If one culprit is suspected above all others for encouraging society to become more violent and unfeeling, it is television. This medium, which has become so pervasive in the last 50 years, seems to play an enormous role in the lives of the vast majority of people. But who controls the content which exerts such an enormous influence and to an extent controls the people? What are they doing now and what will they be doing tomorrow? Is violence essential to sell toothpaste and hamburgers? What are our children becoming and what will their children be like? Will every child carry a gun or other weapon just waiting for someone to trigger their violent nature and ignite their preprogrammed anger?

This third annual report presents comparative year-to-year data on the nature of violence on television across programme genres and channel types in the United States. It contains an analysis of how the new television rating system was initially implemented and tracks trends over three years in the use of programme advisories and content codes. It also evaluates public service announcements designed to prevent handgun violence among adolescents. Finally, it provides new analyses of `high risk' presentations of violence most likely to adversely affect younger audiences.

Concern about violence on television has been publicly debated for the past 50 years. TV violence has repeatedly been identified as a significant causal agent in relation to the prevalence of crime and violence in society. Critics have accused the medium of presenting excessive quantities of violence, to the point where it is virtually impossible for viewers to avoid it. This book presents the findings of the largest British study of violence on TV ever undertaken, funded by the broadcasting industry. The study was carried out at the same time as similar industry-sponsored research was being conducted in the United States, and one chapter compares findings from Britain and the U.S.A. The book concludes that it is misleading to accuse all broadcasters of presenting excessive quantities of violence in their schedules. This does not deny that problematic portrayals were found. But the most gory, horrific and graphic scenes of violence were generally contained within broadcasts available on a subscription basis or in programs shown at times when few children were expected to be watching. This factual analysis proves that broadcasters were meeting their obligations under their national regulatory codes of practice.

In 1969, Senator John Pastore requested that the Surgeon General appoint a committee to conduct an inquiry into television violence and its effect on children. When the Surgeon General's report was finally released in 1972—after a three-year inquiry and a cost of over $1.8 million—it angered and confused a number of critics, including politicians, the broadcast industry, many of the social scientists who had helped carry out the research, and the public. While the final consequences of the Report may not be played out for years to come, TV Violence and the Child presents a fascinating study of the Surgeon General's quest and, in effect, the process by which social science is recruited and its findings made relevant to public policy. In addition to dealing with television as an object of concern, the authors also consider the government's effectiveness when dealing with social objectives and the influence of citizen action on our communication systems. Their overwhelming conclusion is that the nation's institutions are ill-equipped for recruiting expert talent, providing clear findings, and carrying out objectives in this area of delicate human concern.

Television Violence

Discusses why and how we should rate the content of television programs for violence