Television Violence And Public Policy

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

Reviews the findings of communication research on the effects of televison on violent behaviour, and the history of the use of this information in policy-making. To what political use has violence research been put? What impact has it had on politics? The interactions of federal communication policy, the broadcasting industry, public or citizens' interest groups, and the communication research community are described. The rise of TV violence as an issue is documented, in the context of the rise of social science as a policy-making resource. Rowland uses hearings, records, and reports of congressional committees and national commissions to reveal the patterns of argument and shared assumptions, and the structure of interactions among groups and institutions. These records are also part of our rituals of social self-examination. Rowland's approach rises out of the tradition of critical cultural studies, with its emphasis on history and symbolic analysis. His book, finally, is about the symbolic uses to which communication research -- indeed, social science -- is put to alleviate contemporary tensions and unease.

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

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?

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.

Via 134 signed entries, this encyclopedia provides students, researchers, and the general public with an accessible, comprehensive, and well-balanced eviddence-based examination of theory, research and debates related to media violence. Entries conclude with Cross-References and Suggestions for Further Readings to guide users to related entries and resources for further research, and a thematic Reader’s Guide in the front matter groups related entries by topic to make it easier for users to locate related entries of interest.

"If it bleeds, it leads." The phrase captures television news directors' famed preference for opening newscasts with the most violent stories they can find. And what is true for news is often true for entertainment programming, where violence is used as a product to attract both viewers and sponsors. In this book, James Hamilton presents the first major theoretical and empirical examination of the market for television violence. Hamilton approaches television violence in the same way that other economists approach the problem of pollution: that is, as an example of market failure. He argues that television violence, like pollution, generates negative externalities, defined as costs borne by others than those involved in the production activity. Broadcasters seeking to attract viewers may not fully bear the costs to society of their violent programming, if those costs include such factors as increased levels of aggression and crime in society. Hamilton goes on to say that the comparison to pollution remains relevant when considering how to deal with the problem. Approaches devised to control violent programming, such as restricting it to certain times and rating programs according to the violence they contain, have parallels in zoning and education policies designed to protect the environment. Hamilton examines in detail the microstructure of incentives that operate at every level of television broadcasting, from programming and advertising to viewer behavior, so that remedies can be devised to reduce violent programming without restricting broadcasters' right to compete.

The comparison of the Russian and American experience regarding media violence, standards for rating Russian media programs, and a course of study on media violence for students will have a significant impact upon Russian society, will raise Russian societal and governmental attention to the infringement of the Rights of the Child on the Russian screen, will help to mobilize Russian society against unnecessary violence in the media, will raise the level of responsibility expected of those who disseminate violence on the television, cinema, video, PC-games, etc., and will decrease the atmosphere of Russian social indifference to this problem. This publication was prepared (in part) under a grant funded by the United States Information Agency and administered by the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington D.C. The statements and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Wilson Center. The final phase of research for this book was supported in part under a grant funded by the United States Information Agency and administered by the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington D.C. The statements and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Wilson Center. The initial phase of research for this book was supported by Open Society Institute (1998, grant No.???809), ECHO Program (Central European University, Budapest, Senior Visiting Grant, 1998, October), Russian Science Foundation for Humanities (RGNF, 1999-2000, grant N 99-06-00008a, and partly published in "Russian Foundation for Humanity Journal." 2001. N 1, pp.131-145). Another short publications: "Media I Skole og Samfunn"/Norway, 2001. N21, p.41, 2000. N 1, pp.16-23. 1999. N 5, pp.37-39; "News from The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on children and Violence on the Screen." 2000. N 2, p.5; "The International Research Forum on Children and Media"/Australia. 2000. N 9, p.5.