[Violence Profiles for Fall Programming.] WHO SPONSORS the NEW FALL VIOLENCE ? Nicholas Johnson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 141 837 cs 501 711, TITLE (Violence Profiles for Fall Programming.]Progra ■■ ing . ) ., INSTITUTION Nati·onal Citizens CommitteeCo ■■ ittee for Broadcasting, Washington, D. c. J?OB . DlTE 76 , ROTE 35p.; several tables aay not reproduce well due to poor type • ..... EDRS PUCE ftP-S0.83 BC-$2.06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS •Broadcast Industry; Change\strategies; •!ass !edia; •ftedia Research; Publicize; Research ftethodology; •Television; *Violence . IDENTIFIERS •Advertising; •National Citizens committeeco ■ aittee for Broadcasfing lBSTRlCT . This docuaent present~d by the Rational Citizens' committee co ■ aittee for Broadcasting at a 1976 press conference provides an assortment assort ■ ent of aateriais concerned with violence in television. laong the aaterials included are "Who Sponsors the Rev Pall Violence?" py lickolas Johnson, a description of and rationale for the study of a'dver.,tisers who sponsor television violence, and a ststementstate ■ ent by Richard!. Palaer, president of the Americanl ■ erican aecU.cal Association, concer~ing ·that organization's commitmentcoa ■ itaent , in the fora ,of a S25,000 grant, .to encourage media■ edia reformrefor ■• pefinitions are provfded of the aeasures used to evaluate the _level of violence in ·various· programsprogrii ■ s. ln addition, "An Evaluation of ad system Syste ■ for the ·continual .ftonitori.ng and Periodic Reporting of the Coaaercial Sponsorship ofTelevision Violence" summarizessu ■ aarizes the findings of •a study to analyz e the reliability of two aeasures of television violence: the nuaber of violent actions. ~nd th9 total tiae of violence in th prograa: This analysis was conducf:4!ft·---on . a ..saaple.. of_23_ eriprime-time ■ e-t(■e etwork · .· television prograas ,aired during Boveaber 1976 examples of data tabulation methods are included.· (KS) PRESS RELEASE NATIONAL CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR BROADCASTING .1028 Connecticut Ave.. N.W, Rm. 402, Washington. D.C. 20038 202-4864407 [violence Profiles for Fall Programming.] WHO SPONSORS THE NEW FALL VIOLENCE ? Nicholas Johnson General Motor's Chevrolet is* far and away the advertiser'of the most* prime tin* violent programming according to the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting (NCCB) 13 week study completed December 5 under a'gjant from the American Medical Association. , . Our monitoring .of violence,- conducted jointly with bi Associates, a TV monitoring firm, shows that Peter Paul Candies was the'least, violent sponsor. Quest, Star sky and Hutch, and Bar a eta are the most violent shows in prime tine, while Chico and the Man, Sirota'a Court and 'the Mary Tyler Moore Show were among 11 program* that had no 'violence of significance at all. CBS, as in our-summer study, continues-to be by far the least violent network, ' with ABC secondhand NBC the most violent. Zt is significant that American Motors, Schlitz and Burger King are within the top 10 most violetit advertisers in both our summer and fall study. Prudential is the only corporation that remained at the tap of the least violent in both studies. Shopper Toys was able to advertise*in the pre-Christaas season while qualifying among * * * the least violent advertisers. Sears and Kodak,however, found their pre Christmas advertising placing them-in trie tops ten of the most violent. * * We issue .our rankings of'programs and advertisers in order to provide accurate knowledge about the sources and supporters of television* violence to a publici* that is clearly increasing its concern. However, behind these fankings is 1m extensive monitoring' process ' which results' in detailed computer profiles of prime time violence , that are designed to be a working tool for concerned advertisers and industry leaders. If Advertisers, want *to respond* to the' rising public* concern over television*. violence, our reports will help then evaluate .their buying program. Since the new fall programming will start its re-runs in late December, the NCCB Violence Profiles give network- by-network, series-by-series* program-by-program reports on television violence in prime time. It is, in effect, a violence TV Guide to intelligent buying ' of television time by concerned advertisers. The American Medical Association emphasized that one of their goals in supporting , ' • the study was to encourage a positive impact on the advertising and television' industries. • \ '' ~ . * Acco*di,ng to AMA's Executive Vice President James H. Sanmohs, M. D., "This action represents a strong commitment by- AHA to endorse and finance activities that will * * .encourage the industry to reduce the amount of violence in TV programming." There are a number of issues to address today. (1) Our current tftudy is the ' ' • • result of a careful research and development process that incltfded a major test of .the • : ' proposal -by -industry critics. - it was- suggested• that our monitoring should• be based on a' more limited* standard of violence than the Gerbner definition we'' used in our summer .study. (2) Our studies are proving to have a major impact on public groups and private citizens who are planning their own'action programs,to reduce television- violence. (3) We believe our approach to influencing advertisers is wholly consistent, with the First Amendment responsibilities of broadcasters and does not- constitute censorship. I - THE DEFINITION OF VIOLENCE Perhaps the most significant finding to report today is the result of our comparison of industry suggested standards for violence with our use of the Gerbner . defination. When we' completed our summer study, the Markle Foundation provided a grant for an evaluation conference; Groups such as the AMA, PTA, And Action for Childrens Television sent 'representatives , as did all three TV networks and many major advertisers and agencies. 'At that time- industry representatives argued strongly that our use of the three Gerbaer definition was unfair because it included humorous incidents of violence and*light acts of violence such as a slap. They argued that our advertiser and program • rankings would be considered inaccurate by them unless baaed-on those acts of violence that they considered unquestionable — such as murders, killings, and beatings. Although we noted that there was considerable research showing that light and humorous violence does hav\ an influence, and that the industry, had produced no independent research to discredit this view, we nonetheless agreed to subject their suggestion to a fair test.; Our current study includes two. parallel rankings. The. first ranking of advertisers and programs is based on the Gerbner definition.. The second ranking was based on what we termed "aggressivepersonal incidents of violence, which clearly and intentionally threatened personal injury in a serious way" such as killings, beatings or rape's. When we completed our current, study we compared the two rankings only to find that there was, no significant variation between the the rankings whatsoever.' The least and most violent advertisers by both standards were not only pften identical on both lists (Chevrolet, Anacin, and American Motors are -1, 3 'and 3 on both list but variations, were insignificant (Sears and Kodak are 5 arid 6 on one list, and 4 and 5 on the other). The same was true of the program rankings., The results of this careful, costly and extensive comparison lead us to conclude that pur use of the Gerbner definition is proper, accurate and fair, and that charges by industry critics are disproved, by their own methodology. The simple fact is that a show that is very violent by, the Gerbner definition has also proven, to be very violent by another reasonable definition. The same is true'for the eonviolent rankings. In view of the fact that the Gerbner inclusion of humorous -and light violence is supported by considerable independent research, we can only report to the public and the Industry that the definition has proven sound, accurate and reliable under considerable testing and intense scrutiny. Therefore, all the rankings which; we 'are releasing- are ba'sed entirely on the. Gerbner definition. Furthermore, advertisers who obtain our . violence profiles will find each act of^violence detailed and can,make their own comparisons and judgments. XI --HARD INFORMATION FOR A GROWING CONSTITUENCY There is no question that there is a growing public outcry and a growing number •of organized efforts directed" at excessive television violence and that the information we provide is ah important resource. The PTA has declared television violence as its- major action target this year Many PTA members have asked for and received our rankings to support their local efforts. iThe AHA will be disseminating the results of-our study through its publications. A representative of the Jaycees has written sponsors who were named in our first study and Sheriff Buckley of Middlesex County, Massachusetts (Boston Area) is calling on the Chiefs of Police of other major cities to -join. him in personal visits to the heads of the corporations 'at the • top of our most violent list. Mariy*private citizens have written advertiser* in re sponse to our study and many of 'them have sent; us copies of the responses they received from the corporations. Additionally, a coalition'of national church groups (incl uding the Church of the Brethren, United Church'of Christ and the National Council of Churches}' which, hold stock, in major corporations are using our list of most violent advertisers, to take appropriate stockholder actions. ' Like the audience in the new movie Network, the viewing public is starting to say "We're mad as hell,and we're not going to take it any more." 111 ADVERTISERS AND CENSORSHIP OR HOW TO TALK BACK TO YOUR TV SET The only other significant criticism that our study has received has involved our holding advertisers to account .for the violent content^ of programs they use as vehicles ' for their advertising. A response by Peter Allport, President of the Association of National Advertisers,to requests about our last report is indicative of both the attitude and the problem.