Media Violence

“TV Bloodbath”

A viewer watching TV last fall might have found a woman’s decapitated body hanging from a ceiling fan and a man with railroad spikes driven through his eye sockets on CSI or a deranged killer holding a knife to the neck of a kid at a birthday party, urging him to shoot his own mother with a gun on Criminal Minds (Eggerton). It is no secret that there are concerns about the impact of television violence on society. Over the years, TV viewers have examined the connection between media violence and violence in real-life. Six of the nation’s top public health organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, summarized their results in a joint statement. "The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children” (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV).

Concerns about media violence date back as early as 1952. A hearing by The United States House of Representatives concluded that the "television broadcast industry was a perpetrator and a deliverer of violence" (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV). The Surgeon General’s office conducted an overview of existing studies on television and in 1972 concluded that it was "a contributing factor to increases in violent crime and antisocial behavior" (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV). However, more recently, as television has become more demented, many shows look to violent acts to intensify attention.

Media violence is somewhat like a drug. Once it is seen, people cannot get enough of it and then are immune. Being exposed to the media violence repeatedly, even the most gruesome descriptions of violence, eventually seem tame. In order for Hollywood to keep making the hit shows and films they must keep pushing for more to generate the same reaction. Lt. Col. David Grossman, author of Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, explains: "Violence is like the nicotine in cigarettes. The reason why the media has to pump ever more violence into us is because we've built up a tolerance. In order to get the same high, we need ever-higher levels…the television industry has gained its market share through an addictive and toxic ingredient” (Violence on Prime Time Broadcast TV).

In recent years, violent incidents have increased in every time slot across all broadcast networks (Puzzanghera). Shows such as CSI and Boston Public are prime examples of media violence portrayed. One episode of CSI shows a flashback of Amy killing Fay. Fay is thrown into a big fish tank. After Fay falls to the floor, Amy hits her in the head with a pickaxe. Another episode shows Adam shooting at his brother underwater with a spear gun. Blood flows out of the wound. The brother turns on Adam and stabs him in the stomach with a knife, killing him. Boston Public doesn’t fail to show the violence either. One viewing two boys get in a fight in the classroom. One of the boys bites a piece of the other boy's ear off. The victim stands up, blood running all over his shirt. The biter spits the piece of ear out of his mouth and it hits Harvey in the forehead. It is TV shows such as these that have people wondering if violence around the world could be partly due to the violence shown to the viewers.

As lawmakers focus on flashes of skin and profanity, they find that TV violence has become not only more pervasive but more graphic (Eggerton). A person is not simply shot on TV anymore. However, the bullet is shown on the camera as it rips through skin and bone, and then lies on the autopsy table. “While the TV industry perennially tests regulators’ elusive definitions of indecency, critics and creators alike say the forces are now aligning for a crackdown on TV carnage” (Eggerton). The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, prompted by the current chairmen of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the Telecommunications subcommittee is making a report two years in progress. Some issues that have been brought to attention are the negative effects on children of cumulative viewing, the limits on the FCC’s power to regulate violence, and the definition of “harmful” TV violence (Eggerton). Broadcasters have