THE TIMES POLL : Most Say TV Violence Begets Real Violence

Nearly four out of five Americans believe violence in television entertainment programs directly contributes to the amount of violence in society, and 54% say they would support government guidelines to limit the amount of mayhem on TV, according to a Los Angeles Times Poll.

Of the 79% who said they think there is a connection between violence in TV entertainment and violence in real life, two-thirds said they believe television contributes “a great deal” to the problem.

Americans also appear to be growing more concerned about crime in general. When asked the most important problem facing the United States today, 30% of the 1,612 adults polled nationwide Dec. 4-7 named crime, which topped the list of concerns. For the previous Times Poll in September, health care was listed as the country’s most pressing problem, and crime was listed third.

The poll results have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Public attention has focused intensely on crime lately as violent stories keep tumbling out of the news media. On Dec. 2, a man began a shooting rampage at an unemployment office in Oxnard, Calif., leaving five people dead. Two days later, police found the body of 12-year-old Polly Klaas, who had been kidnaped in Petaluma, Calif. Three days after that, a gunman went on a bloody shooting spree on a New York commuter train, killing six.

“Crime is the story du jour,” said Times Poll Director John Brennan. “The media is really emphasizing crime right now, and that is having an effect on public opinion, more than some statistical increase in crime.”

But that doesn’t mean the concern about TV violence is only a product of news media attention, Brennan noted. “TV violence was an issue before this very recent jump in crime consciousness,” he said.

Other surveys taken this year also have shown strong public concern about TV violence as one of a number of factors contributing to the nation’s crime problems, though some other causes are cited more often. A Gallup poll taken in October found that 68% of the public considered TV violence to be an important cause of crime in the country, behind such factors as lack of moral training in the home (97%), lack of punishment because of crowded courts and prisons (88%) and poor quality of schools (77%).

The Times Poll comes at a time when other studies are suggesting the amount of TV violence has actually declined in recent years. In separate interviews, many of the poll respondents who expressed concern about TV violence couldn’t cite specific examples of it in entertainment programming or explain how it contributes to violence in society. For them, they said, it’s just a matter of common sense.

“Really, I wouldn’t know how to explain it,” said James Jones, a 54-year-old father of four living in Olive Branch, Miss. “But I don’t think it’s healthy for a young child to sit and watch killing on TV. I just don’t think it’s healthy at all.”

“I’ve seen my kids acting out what they see on TV,” said Paul Sager, 28, of Birmingham, Ala. He “strongly favors” government guidelines to safeguard his two children, ages 3 and 6. “There’s a lot of students in Birmingham who bring guns to school. They just accept violent behavior as normal. If it happens on TV, it has to be true.”

The debate over TV violence has intensified through the year, with Congress and U.S. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno threatening to impose government regulations if the television industry does not voluntarily step up efforts to curb the depictions of murder and mayhem. Earlier this month, President Clinton made an impassioned plea to Hollywood to reduce violence and be more sensitive to the effect of pop culture on young people without jobs or functional families.

“I ask you, while you are entertaining the rest of us, let us together do something to rebuild the country’s future,” he implored a group of 500 entertainment industry leaders gathered in Beverly Hills for a Democratic Party fund-raiser. While violence in entertainment can serve as escapism for those who understand the consequences of their actions, Clinton said it can “set off a chain reaction of even more compulsive behavior” for those who grow up in broken families or around gangs and drugs.

TV executives greeted Clinton’s comments warmly, but they maintain that they already have drastically reduced glorified violence in entertainment programming and last fall implemented a policy of affixing “parental advisories” at the beginning of programs that contain violence.

In The Times Poll, 43% of Americans said they would oppose any formal government guidelines. But the majority evidently feel the industry has not done enough. The 54% who said they would support government guidelines to limit TV violence in entertainment programming did so even after hearing the argument that such a move might infringe on the media’s constitutional right of free expression.

Diane Popp, 48, educates her five children at home in Pensacola, Fla., and the only program she lets them watch is CBS’ “Rescue 911” because it teaches lifesaving techniques. She would like to see the government get involved because she believes the TV industry is irresponsible and lacks integrity.

“I don’t think they realize their power,” she said. “When you think of what TV does to a child’s mind, sitting there absorbing it.”

Popp complained of watching a “Gunsmoke” TV movie earlier this year and being shocked when a character was shot in the chest, point blank.

“I felt violated and offended,” she said. “I got up and turned the TV off. You never would have seen that on TV years ago. It confirmed more in my mind not to watch. I just wanted to see a good old-time Western. That kind of violence inures you to the gruesome realities of blowing a person apart.”

Leigh Finch, a waitress and student in Virginia Beach, Va., said she does not want to interfere with anybody’s freedom of expression, but she would like to see some kind of rating system to let viewers know what they can expect to see. She was recently startled by the drama “Sisters” on NBC.

“On a couple episodes of ‘Sisters,’ there was a rape portrayed,” said Finch, 24. “And it was for the most part rather graphic. I would have preferred to see it approached a different way. This young lady was running, she was grabbed and beaten up and thrown down some stairs. It was shown he was attacking her violently. If the rape had only been alluded to, that would have been preferable to me.”

Not long ago, Tim McDonald, 35, of Redford, Mich., caught the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “Predator” on network television.

“When it came out in the movie theaters, it was an R-rated movie,” said McDonald, a computer designer with five children. “And don’t get me wrong, I like Arnold’s movies myself, but they’re not something I’d take the kids to, and this was shown in prime time. For an adult, hey, I know it’s a movie. It’s not going to cause me to go out and skin people alive. But for kids, that’s not necessarily good viewing.”

He said he would like a blocking mechanism for his TV set that would prevent violent programs from coming into his home. Imposing such a requirement on the TV industry is one of the proposals in nine bills pending in Congress that deal with the violence issue.

Overall, 53% of the men polled by The Times opposed government guidelines, while 62% of women favored them. Young adults were one of the biggest demographic groups opposing government involvement, at 57%, including one-third who strongly opposed it.

“The amount of violence that I saw when I was little definitely affects me now,” said John, 20, from Massachusetts, who asked that his last name not be printed. “When I was little, I was really into the ‘GI Joe’ cartoon--and now I’m in the Army. One day in basic training I was talking with the guys and we got on the subject, and every single one of those guys watched ‘GI Joe.’ ”

Yet John strongly opposes legislation to reduce TV violence. “If you start taking away people’s rights, you start messing with the Constitution, which was written for the citizens of the United States to have rights. You start taking the little things away, slowly they get bigger and bigger until you have nothing left.”

Teresa Adams agrees that TV violence leads to real violence, but she feels parents should monitor their own children.

“I just think that this is a free country,” said Adams, 30, a waitress from Ashville, N.C. “And me being an adult, I should be able to watch whatever I want on TV. Parents should censor their TV themselves. Violence is a day-to-day fact.”

A majority of those over 30 questioned in The Times Poll supported government action to limit TV violence. That agrees with previous surveys on the subject. An October study conducted by ABC News showed that 55% of adults nationwide would be willing to give up a few freedoms if it reduced crime and violence.

Although no major segment of the population disagreed with the assertion that TV violence leads to real violence, older Americans, women, political conservatives, blacks and the less affluent were the most likely to worry about the problem.

“I think the TV guys will clean up their own act if they get enough flack from the public,” said Emma Jane McRae, 88, of Spring Hill, Fla., who opposes government guidelines. “I don’t think anyone wants the government snooping in their business. The government is busy enough doing other important things. I don’t think they should have to fool around with television. You know, there’s an off button on television, and I often use it here.”