that can lead one to cause harm to others. No one seems to address the cause.. Hollywood sure as hell is not going to endorse or back any study into how children are affected by horror and violence on TV. That would cut into their profits.. The issue does not stop with violence and horror alone. Shows like American Idol advise kids that you are pretty much a loser or not good enough, if you are not selected.. What is it going to take for change? It is only a matter of time before someone takes the rejection in the wrong way and rocks up with a gun..

Kids need to be surrounded by positive, inspirational stuff that helps them grow. Not someone having their head hacksawed off or being told they are a loser and ugly because they do not make it on Americas next top model..

There have been dozens of studies about the effect of TV and pop culture on kids, none of which are conclusive beyond any doubt. You can't blame the programme maker for how some unbalanced person chooses to act after seeing a particular film/TV show. That negates the possibility of any "personal responsibility" as so many people like to stress the importance of...

Otherwise you end up taking the ludicrous position that J.D. Salinger, for example, should have ended up in court for complicity in the murder of John Lennon - just because some nutcase claimed to be inspired by his book and had a copy in his pocket when he was arrested.

What about the Bible or the Koran? Plenty of disturbed people commit crimes claiming to be inspired a particular passage that they selectively (or literally) interpreted. Should those be banned too?

Edited February 18, 2007 by erekose

[choji 0]

It is only a matter of time before someone takes the rejection in the wrong way and rocks up with a gun..

Which is pretty easy to do when the right to own guns seems to be something which is seen as a God given right by many people in this country.

Kids need to be surrounded by positive, inspirational stuff that helps them grow. Not someone having their head hacksawed off or being told they are a loser and ugly because they do not make it on Americas next top model..

As to the positive, inspirational stuff:

Would that include the death penalty?

The fact that if the police stops the family car the kid inside sees the parent at the wheel trying not to make a "wrong move" for fear of being shot?

Homelessness, which is taken as a matter of fact?

Overcrowded prisons, where inmates live under inhumane conditions - "oh, serves them right, they had it coming?"

Making doubting participation in a war a dishonorable thing? "Support our troups or you're the enemy within?"

Don't you think that children in the US grow up to accept a level of violence as "natural" or "good" which is unconcivable for someone having been brought up in a different society?

This is not intended as bashing. It is just a different viewpoint.

[Heracles 417]

As to the positive, inspirational stuff:

Would that include the death penalty?

The US has to have the death penalty considering how sick and violent so many criminals are here. There is no rehabilitation for someone who has killed 10 kids.

The fact that if the police stops the family car the kid inside sees the parent at the wheel trying not to make a "wrong move" for fear of being shot?

You have to ask yourself why is this the case. I think more than enough police has been killed doing their job.

Homelessness, which is taken as a matter of fact?

I cannot see this improving at all considering the number of unlawful immigrants stealing jobs from Americans.

Overcrowded prisons, where inmates live under inhumane conditions - "oh, serves them right, they had it coming?"

I do not understand this sympathy for convicts. The more rights we give prisoners the more they abuse these same rights. What about all of the violence occurring within prisons due to them forming gangs and attacking others. I believe that whenever someone commits a heinous crime and is found guilty, their actions should forfeit any rights they have as a civilian or human being..

Making doubting participation in a war a dishonorable thing? "Support our troups or you're the enemy within?"

Why should the troops be punished for the decisions of politicians. They are people who volunteer 'their lives' to serve and protect all of us..

Don't you think that children in the US grow up to accept a level of violence as "natural" or "good" which is unconcivable for someone having been brought up in a different society?

Yes considering most other developed / civilized countries do not have an open-ended anything goes first amendment. There are various groups of people here who are violent yet their cousins overseas in other English nations are not only well respected but extremely peaceful people. How can we explain this..

This is not intended as bashing. It is just a different viewpoint.

Open discussion is definitely what this nation needs rather than isolating others with differing views..