Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Up in Arms About Violence on Television

Following a Beverly Hills conference on television violence last week, Sen. Paul Simon, an Illinois Democrat, surprised industry executives by requiring them to “show some movement” toward reducing violent programming within 60 days or risk congressional restrictions. Simon, the author of a 1990 act aimed at cleaning up programming, has recommended the formation of an independent monitoring committee. A University of Pennsylvania study released last month, however, found that the frequency of violence on the top three networks’ shows is about half of what it was prior to 1990.

*

What steps should the television industry take to reduce violent programming?

Marian Rees, independent television producer and chair of the Burbank-based National Council for Families and Television, which sponsored the conference:

“We in the production community know when violence is gratuitous. If we keep talking for 60 days, something will come out of it that will be reflected in the work. We’re going to look at violence differently. I think there is clear evidence that we have to continue to monitor ourselves, not the government. Until we all look at it together, nothing of consequence will be served.”

Dr. Carole Lieberman, Beverly Hills psychiatrist and chair of the National Coalition on Television Violence, an educational and research organization:

“I think they need, if not to get a whole ratings system in place, then certainly to make strides toward that. They’re not in the Dark Ages. There are decades of research on this. There needs to be some kind of effort on the part of the industry to stop being defensive and start addressing the problem.”

Len Hill, independent television movie producer and a conference panelist:

“I think what is sad is that there is no recognition that what appears on broadcast TV today is less violent and less physical than it has ever been. We don’t do ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ The problem does not exist in large measure in prime-time network TV. In a true democracy, we need the courage to embrace a broadcasting system that promotes diversity, encourages dissent and is capable of reaching all the citizens.”

Cheryl Rhoden, spokeswoman for the Writers Guild of America West:

“Everyone has their own definition of what is too violent. There are multiple channels and multiple decision-makers, both for network TV and for cable and for independent stations. It is so subjective that it is very, very difficult for programmers to try to outguess viewers’ reactions. Writers have a lot of stories they’d like to tell and are too often limited to action stories. All of us should be concerned that our stories not be limited. Stories play a critical role in our culture. And sometimes our stories are violent stories.”

Dr. Robert E. McAfee, president-elect of the American Medical Assn., which concluded in a 1992 study that the typical American child will have seen 200,000 acts of television violence by the age of 18:

“We cannot overlook that violence is a major medical and public health issue. There are several effective measures to curb TV violence. They include Federal Trade Commission hearings to consider a violence rating system for programming and guidelines for broadcasting during prime time. The time for action is now. Considering the damage to our society that TV violence is capable of causing, there truly is not a moment to spare.”