- Email: [email protected]
‘Reality violence’ on TV news: it began with Vietnam
The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
‘Reality violence’ on TV news: it began with Vietnam J. Sean McCleneghan∗ Department of Journalism and Mass Communications, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001, USA
Abstract The author, who is a deputy editor for The Social Science Journal, reviews the literature of professional and media scholars who have written about television news over the past 40 years. He concludes, there is only one starting point regarding “reality violence” on nightly TV news: it began with the Vietnam War. The most divisive and longest war fought in America’s history was also our country’s living-room TV war. Its impact on baby boomers who grew up with TV’s window to the world continues today for their children and grandchildren. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
It began with the Vietnam War—the horrifying still pictures and the sound-on-film cries of wounded teenage G.I. grunts in jungle combat against “Charlie.” Those daily doses of violent images in America’s longest war of brutality and sacrifice were not “toons” pounding each other on Saturday morning cartoon shows or the make believe violence in Rambo action movies. No, TV’s reporting of the Vietnam War gave us our initial doses of “reality violence” on national news in grisly detail for more than a decade. And local news—packaged as “Action News”—with its blood and guts ambulance-at-the-scene format, followed it all on week nights. “Reality violence” on TV was secured forever. We were transfixed; it would not go away. In January 1963, Peter Arnett and David Halberstam hitched a ride to cover the aftermath of the Ap Bac battle. They saw it clearly had been a Viet Cong victory—the most significant major battle of the Vietnam War up to that time. Both icon reporters encountered the senior American commander at the horrific scene. “We’ve got them in a trap and we’re going to spring it in 30 minutes,” he said. The commander then left the battle scene (Arnett, 1997, p. 34). In the Vietnam War, many U.S. career officers had their “tickets punched” for quick promotion. It was a necessary “tour of duty.” For the drafted, it was hell. ∗
Tel.: +1-505-646-2742. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Sean McCleneghan).
0362-3319/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 6 2 - 3 3 1 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 3 2 - X
594
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
In January 1967, several hundred journalists were now covering the Vietnam War. It was a fixture on national TV evening news. The American death toll had passed 10,000; it was accelerating. The first American had died in 1961. By 1967, more than 500,000 U.S. troops had been committed to Vietnam following LBJ’s 1964 victory over Goldwater. The bloodshed and brutality that accompanied U.S. troops into action was seen nightly on national television news. Back in “the world,” Johnny (12), and his sister, Sally (10), saw this horrifying truth during dinner. The wounded actually bled. Mom and dad remained speechless as the mashed potatoes were passed around the table to everyone. In January 1968, television was well into its half-hour national news format. Color TV, the beginning of the satellite age, and 10 years of civil rights coverage were now the hall marks of our window to the world (Halberstam, 1998, p. 11). For many journalists, who never left Saigon while reporting the war, saw it “up-close and personal” when Tet’68 arrived. Journalists now covered more actual fighting and dying then ever before. Television news viewers through 1967 would have mostly seen film of Vietnam civilian casualties and property destruction less than once a week on the average. But the Tet’68 offensive changed the picture coverage. Violence of the war appeared almost four times as often. Pictures of military casualties jumped from an average of 2.4–6.8 per week (Hallin, 1998, p. 4). Those teenage G.I. grunts were now bleeding in color in greater numbers. In 1968, reality violence on TV was relentless. In April, Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated. In May, student protests rocked France. In June, Robert Kennedy was assassinated. In August, Chicago saw violent rioting as the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey. In October, the Mexican government massacred hundreds of peaceful demonstrators. Johnny (13), and Sally (11), ate little of their dinner as they listened to their parents argue angrily about the war, civil rights, and law and order. By 1972, Johnny (17), and Sally (15), had now seen an execution on national TV news. A South Vietnamese general shot a Viet Cong lieutenant in the head on the streets of Saigon. The Vietnam War could now be measured by its violent still photographs. The most memorable were the 1963 image of the burning monk; the 1968 Saigon street execution; and the 1972 picture of the napalmed children. A 1972 government study by the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior—Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence— concluded there was little evidence that televised violence had “an adverse effect on the majority of children” (Heins, 2000, p. 17). But acts of “reality violence” were never shown to those children who participated in mostly experimental designs for the government study. In the 1980s, reality violence on TV was marketed. TV journalists had to figure out ways to survive in companies obsessed with show biz. Why? Because megamergers had occurred. Walt Disney Co. bought Capital Cities/ABC; News Corp. acquired New World; Westinghouse Electric won CBS; and Time Warner took control of Turner Broadcasting System. Powerful news organizations, such as ABC, CBS and CNN, plus scores of local news operations, became bit players in a new business line dominated by Hollywood studios. Ambitious journalists saw that their career ladders could reach much higher than the newsroom. They could rise farther and faster if they could demonstrate their understanding of news as marketable entertainment. This was most dramatically apparent in the amount of attention paid
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
595
to sensational murder cases involving O.J. Simpson, the Menendez brothers and Ennis Cosby (Lieberman, 1997, pp. 107–108). Five innocents were murdered in those three cases. How they died and the testimony that followed created high ratings by a TV audience intently tuned in and turned on to reality violence. Now journalists, who thought like entertainment marketers, could package violence. Careers were at stake; violence sold. By now, Johnny (32), and his sister Sally (30), had been tweaked by countless hours of numbing reality violence on television. In the 1990s, the Persian Gulf War was brought to viewers instantly. Bernard Shaw of CNN looked out his window at the Al Rashid Hotel in Iraq. It was the first night of the Persian Gulf War, and the allied bombing attack on Baghdad resembled firecrackers on the Fourth of July. “We see what appears to be giant sparklers,” Shaw said, “exploding balls, up in the air, one after another.” It was a path-breaking report from the battlefield (Neuman, 1997, p. 127). There were other moments of note during the Gulf War. All the TV networks broadcast Pentagon footage of successful bombing runs and Patriot intercepts of Scud missiles. It made the Gulf War look to a new generation of viewers like a “Nintendo game.” Johnny’s son (5), squealed with delight. Rape has always accompanied war but in the fighting that surrounded the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, rape received sustained attention from female journalists. While years of feminist activism raised awareness about rape generally, it was the presence of a 40% female press corps covering Bosnia that pushed rape to the top of the news (Poggioli, 1997, p. 131). Sally’s daughter (7), asked “What’s rape, Momma?” In April 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, gunned down 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves. Like all the ghastly and seemingly inexplicable crimes that have occurred since America lost its first casualty in Vietnam in 1961, “The Columbine Syndrome” has generated a frenzied search for explanations about teen violence. Historically, violence is an eternal theme in literature, art, popular entertainment, and even games invented by children at play. From the gory wartime atrocities in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey to the fantasy action in Mortal Kombat and Teen-age Mutant Ninja Turtles, human culture has displayed, reflected and documented aggression and violence. Debates over their effects are just as ancient (Heins, 2000, pp. 14–15). But war in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey was not covered by television news and brought into millions of living-rooms. The continuation of television reality violence desensitizes young viewers, making them more callous or apathetic each time it does occur. Add such factors as family breakdown, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, or the availability of firearms and the picture becomes clearer. The 1993 report of the National Research Council, Understanding and Preventing Violence, concluded that genetic, social and family influences—not media violence—were the primary determinants of violent behavior (Heins, 2000, p. 18). Perhaps. But there’s something seductive about being transported by television to events as they happen. They are real life, dramatic and often violent. The public death of Daniel V. Jones in 1998 showed TV pictures of Jones retrieving a shotgun from his smoldering pickup he had parked on a Los Angeles overpass and set ablaze. Jones then blasted half his head away as police and news choppers hovered above. His death was captured “live.” There was no time to ponder; no safeguards. In an era that values media speed over reflection, the Jones suicide happened and was transmitted simultaneously (Rosenberg, 1999, p. 70). Few would have predicted the shocks and transformations that have swept through the media business since the Vietnam War. Today, the Internet is changing the way we read. What’s out
596
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
there? What can be uncovered? Is it credible? Surfing the Net is now an exercise in voyeurism. There is so much information from so many different places. There’s no way of evaluating it (Katz, 1999, p. 15). Johnny (41), and Sally (39), now have powerful personal computers in their homes. Both subscribe to America On Line/Time Warner for their cyberspace surfing of information. Both employ the V-chip to keep their inquiring children from seeing too much. In 2002, they have identified and evaluated seven Web sites regarding television violence (see those seven Web addresses). While Johnny and Sally have seen reality violence since television’s benchmark coverage of the Vietnam War, what will their children see early into our new millennium? How more violent will television become with 500 channels to eventually program on cable? What form will it take? Today, Johnny and Sally have a different TV landscape to review then the one they grew up with in the early 1960s. Back then only three national networks existed. More violence is marketed today on more TV networks during “family prime time” than ever before. No one is backing away from it. Not advertisers, not parents. What about females and males—ages 17–24—who buy the majority of movie tickets in America today? The movie, 3,000 Miles to Graceland, a Las Vegas heist film that will debut before this special edition on “Violence” appears in The Social Science Journal, had two endings shown to focus groups. One ending was violent; the other romantic. Guess what? When both versions were tested before focus groups the violent cut scored 20% higher (Scott, 2001, p. 2). The violent cut made it to the movie theaters to sell the popcorn to those 17–24-year-olds. Between now and 2004, 3,000 Miles to Graceland will be shown on cable and network television. Got the picture? Johnny and Sally do. References Arnett, P. (1997, Spring). Vietnam and war reporting. Media Studies Journal, 33–38. Halberstam, D. (1998, Fall). Justified doubts. Media Studies Journal, 10–11. Hallin, D. (1998, Fall). The turning point that wasn’t. Media Studies Journal, 2–7. Heins, M. (2000, Fall). Blaming the media. Media Studies Journal, 14–23. Katz, J. (1999, Spring/Summer). The future is the net. Media Studies Journal, 14–15. Lieberman, D. (1997, Spring). Newsman meets Batman. Media Studies Journal, 103–108. Neuman, J. (1997, Spring). Live, from the Persian gulf war. Media Studies Journal, 127–130. Poggioli, S. (1997, Spring). A strategy of rape in Bosnia. Media Studies Journal, 131–137. Rosenberg, H. (1999, Spring/Summer). Man commits suicide—LIVE! Media Studies Journal, 70–71. Scott, W. (2001, January 28). Personality parade. Parade Magazine, 2.
Further Reading Seven WWW addresses that discuss television violence 1. Http://www.blue-fox.com/witness/. More women are battered on “Superbowl Sunday” then any other day. So reports artist Robert Markey on his “Witness to Violence” Web site. Markey’s provocative art is used to communicate this sobering fact.
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
597
2. Http://www.ridgenet.org/szaflik/tvrating.htm. This website basically places a large part of violence among children and teens solely on the shoulders of television. Kevin Szaflik refers to television as an “electronic babysitter” and says that children are “learning behaviors not from their parents, but from television.” 3. Http://www.families-first.com/ffnews/violence.htm. This site contains referenced facts about violence being a learned behavior. The reference list is helpful to the researcher, but the rest of the page is a puffed-up press release complete with a free offer for a stop-the-violence CD-from a MTV poll. A link to the American Psychological Association is more helpful with less hype. The APA page focuses on detection of violent behavior, especially in youths. 4. Http://tqjunior.thinkquest.org/5676/intro2.html. This site teaches its audience about television violence and what one can do to stop it on television. The site features interviews with David Moulton, author of the V-chip bill; Tom Collings, the inventor of the V-chip; and Loren Siegel, public education director for the ACLU. All interviews were conducted in 1999. The site also asks for user feedback on the topic of violence. 5. Http://demoz.org/Society/Issues/Violence and Abuse/Media. The page lists facts and cites studies and statistics about every area of the media that promotes violence. Useful to researchers. 6. Http://www.sofcom.com.au/TV/violence.html. “Violence on Television” is a site that is sponsored by the American Psychological Association. It discusses some facts about television violence and how children and teenagers are effected by it. The results indicate that children become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, and may be more likely to behave aggressively. APA then suggests what teens and parents can do together to prevent the violence from effecting them. The bibliography at the end is useful to researchers. 7. Http://www.nctvv.org. “The National Coalition on Television Violence” page is a forum that allows users to speak out about violence on TV. It offers the group’s position against the Hollywood movie industry and its portrayal of violence on television and films as well as giving some insight about how the V-chip can limit access to violent programs. Useful to researchers who want to see the issues from a wide range of perspectives. While Web pages in cyberspace address the television violence problem, a cascade of academic scholarship in hard copy is also searching for some solutions. Seven of the most thought provoking—published between 1999 and 2000—are presented in a brief annotated bibliography.
Annotated bibliography Best, J. (1999). Random violence: How we talk about new crimes and new victims. Berkeley: University of California Press. (This book looks at how our expressions of fear of crime shape perceptions. Analysis of media portrayals of crime that gained public attention in the 1980s and 1990s is provided and how coverage affected public perception of those crimes.) Bok, S. (1999). Mayhem violence as public entertainment. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. (This book contains a section that cites specific studies and experiments—both in the laboratory and real world—that relate to media violence, especially in children watching television. It also examines TV as an “unhealthy entertainment vehicle.” Parts I, 3 and 4 are devoted to the history of violence, censorship and international violence.) Dudley, W. (1999). Media violence opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhouse Press. (This book is entirely devoted to violence in America. It is a compilation of previously published material, edited and arranged to flow through all sides of the argument dealing with whether media causes violence. The book is broken down into viewpoint sections and covers everything from exaggerated violence to recommendations from the American Medical Association.) Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear. New York, NY: Perseus Book. (Named “Best Book of 1999” by the Los Angeles Times book review unit. Sociologist Barry Glassner of the University of Southern California offers a different perspective regarding violence in America. He reports most of it is unfounded. Statistics are presented to counter sensational media headlines and TV stories. Glassner reveals why Americans are burdened with overblown fears in this work and exposes the people and organizations that manipulate our perceptions and profit from our anxieties.)
598
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
Gottesman, R. (Ed.). (1999). Violence in America (Vols. 1–3). New York, NY: Charles Scriber’s Sons. (A series of encyclopedias. Covers violence in America from 1622 to 1999. Violent happenings and people are listed in alphabetical order to document violence in America. Each volume is complete with pictures, charts and index. Very valuable resource if you know what you’re looking for.) Hatty, S. E. (2000). Masculinities, violence, and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (The author argues that violence is a masculine activity. Several theories of masculinity and violence are explored along with their representations in television, films, novels, and cartoons. This reading offers a scary but credible female perspective from documented scholarship.) Potter, J. W. (2000). On media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Media violence and its effects on individuals and groups in America is examined here. The literature on media violence is reviewed from its emergence as an academic research topic 40 years ago. Also discussed is media violence and its effects on society in terms of imitation and desensitization.)
‘Reality violence’ on TV news: it began with Vietnam J. Sean McCleneghan∗ Department of Journalism and Mass Communications, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001, USA
Abstract The author, who is a deputy editor for The Social Science Journal, reviews the literature of professional and media scholars who have written about television news over the past 40 years. He concludes, there is only one starting point regarding “reality violence” on nightly TV news: it began with the Vietnam War. The most divisive and longest war fought in America’s history was also our country’s living-room TV war. Its impact on baby boomers who grew up with TV’s window to the world continues today for their children and grandchildren. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
It began with the Vietnam War—the horrifying still pictures and the sound-on-film cries of wounded teenage G.I. grunts in jungle combat against “Charlie.” Those daily doses of violent images in America’s longest war of brutality and sacrifice were not “toons” pounding each other on Saturday morning cartoon shows or the make believe violence in Rambo action movies. No, TV’s reporting of the Vietnam War gave us our initial doses of “reality violence” on national news in grisly detail for more than a decade. And local news—packaged as “Action News”—with its blood and guts ambulance-at-the-scene format, followed it all on week nights. “Reality violence” on TV was secured forever. We were transfixed; it would not go away. In January 1963, Peter Arnett and David Halberstam hitched a ride to cover the aftermath of the Ap Bac battle. They saw it clearly had been a Viet Cong victory—the most significant major battle of the Vietnam War up to that time. Both icon reporters encountered the senior American commander at the horrific scene. “We’ve got them in a trap and we’re going to spring it in 30 minutes,” he said. The commander then left the battle scene (Arnett, 1997, p. 34). In the Vietnam War, many U.S. career officers had their “tickets punched” for quick promotion. It was a necessary “tour of duty.” For the drafted, it was hell. ∗
Tel.: +1-505-646-2742. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Sean McCleneghan).
0362-3319/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 6 2 - 3 3 1 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 3 2 - X
594
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
In January 1967, several hundred journalists were now covering the Vietnam War. It was a fixture on national TV evening news. The American death toll had passed 10,000; it was accelerating. The first American had died in 1961. By 1967, more than 500,000 U.S. troops had been committed to Vietnam following LBJ’s 1964 victory over Goldwater. The bloodshed and brutality that accompanied U.S. troops into action was seen nightly on national television news. Back in “the world,” Johnny (12), and his sister, Sally (10), saw this horrifying truth during dinner. The wounded actually bled. Mom and dad remained speechless as the mashed potatoes were passed around the table to everyone. In January 1968, television was well into its half-hour national news format. Color TV, the beginning of the satellite age, and 10 years of civil rights coverage were now the hall marks of our window to the world (Halberstam, 1998, p. 11). For many journalists, who never left Saigon while reporting the war, saw it “up-close and personal” when Tet’68 arrived. Journalists now covered more actual fighting and dying then ever before. Television news viewers through 1967 would have mostly seen film of Vietnam civilian casualties and property destruction less than once a week on the average. But the Tet’68 offensive changed the picture coverage. Violence of the war appeared almost four times as often. Pictures of military casualties jumped from an average of 2.4–6.8 per week (Hallin, 1998, p. 4). Those teenage G.I. grunts were now bleeding in color in greater numbers. In 1968, reality violence on TV was relentless. In April, Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated. In May, student protests rocked France. In June, Robert Kennedy was assassinated. In August, Chicago saw violent rioting as the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey. In October, the Mexican government massacred hundreds of peaceful demonstrators. Johnny (13), and Sally (11), ate little of their dinner as they listened to their parents argue angrily about the war, civil rights, and law and order. By 1972, Johnny (17), and Sally (15), had now seen an execution on national TV news. A South Vietnamese general shot a Viet Cong lieutenant in the head on the streets of Saigon. The Vietnam War could now be measured by its violent still photographs. The most memorable were the 1963 image of the burning monk; the 1968 Saigon street execution; and the 1972 picture of the napalmed children. A 1972 government study by the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior—Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence— concluded there was little evidence that televised violence had “an adverse effect on the majority of children” (Heins, 2000, p. 17). But acts of “reality violence” were never shown to those children who participated in mostly experimental designs for the government study. In the 1980s, reality violence on TV was marketed. TV journalists had to figure out ways to survive in companies obsessed with show biz. Why? Because megamergers had occurred. Walt Disney Co. bought Capital Cities/ABC; News Corp. acquired New World; Westinghouse Electric won CBS; and Time Warner took control of Turner Broadcasting System. Powerful news organizations, such as ABC, CBS and CNN, plus scores of local news operations, became bit players in a new business line dominated by Hollywood studios. Ambitious journalists saw that their career ladders could reach much higher than the newsroom. They could rise farther and faster if they could demonstrate their understanding of news as marketable entertainment. This was most dramatically apparent in the amount of attention paid
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
595
to sensational murder cases involving O.J. Simpson, the Menendez brothers and Ennis Cosby (Lieberman, 1997, pp. 107–108). Five innocents were murdered in those three cases. How they died and the testimony that followed created high ratings by a TV audience intently tuned in and turned on to reality violence. Now journalists, who thought like entertainment marketers, could package violence. Careers were at stake; violence sold. By now, Johnny (32), and his sister Sally (30), had been tweaked by countless hours of numbing reality violence on television. In the 1990s, the Persian Gulf War was brought to viewers instantly. Bernard Shaw of CNN looked out his window at the Al Rashid Hotel in Iraq. It was the first night of the Persian Gulf War, and the allied bombing attack on Baghdad resembled firecrackers on the Fourth of July. “We see what appears to be giant sparklers,” Shaw said, “exploding balls, up in the air, one after another.” It was a path-breaking report from the battlefield (Neuman, 1997, p. 127). There were other moments of note during the Gulf War. All the TV networks broadcast Pentagon footage of successful bombing runs and Patriot intercepts of Scud missiles. It made the Gulf War look to a new generation of viewers like a “Nintendo game.” Johnny’s son (5), squealed with delight. Rape has always accompanied war but in the fighting that surrounded the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, rape received sustained attention from female journalists. While years of feminist activism raised awareness about rape generally, it was the presence of a 40% female press corps covering Bosnia that pushed rape to the top of the news (Poggioli, 1997, p. 131). Sally’s daughter (7), asked “What’s rape, Momma?” In April 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, gunned down 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves. Like all the ghastly and seemingly inexplicable crimes that have occurred since America lost its first casualty in Vietnam in 1961, “The Columbine Syndrome” has generated a frenzied search for explanations about teen violence. Historically, violence is an eternal theme in literature, art, popular entertainment, and even games invented by children at play. From the gory wartime atrocities in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey to the fantasy action in Mortal Kombat and Teen-age Mutant Ninja Turtles, human culture has displayed, reflected and documented aggression and violence. Debates over their effects are just as ancient (Heins, 2000, pp. 14–15). But war in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey was not covered by television news and brought into millions of living-rooms. The continuation of television reality violence desensitizes young viewers, making them more callous or apathetic each time it does occur. Add such factors as family breakdown, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, or the availability of firearms and the picture becomes clearer. The 1993 report of the National Research Council, Understanding and Preventing Violence, concluded that genetic, social and family influences—not media violence—were the primary determinants of violent behavior (Heins, 2000, p. 18). Perhaps. But there’s something seductive about being transported by television to events as they happen. They are real life, dramatic and often violent. The public death of Daniel V. Jones in 1998 showed TV pictures of Jones retrieving a shotgun from his smoldering pickup he had parked on a Los Angeles overpass and set ablaze. Jones then blasted half his head away as police and news choppers hovered above. His death was captured “live.” There was no time to ponder; no safeguards. In an era that values media speed over reflection, the Jones suicide happened and was transmitted simultaneously (Rosenberg, 1999, p. 70). Few would have predicted the shocks and transformations that have swept through the media business since the Vietnam War. Today, the Internet is changing the way we read. What’s out
596
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
there? What can be uncovered? Is it credible? Surfing the Net is now an exercise in voyeurism. There is so much information from so many different places. There’s no way of evaluating it (Katz, 1999, p. 15). Johnny (41), and Sally (39), now have powerful personal computers in their homes. Both subscribe to America On Line/Time Warner for their cyberspace surfing of information. Both employ the V-chip to keep their inquiring children from seeing too much. In 2002, they have identified and evaluated seven Web sites regarding television violence (see those seven Web addresses). While Johnny and Sally have seen reality violence since television’s benchmark coverage of the Vietnam War, what will their children see early into our new millennium? How more violent will television become with 500 channels to eventually program on cable? What form will it take? Today, Johnny and Sally have a different TV landscape to review then the one they grew up with in the early 1960s. Back then only three national networks existed. More violence is marketed today on more TV networks during “family prime time” than ever before. No one is backing away from it. Not advertisers, not parents. What about females and males—ages 17–24—who buy the majority of movie tickets in America today? The movie, 3,000 Miles to Graceland, a Las Vegas heist film that will debut before this special edition on “Violence” appears in The Social Science Journal, had two endings shown to focus groups. One ending was violent; the other romantic. Guess what? When both versions were tested before focus groups the violent cut scored 20% higher (Scott, 2001, p. 2). The violent cut made it to the movie theaters to sell the popcorn to those 17–24-year-olds. Between now and 2004, 3,000 Miles to Graceland will be shown on cable and network television. Got the picture? Johnny and Sally do. References Arnett, P. (1997, Spring). Vietnam and war reporting. Media Studies Journal, 33–38. Halberstam, D. (1998, Fall). Justified doubts. Media Studies Journal, 10–11. Hallin, D. (1998, Fall). The turning point that wasn’t. Media Studies Journal, 2–7. Heins, M. (2000, Fall). Blaming the media. Media Studies Journal, 14–23. Katz, J. (1999, Spring/Summer). The future is the net. Media Studies Journal, 14–15. Lieberman, D. (1997, Spring). Newsman meets Batman. Media Studies Journal, 103–108. Neuman, J. (1997, Spring). Live, from the Persian gulf war. Media Studies Journal, 127–130. Poggioli, S. (1997, Spring). A strategy of rape in Bosnia. Media Studies Journal, 131–137. Rosenberg, H. (1999, Spring/Summer). Man commits suicide—LIVE! Media Studies Journal, 70–71. Scott, W. (2001, January 28). Personality parade. Parade Magazine, 2.
Further Reading Seven WWW addresses that discuss television violence 1. Http://www.blue-fox.com/witness/. More women are battered on “Superbowl Sunday” then any other day. So reports artist Robert Markey on his “Witness to Violence” Web site. Markey’s provocative art is used to communicate this sobering fact.
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
597
2. Http://www.ridgenet.org/szaflik/tvrating.htm. This website basically places a large part of violence among children and teens solely on the shoulders of television. Kevin Szaflik refers to television as an “electronic babysitter” and says that children are “learning behaviors not from their parents, but from television.” 3. Http://www.families-first.com/ffnews/violence.htm. This site contains referenced facts about violence being a learned behavior. The reference list is helpful to the researcher, but the rest of the page is a puffed-up press release complete with a free offer for a stop-the-violence CD-from a MTV poll. A link to the American Psychological Association is more helpful with less hype. The APA page focuses on detection of violent behavior, especially in youths. 4. Http://tqjunior.thinkquest.org/5676/intro2.html. This site teaches its audience about television violence and what one can do to stop it on television. The site features interviews with David Moulton, author of the V-chip bill; Tom Collings, the inventor of the V-chip; and Loren Siegel, public education director for the ACLU. All interviews were conducted in 1999. The site also asks for user feedback on the topic of violence. 5. Http://demoz.org/Society/Issues/Violence and Abuse/Media. The page lists facts and cites studies and statistics about every area of the media that promotes violence. Useful to researchers. 6. Http://www.sofcom.com.au/TV/violence.html. “Violence on Television” is a site that is sponsored by the American Psychological Association. It discusses some facts about television violence and how children and teenagers are effected by it. The results indicate that children become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, and may be more likely to behave aggressively. APA then suggests what teens and parents can do together to prevent the violence from effecting them. The bibliography at the end is useful to researchers. 7. Http://www.nctvv.org. “The National Coalition on Television Violence” page is a forum that allows users to speak out about violence on TV. It offers the group’s position against the Hollywood movie industry and its portrayal of violence on television and films as well as giving some insight about how the V-chip can limit access to violent programs. Useful to researchers who want to see the issues from a wide range of perspectives. While Web pages in cyberspace address the television violence problem, a cascade of academic scholarship in hard copy is also searching for some solutions. Seven of the most thought provoking—published between 1999 and 2000—are presented in a brief annotated bibliography.
Annotated bibliography Best, J. (1999). Random violence: How we talk about new crimes and new victims. Berkeley: University of California Press. (This book looks at how our expressions of fear of crime shape perceptions. Analysis of media portrayals of crime that gained public attention in the 1980s and 1990s is provided and how coverage affected public perception of those crimes.) Bok, S. (1999). Mayhem violence as public entertainment. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. (This book contains a section that cites specific studies and experiments—both in the laboratory and real world—that relate to media violence, especially in children watching television. It also examines TV as an “unhealthy entertainment vehicle.” Parts I, 3 and 4 are devoted to the history of violence, censorship and international violence.) Dudley, W. (1999). Media violence opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhouse Press. (This book is entirely devoted to violence in America. It is a compilation of previously published material, edited and arranged to flow through all sides of the argument dealing with whether media causes violence. The book is broken down into viewpoint sections and covers everything from exaggerated violence to recommendations from the American Medical Association.) Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear. New York, NY: Perseus Book. (Named “Best Book of 1999” by the Los Angeles Times book review unit. Sociologist Barry Glassner of the University of Southern California offers a different perspective regarding violence in America. He reports most of it is unfounded. Statistics are presented to counter sensational media headlines and TV stories. Glassner reveals why Americans are burdened with overblown fears in this work and exposes the people and organizations that manipulate our perceptions and profit from our anxieties.)
598
J. Sean McCleneghan / The Social Science Journal 39 (2002) 593–598
Gottesman, R. (Ed.). (1999). Violence in America (Vols. 1–3). New York, NY: Charles Scriber’s Sons. (A series of encyclopedias. Covers violence in America from 1622 to 1999. Violent happenings and people are listed in alphabetical order to document violence in America. Each volume is complete with pictures, charts and index. Very valuable resource if you know what you’re looking for.) Hatty, S. E. (2000). Masculinities, violence, and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (The author argues that violence is a masculine activity. Several theories of masculinity and violence are explored along with their representations in television, films, novels, and cartoons. This reading offers a scary but credible female perspective from documented scholarship.) Potter, J. W. (2000). On media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Media violence and its effects on individuals and groups in America is examined here. The literature on media violence is reviewed from its emergence as an academic research topic 40 years ago. Also discussed is media violence and its effects on society in terms of imitation and desensitization.)