TV or Not TV?

Virginia Postrel from the August/September 1993 issue

Americans are worried about violent crime. That's a major reason Republican Richard Riordan is now mayor of Los Angeles, an overwhelmingly Democratic city. Riordan promises to make the city safer by putting 3,000 more cops on the street and beefing up citizen patrols.

On Capitol Hill, they have a different approach to fighting crime. Their answer is censorship.

In late May and early June, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee held two rounds of hearings on television violence. The legislative agenda was diffuse, but the message was emphatic. Said Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio): "The television industry ought to recognize one thing and not forget it. They don't own the airwaves. They have a franchise, and what Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away."

And, in a litany of double-talk, we heard:

• From Sen. Paul Simon (D-III.), the committee's chair, "We face ultimately a choice between censorship and voluntary, responsible conduct."

• From Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Ohio), "We do not want to impose unnecessary rules and regulations and even perhaps violate the Constitution....The question is, What are these people prepared to do by themselves? What kinds of regulations are they willing to accept, self-imposed, so that government doesn't have to step in?"

• And from Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (D-III.): "The senators here seated today would not–would be the first to object to the use of censorship as a solution to television violence. However, the fact remains that a television license is a privilege, and along with that privilege comes responsibility. The TV and motion picture industries cannot dodge these responsibilities by hiding behind the First Amendment."

In other words, censor yourselves, or we'll jerk your licenses. Metzenbaum put it bluntly: "If we can't stop it any other way, then maybe we'll find a way to take back some of those TV franchises in the hands of the networks and local stations. You have until December 1 to do something."

Television violence is a centrist issue. Although the lead censors are liberal Democrats, they have allies across the political spectrum. And no wonder.

The typical intellectual thinks TV is made up of, in Meg Greenfield's words, "the vivid, colorful sight of exploding heads and strung-out guts and guys endlessly careering around shooting other guys as a matter of mindless, pointless habit. Most of this stuff has long since abandoned any pretense to what the Supreme Court once called, in the context of an obscenity ruling, 'redeeming social value.' "

That is a statement by someone who does not watch television. Outside the occasional vampire movie or rerun of Raiders of the Lost Ark, exploding heads are truly a rarity on TV, and if Greenfield has really seen "strung-out guts," she must have been watching Lifetime broadcasts meant for physicians.

Unlike Greenfield, I watch a lot of TV, including a range of police dramas: the respectable prime-time Law & Order, the trashy late-night Silk Stalkings, and the juvenile family-hour Time Trax. These shows never show gore. They always emphasize the tragedy of violence, particularly violent death. They feature highly moral protagonists. They are shot full of "redeeming social value." Indeed, for a conscious meditation on the role of a moral man in an immoral world, it is hard to top Stephen Cannell's Wiseguy series.

The social scientists and their politician friends remove dramatic violence from its moral and imaginative context. They treat heroes the same as villains and cartoon cats and mice the same as real life murderers. A recent survey finds the educational, politically correct Young Indiana Jones Chronicles the most violent–and, by implication, most dangerous–prime-time network show.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the social-science literature on television violence. But from reading often-cited studies, I have noticed a few trends.

The clinical experiments almost all depend on creating highly artificial situations, are rarely truly double-blind, and observe only small changes in behavior. The statistical studies leave out obvious variables, such as family size, the degree of parental attention, and family religious observance.

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.26.10 @ 8:10PM|#

hxjx

log in or register to reply