One
trending topic that seems to be prominent in the media, is violence on
television. Every day when I sit down and turn on the television and watch
programs like NCIS and Law and Order: SVU, I see shooting, killing, and
fighting. Throughout my research for this blog I seem to have stumbled upon the
reason that there is violence on television. One example that I will talk about
later in this posting is the new show called The Following.
In
the article on Broadcasting and Cable, entitled “The Brutal Truth About TV
Violence”, written by Paige Albioniak, John Eggerton, Jon Lafayette and Andrea
Morabito it says “Washington does not regulate violence”(Albiniak et al.). In
summary as stated in the article “when bloodied corpses are shown on almost a
nightly basis, no one says much because there’s nothing Washington can do about
it, as per current media rules of law”(Albiniak et al.). The article goes on to talk about advertisers
as well. This is where we will revisit the talk about the show The Following. Before we get into the The Following,
there was a comment made about the type of programming that advertisers
would want to be part of. In that paragraph there was no mention of advertisers
wanting to have their adds in shows that have violence in them (Albiniak et
al.). In the article, when talking about
advertising, it appears as if advertisers are weary of this new show (Albiniak
et al.). The big concern for
advertisers, as I understand it, is the content of the show (Albiniak et al.). To connect this all together, there may not be
regulations as far as violence on television is concerned, but it would seem as
if this type of programming could take a hit in other places. This article
seems to illustrate some of the tension that seems to be taking place in the
industry.
The
next article also deals with violence in the media in a bit of a different way
than the first did. This article makes a parallel between content in shows like
The Following, and events that are
happening in real life (Carter). It
dealt with content of the shows in relation to the real life events by
gathering opinions of employees from various television channels (Carter). This
is a New York Times article called “Real-World Killings Pressure TV Fiction”
composed by Bill Carter. The first opinion in the article came from the
chairman for entertainment, Kevin Reilly, at Fox (Carter). Some of the
highlights of his thoughts were that he acknowledged that the timing of the
Sandy Hook shooting was not good for The
Following (Carter). On the other
hand he does make the points that shows with violence in them are very popular
(Carter). The overarching idea here is
that events like Sandy Hook do have an effect on shows, like The Following, but even though those
events did take place, the shows must go forward (Carter). Within one of his
statements, Reilly, had made reference to issues such as trying to keep up with
cultural code, the censure’s of content, and having to contend with shows on
cable (Carter). The president of
Entertainment at CBS, Nina Tassler, thought that everything that went on the
air is appropriate, even with the events that took place (Carter). One last opinion that seemed to weigh on the
article is that of John Landgraf, president of FX, said “Our greatest fear is
death, and if you want to rivet people, you’re going to tend to hover around
questions of life and death because that’s the thing that rivets our attention
most naturally” (Carter). After this article, there could be a
connection made that even though there is still violence in shows like The Following, outside events could
still have an impact.
In
summary all these different shows that have violence in them seem to be very
appealing to many viewers out there today. To tie this posting back to one of
the course readings, I want to refer to Baran and Davis’s book Mass
Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future, more specifically
entertainment theory. There are two concepts from this theory that I would like
to use. “Entertainment theorists assume that most of us don’t think enough
about this content to have very useful insights about it. We’re just doing what
feels good-after all, it’s only entertainment” (Baran and Davis 263).
Works Cited
Albiniak,
Paige, Eggerton, John, Lafayette, Jon and Morabito, Andrea. “The Brutal Truth
About TV Violence.” Broadcasting &
Cable. 24 Dec. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2013. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/491012-The_Brutal_Truth_About_TV_Violence.php
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K.
Davis. Mass Communication Theory:
Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Pub., 2012. Print.
Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Pub., 2012. Print.
Carter,
Bill. “Real-World Killings Pressure TV Fiction.” The New York Times. The New
York Times, 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/arts/television/real-violence-puts-pressure-on-tv-fiction.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteTelevision has the ability to put up a mirror to our society, depicting the harshest realities of society on our TV screens every day and night. We do live in a world where violence is obviously prevalent, whether it is overseas in a warzone or a shooting in New York City. We don’t necessary enjoy seeing violence and death on television, but the attention and excitement generated from these violent shows keep us on our seats. “Some of the most popular series on TV right now are also among the most violent, including AMC’s The Walking Dead, Showtime’s Dexter, CBS’ Criminal Minds and Fox’s new hit The Following.” (Collins) I think what best supports this theory is the quote you mentioned from FX president John Landgraf, who said “Our greatest fear is death, and if you want to rivet people, you’re going to tend to hover around questions of life and death because that’s the thing that rivets our attention most naturally” (Carter).
However, the double-edge sword of this mirror television exists because networks and programs must be sensitive to violent tragedies that can disrupt our society. In the wake of the Newtown shooting, television content was immediately altered by networks in the name of respect for the victims. An article from Hollywood.com examines how television has the social responsibility of easing a nation in mourning, and how shutting off the violence factor can be effective.
“SyFy pulled a new episode of Haven or its depictions of school violence while ABC temporarily took an episode of Scandal off its site due to a scene involving the murder of a family and Fox opted for reruns of American Dad and Family Guy on Dec. 16 in an effort to avoid potential insensitivities. Homeland and Dexter both warned viewers on Sunday that their season finales might be disturbing in light of recent events.” (Stahler)
Hence, while television can show a mirror to society and depict violence in TV shows, it also must mirror the state of mourning and condolence we express to tragedies such as the Newtown shooting. I started researching more about how the networks handle violence, and whether or not the Federal Communications Commission has a say into what is acceptable or not. I found out that the FCC deals mostly with the issues of sex and profane language, while TV violence is left to be decided by the networks. An article entitled Acceptable Level of TV Violence is Ever Shifting for Viewers, Execs from the LA Times paints a vivid picture of how the networks go about censoring and controlling violent content on shows.
“The networks attempt to govern themselves through so-called standards and practices departments that read every script and watch every episode on the lookout for violence as well as sex and language deemed excessive. The departments typically have around 10 full-time staffers, many of whom are lawyers and have legal training.” (Collins)
The concept of “standards and practices departments” was foreign to me, as it was to my knowledge that all TV content was regulated by the FCC. However, perhaps it is by design that the TV networks keep these departments hidden to the public.
ReplyDelete“Networks have long preferred to keep the process shrouded in mystery, perhaps to avoid laying down public precedents that could then be challenged. None of the four major broadcasters would allow a standards and practices official to talk on record for this article, although some executives did not want to speak on the record.” (Collins)
To put it all in perspective, I think that television just has the right to portray violence, but networks and these departments just have to be socially responsible. Limiting violence after a tragedy such as a mass shooting is imperative, as well as keeping violent TV away from children, thus capitalizing on the primetime hours. The level of violence should also be constantly monitored, and limiting the glorification of violent criminals is a must.
Works Cited
Stahler, Kelsea. "Sandy Hook: Will Hollywood Limit Violence in TV and Movies Following Tragedy?" Hollywood.com. N.p., 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
Collins, Scott February. "Acceptable Level of TV Violence Is Ever Shifting for Viewers, Execs." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
Ryan Malki
ReplyDeleteThe explanation in the article “The Brutal Truth About TV Violence” for why Washington does nothing to regulate the violence that is portrayed on television on a nightly basis seems to be a directly related to prior-restraint. The only three exceptions to prior restraint are obscene material, threat to public safety, and the threat to national security, all of which could easily be disregarded in the shows like The Following since there is little to no evidence suggesting that any of these exceptions are causes of concern.
Carter’s analysis that there exist a direct relationship between violence in shows and what is currently taking place in the media has always been a concern for films and television programs. I remember when Donnie Darko was released in theaters directly following the events of 9/11; the publics’ response to a movie with a plain crash was not very accepting. The unpopularity of the film had nothing to do with the film itself, but the fact that the film had a plane crashing was too much for the public to endure so soon to the events of 9/11. However, after about two or three years after the films release to DVD, it quickly became a cult favorite.
It is no surprise that violence is and always has been in the media in all forms. The famous expression “if it bleeds, it leads” definitely sums up the publics interest in anything death and violent. Since death is everywhere, and is often the a very uncomfortable topic for many, it media offers an outlet for the public to become in direct contact with death in many forms. The two concepts that Baran and Davis mention that suggest that most put no important into what they are watching, and simply enjoy watching it, really shows just how unaware the public is how the media influences their perceptions of different facets of their lives. Obviously watching violence non-stop on television is going to have some affect on your perception of it since it is the only content on the subject you have to go off of, but the general pubic just assumes its television, it does matter much.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory:
Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Sixth ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Pub., 2012. Print.