FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated

tanman writes "CNN reports that a draft FCC report circulating on Capitol Hill 'suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching' The article goes on to quote from studies showing a link between violent imagery and violence in life, and discusses the 'huge grey areas' that could result from ill-defined concepts of excessive violence." Government as Nanny, or cracking down on an excessive entertainment culture? Which side of this do you find yourself on?

Comments

Limit or Ban?

[chill]

I believe this is fairly common in Europe. I remember movies like Red Dawn and one of the Rocky pictures either being forbidden or having to be re-edited for viewing in Germany.

  I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry. Contrast that with the pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards violence which the American public seems to revel in.

  I don't mind them limiting the hours it can be shown, but I would have a problem with them trying to ban it totally. As is, I refuse to watch a lot of television because of the levels of violence. I just don't want to see that stuff and don't find it entertaining at all.

  For the same reasons I won't go watch movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising. Silence of the Lambs was good, but Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising were nothing more than an excuse to see how disturbing they could get.

Re:Limit or Ban?

[PopeRatzo]

The FCC was formed to keep all the broadcast frequencies straight and make sure phone lines got strung out to the boonies.

This business of being America's censor is something a little newer, and a lot more questionable. Their role as pimp for the big advertising companies like ClearChannel and the rapacious monopolies like AT&T is newer still. They're still trying to figure out this Internet thing. When they do, we are well and truly screwed.

Here's an idea

[PhrostyMcByte]

Stop regulating content completely and let parents do the regulating with parental control settings that are on pretty much every digital cable box nowdays.

Re:Here's an idea

[chaoticgeek]

But if a snuff film was to come on then I'm sure parents would not allow that channel to be viewed anymore, thus resulting in the network going "oops" and learning from that mistake. I'm gonna bet that even though the network wants more ratings they are not going to go off the deep end to get it because once they take it too far they will get burned for it.

Re:Here's an idea

[bkr1_2k]

Maybe it's me, but wouldn't it be easier to not put a tv in his room? Far easier to control content that way than by hoping the v-chip works as it's supposed to.

This is part of the problem, no offense to you (I've been guilty of it too), but parents using the television as a babysitter instead of doing things with their children. I'm not saying we've lost our way, but children need interaction and conversation. They need touch, and laughter, with their parents (or someone in a similar role), not just in general, in order to understand that life is full. Life has ups and downs, death happens life goes on. Violence isn't the way to deal with things, etc etc etc.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Sex or violence?

[fantomas]

USians demand right for ultra-violence in media, get upset about female anatomy being shown (e.g. Janet Jackson's boob on tv). Europeans get upset about kids getting exposed to violence (big fuss in the UK at the moment because 5 teenagers got shot dead in the country in the last month, people really worried about level of violence) but happy with nudity... go round France, Italy etc and there will be billboards by the side of the road with topless models advertising perfume etc.

mmm... your choice :-)

Alternatively...

[muecksteiner]

they could rule that any violence shown on TV must be absolutely realistic.

Not the idiotic "bang, you're dead" type "violence" that you see all day long in gangster films and the like.

No, they would have to show the real thing - where someone who is shot takes quite a long time to die, and does so under very disconcerting circumstances.

My guess is that people would turn off their TV sets rather than watch something like that. And they would complain on their own accord - "think of the children!", but this time it would be a grassroots thing, rather than something which is being mandated from the top.

And to boot, having seen such scenes would probably make children a lot more squeamish about playing with toy guns and "shooting" people as well...

Or perhaps I'm still too optimistic about people in general - perhaps doing something like that would not achieve anything, except turning the nation's children into hardened psychopaths much faster than they are now... :-)

A.

Re:Alternatively...

[robably]

they could rule that any violence shown on TV must be absolutely realistic.

It's a noble sentiment, but unworkable. The impact on the friends and relatives of people who are killed never ends. To be "absolutely realistic" the TV show would have to go on forever, showing suffering that you can't fast-forward through, you have to live through it hour after hour. How do you show that in a TV show?

Not today

[Guppy06]

"by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching'

Ten, fifteen years ago I might have agreed with this. But we have TV ratings now, and we have V-Chips that can cut off content based on that rating. So long as the ratings accurately describe potentially objectionable content in a program, of what possible use is rescheduling it as well?

I can also foresee some sort of chilling effect: I seem to be under the impression that, after hours, broadcast television can show practically anything up to hardcore pornography, but even after midnight you'd be hard pressed to find a bare female breast, and then only on basic cable or some European import on PBS. Of course, I can agree that perhaps we do want a chilling effect on violence, but there's still the First Amendment and all.

Re:Choices choices...

[Yvanhoe]

seconded
Also it would be a good idea to correct MPAA's rating which considers that one boob seen shortly makes it "not suitable for children" but where gunslinging is considered okay.

Why give a damn?

[Dystopian Rebel]

Television exists to stuff the viewer's eyesockets with advertising. The programming content serves to keep your eyes "glued" for the advertising.

There's little of value on television that one couldn't learn more profoundly by going to the library, reading an encyclopedia article, talking to someone knowledgeable, taking a walk, or just reflecting. And anything that television does teach is likely not as worthwhile as any of these alternatives.

Television being what it is (consumer hypnosis, not education), it's hard not to conclude that television is really meant to be a significant challenge on the obstacle course preventing serious thinking (and political action) in this brave new world.

Bad government and multinational corporations thank you for watching.

Re:They did it before

[tha_mink]

They can do it again. It's funny you say that because I've always thought it was funny that you couldn't show a nipple on TV, but you could show a bomb going off and killing people in a crowded hospital or somebody getting shot. America is funny like that. I always thought that violence and sex would even out on TV but I always thought that it would be that more graphic sexual content would be allowed instead of violence being banned. Teee-hee...who knew.

I also think that it's funny that if you do anything under the guise of "news", you've got a free pass. Dateline, 20/20, etc, show the most graphic shit on TV but it's OK because they're "news" programs. Ick.

We NEED this! Since it's obvious that....

[oDDmON oUT]

In an age of personal un-responsibility Americans have seemingly abdicated their will to use the most obvious control....the bloody OFF switch on the TV.

Of course this would mean losing the electronic baby-sitter so many have come to rely on.

Geez! What's a parent to do?

Onn the contrary ! People would watch !

[aepervius]

Why do I say that ? Well remmember the Roman ? As far as I know death & blood were not faked. And somehow I doubt people were forced to watch, or stopped watching in disgust. Look at when there is an accident the number of passerby which comes and watch. Usually what slow down traffic is less the clown which have a look than the accident itself (especially true on 3 or 4 lanes freeway). The majority, if not all people, have this morbid streak to look at the misery of other and think "well at least that was not me". Make it real and people will not only be even more desenstivized to true violence, but they might even STARTS to enjoy it...

Americans and Sex

[drgonzo59]

You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?

Sex is something very common, a part of a _normal_ life. Violence is not! A 12 year old can see someone's head being blown off but 'Oh my god! Shield them from seeing someone's genitalia on TV."

I don't advocate showing pornography to children, but I think they should be able the see the statue of David. I just don't understand why for so long, violence was accepted, but sex was not.

If I had to choose one or the other, I would accept the display of sexuality to children than the display of violence.

I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I have to say that when coming to U.S. I was shocked of how sexually repressed this country it. There was a story in the news how a theatre changed the title of the 'Vagina Monologues' to the 'Hooha Monologues' -- WTF!?

  A vagina is a 'hoohaa' now, because a grandmother didn't want to tell her granddaughter who is old enough to read what a vigina is? Well, what the hell is a hoohaa then?

There is a reason why there are so many substitute words for female genitalia in English (hoohaa, pussy, box, coochie, hole, snatch, slot, nooch, fanny -- just a couple I could thin of right now.) This is direct result of sexual repression.

Also, a couple of years ago, when 'March of the Penguins' was in the movie theatres, I was watching it with my wife and there was couple with their young (6-7 year old ) daughter. There is a scene in the movie when the penguins are mating. They were not showing close up of genitals or anything like that. The mother got up, yanked the daughter by her hand and dragged her out. The girl didn't quite understand what to make of her mother's reaction, she got scared and started crying. Then they came back later, just in time to watch the penguin baby chicks die because their parents couldn't take care of them. I thought, 'how sad', that poor girl...

At the same time. This is one of the most violent countries in the world. It is not because of the guns, it's irrelevant, people own guns in other countries but the don't necessarily shoot each ther with them.

And then there is the problem with violent video games. Children in Europe play violent video games. I love Doom, Quake and all of the other ones. But those children do not go and shoot each other as much as the American children. It is as if we cannot simply blaim ourselves, and our culture for disasters like Columbine, we have to blaim video games, or some other things that we can all point a finger to.

Sorry for the rant. Hey if Linus can have a nice 'healhty' rant at the GNOME desktop, so can I at the American society ;)

Re:Americans and Sex

[skymt]

One good explanation I've found is that sex is considered a private, intimate thing, to be kept in the bedroom; it's not exactly something you see on the street. Violence, on the other hand, belongs in public (so it can be known and stopped). Public sex and private violence are equally disturbing in the American view.

Re:Americans and Sex

[tyresyas]

There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.

Oh, yes, eurocentric. He should apologise for comparing us to the more technologically advanced and socially aware civilisations. Clearly, in America, we don't belong with them. I mean, we have the death penalty (unlike every EU member country and then some) like China, et al., we repress certain rights of homosexuals (unlike many European countries) just like the Islamic theocracies, I mean, who would EVER confuse us for trying to be ANYTHING like the Europeans. Clearly we're trying to suppress ideas in disagreement with the government and the Bible...

Re:Americans and Sex

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really how it is treated around children, though.

Sex is taboo. Children should not know about it. Parents are afraid to talk about it with their kids, and they protest loudly when the schools attempt to educate their children about it.

It goes so far, that I have seen christian churches teach kids in sunday school that original sin was Adam and Eve's nudity, not that they ate the fruit they were forbidden to have.

Re:Americans and Sex

[Shelled]

Asia? Many Japanese broadcast programs are full of sex and nudity, and more than a few classic Hong Kong flicks would be considered soft-core in the US. You couldn't have meant Thailand. Perhaps you were thinking Sinapore, where (it's said) even chewing gum is illegal? I do agree your country's mores are beginning to have a lot in common with the religiously fundamentalist sectors of the Middle East. Why you consider having elements in common with dictatorships and theocracies an argument for your point is another question entirely.

Re:Americans and Sex

[tyresyas]

In some of those countries, there may be popular support for the death penalty (from what I hear). The only problem is that their great leaders roped them into the European Union which has saddled them with certain rules. There is also popular support for restricting immigration in some of those countries, but many leaders refuse to act (not unlike the U.S.).

As for Islamic theocracies, there is a difference between not allowing homosexuals to marry and collapsing a wall on them. A lot more discrimination that unequal marriage rights happens to homosexuals in the US. Is there a distinction between that and collapsing a wall on them nevertheless? Yes. But someone used the comparison between the US versus Asian and Middle Eastern countries as a point of reference, which, to me, should be an embarrassment because we would, I think, be in favour of adopting the Westernised ideals that we so self-righteously push on the Middle Eastern countries to which we are comparing ourselves. The point is this: if we're using comparison with other countries as argument for the validation of certain policies and phenomena in our society, we shouldn't be checking that we're like the countries that collapse walls on people.

Re:Good lord think of the children!

[tomstdenis]

Yes, but the point remains they want to remove adult themed shows in place of the children oriented crap. I may remind you that most "children" programs nowadays that are approved by the likes of the CTS and AFA folk are TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY EDUCATIONAL OR SOCIAL MERITS.

Long gone are the days of "mathnet", reading rainbow, bill nye the science guy, mr. wizard, and the like. Nowadays kid watch shit like anime, power rangers, teletubbies [wtf?] and the like. They're not "children shows" they're just mindless noise with less violence and more religious [but not moral] parading.

If you were actually in it "for the children" you'd be for shows that teach kids science, literature, history, etc. Not bombard them with mindless commercialism.

In short, this has nothing to do with "think of the children" and more about a minority exerting their will on the rest of humanity. It's about power and control (whoa, common theme!).

Tom

Re:A great movie that explores this idea...

[Cylix]

Uh, you are not going to borrow anyone's equipment and then say something bad about them...

It's kinda common sense.

The Wisdom of Bart Simpson

[Zaphod2016]

I've been watching "The Simpsons" on DVD this chilly Saturday morning, and I think Bart Simpson said it best:

"Lisa, if you don't watch the violence, you'll never get desensitized to it."

As an American, my biggest beef with the way sex is handled on TV is the BLATANT hypocricy. A legal-aged (and IMO beautiful) woman like Janet Jackson has a nipple slip out, and we scream bloody murder. Then, we dress our best-looking 15 year olds like whores, and parade them around endlessly during prime time. Finally, we arrest and scorne any of those among us who dare to reach for the forbidden fruit.

Don't get me wrong- sex with kids is bad. But sex isn't. In fact, sex is how we got all these 15 year old in the first place. I'm not about to suggest that TV or video game violence is "rsponsible" for anything- unlike you, and your kids, it lacks free will. However, simply looking at the variety of violent acts among children, it is clear that something very bad is going on here.

If I had a daughter, I would prefer she stay at home, dressed in sweat pants and 40 pounds overweight. However, given the choice between buying her a box of condoms, and driving her to the emergency room, I'd rather bite the bullet and suffer a few minutes of embarrasment explaining how a "winky" works.

Re:A great movie that explores this idea...

[rogerdr]

Except that the equipment doesn't belong to the military, it belongs to us.