Table of Contents PART I. Introduction 5 A. Overview 5 B. Historical Background 6 PART II. The Study 16 A. Background 16 B. Independence 18 C. The Scope of the Monitoring 19 D. Methodology 23 1. Rationale and Definitions of Violence 23 2. The Monitoring Process 25 3. The Weekly Meetings 26 4. Criteria 27 E. Operating Premises and Stipulations 32 PART III. Findings in Broadcast Network Television 39 A. Prime Time Series 40 1. Programs with Frequent Issues 41 2. Programs with Occasional Issues 49 3. Interesting Violence Issues in Prime Time Series 54 4. Programs that Deal with Violence Well 58 B. Made for Television Movies and Mini-Series 61 1. Leading Examples of MOWs and Mini-Series that Raised Concerns 62 2. Other Titles Raising Concerns about Violence 67 3. Issues Raised by Made-for-Television Movies and Mini-Series 68 C. Theatrical Motion Pictures on Broadcast Network Television 71 1. Theatrical Films that Raise Concerns 74 2. Additional Theatrical Films that Raise Concerns 80 3. Issues Arising out of Theatrical Films on Television 81 D. On-Air Promotions, Previews, Recaps, Teasers and Advertisements 84 E. Children’s Television on the Broadcast Networks 94 PART IV. Findings in Other Television Media 102 A. Local Independent Television Programming and Syndication 104 B. Public Television 111 C. Cable Television 114 1. Home Box Office (HBO) 116 2. Showtime 119 3. The Disney Channel 123 4. Nickelodeon 124 5. Music Television (MTV) 125 6. TBS (The Atlanta Superstation) 126 7. The USA Network 129 8. Turner Network Television (TNT) 130 D. Home Video 132 E. Video Games 136 PART V. Conclusions and Recommendations 141 A. Conclusions 141 B. Recommendations 145 PART VI. Appendix A. Scene Sheet 149 B. Television Series Monitored on the Broadcast Networks 151 C. Television Movies Monitored on the Broadcast Networks 155 D. Theatrical Films Monitored on the Broadcast Networks 160 E. Home Video Rentals Monitored 164 F. Television Movies and Theatricals Films Needing Advisories 166 G. Television Movies with Violent Titles 168 H. Description of the Center for Communication Policy 169 UCLA CENTER FOR COMMUNICATION POLICY Television Violence Monitoring Project Staff: Jeffrey Cole, Director Marde Gregory, Associate Director Phoebe Schramm, Administrative Specialist Kristin Soike, Assistant Project Coordinator Michael Suman, Project Coordinator Student Monitors: Hani Abdelsayed Whitney Boole Ashley Byock Carla Casmero Darin Chavez Sandra Cheng Scott Davis Lisa Gild Paula Gild Gretchen Krebs Georgette Ryan Lang Norman Lee Laura Ling Joseph Love Kelly Mohre Jane Park Romus Lamont Reece James Reynolds Jean Roh Jeff Shore Linh Truong Tamara Watkins Jenna Wiggenhorn Benjamin Yerushalmi Julie Zampa Acknowledgments A project of this magnitude could not be completed without the help and advice of many colleagues and friends. At the Center for Communication Policy we are deeply appreciative of the hard work and long hours all of our student monitors contributed to this project. Ashley Byock, Darin Chavez and Jeff Shore worked all summer on the final stages of the study. Jim Reynolds was involved in all aspects of the project from monitoring to the completion of the report. We also thank LEXIS-NEXIS for making its service available for background information and to verify the information in this report. At all hours of the day and night we relied on LEXIS-NEXIS to quickly and accurately answer our questions. Five outside readers offered their time and energy to make this report as clear and comprehensive as possible. Although they had little time, their suggestions were invaluable and greatly improved these pages. Our readers were: Geoffrey Cowan, director of the Voice of America; Shale Horowitz of the UCLA Communication Studies Program; Ted Mitchell, dean of the UCLA School of Education; George Vradenburg, partner at Latham & Watkins, and Kim Wardlaw, partner at O’Melveny & Myers. We are indebted to George Gerbner who provided much wise counsel as only someone who has been studying these issues for 30 years can do. At UCLA neither this project nor the Center for Communication Policy would be possible without the support and guidance of Gayle Byock, Archie Kleingartner, John Kobara, Andrea Rich and Scott Waugh. PART I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview When this research project was first announced, we received an enormous amount of public response. Letters, phone calls and faxes came in from all over the world. Many offered helpful advice, some provided constructive feedback and a few warned of potential hurdles. Most, however, wanted to be sure that we understood their definition or concept of media violence. Some insisted that the key problem rests with entertainment television, particularly prime time dramas and movies. An equally fervent view was advanced by those who say the real problem is not gun play or fist fights in prime time drama, but children’s animation where no one really gets hurt. Others pointed out, with equal conviction, that the real problem with television is news, especially local news with its barrage of rape, murder and terror. Still others warned that indeed, it is prime time television’s more realistic use of guns and fists commonly found on non-fiction reality shows that makes it difficult for the audience, particularly children, to make distinctions between reality and fantasy. Everyone agreed that this report could become an important step in dealing with media violence if only we would address the right part of the issue. Given the range of perspectives, it is unlikely that we will satisfy everyone. But this report represents our effort to address the right part of the issue. From the very beginning, we realized that media violence is an issue about which everyone has an individual view. While it may take advanced training to conduct meaningful, original research in this area, television is so accessible and important in most people’s lives that each person has a view about the unique relationship between individuals and their televisions. No matter what we say or how well we support it, this is a project that may contradict individual beliefs about the way in which the medium affects society. During the past year as we have conducted this study, nothing has happened to diminish the importance of this issue. During his January, 1995 State of the Union address before Congress, President Bill Clinton received the longest and loudest standing ovation when he identified media violence as a cause of great concern to the country. In late May Senator Robert Dole (R-Kan.) attacked the messages that Hollywood sends out to the nation in its films, music and television programs. Over the summer, Congress and the nation debated the merits of technological solutions to the media violence issue. Television computer chips barring violence, sex and offensive language dominated much of the media news. Vice President Al Gore convened a conference on families and media in Nashville in July and almost all of the participants agreed that something needs to be done about the content of America’s media. Both President Clinton and Vice President Gore indicated their support for the use of a computer chip (V-Chip) in all new television sets. Media violence is a subject of passionate concern to many parents, Congress and the television industry itself. National polls clearly demonstrate that this is an issue about which people have strong opinions regarding what should be done. This report is intended to be completely accessible to all citizens, especially parents. While our methodologies and techniques are sound, the conclusions will only be fully meaningful if they are understood and used by the public. Although what we say will be closely scrutinized by members of the government, the television industry, the academic community and those who have a stake in the issue of violence, our most important audience is the American public. 5 B. Historical Background Concerns about media violence have been with us since before television. Throughout the 19th century, moralists and critics warned that newspapers were the cause of juvenile crime. There was concern that the great flow of stories about crime and vice would lead people to imitate the vividly described immoral behavior. In the 1920s, many were alarmed at what they saw as rampant sex, violence and general lawlessness on the movie screen. During that era, the motion picture industry was not protected by the First Amendment. This protection did not come until the Supreme Court’s Miracle decision in the 1950s. To forestall governmental regulation, the film industry created its own production standards under the supervision of Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). The man the MPPDA chose to supervise the film industry, Harding Administration Postmaster General Will H. Hays, became so powerful that the organization became known as the Hays Office. The Hays Office Codes, which discuss sexuality as well as violence, established the following standards regarding criminal violence: 1. Murder (A) The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation. (B) Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail. (C) Revenge in modern times shall not be justified. 2. Methods of crimes should not be explicitly presented. (A) Theft, robbery, safe-cracking and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc. should not be detailed in method. (B) Arson must be subject to the same safeguards. (C) The use of firearms should be restricted to essentials. The codes list brutality, gruesomeness and cruelty to children or animals as repellent subjects. In explaining the reasons for some of the codes, the Hays Office explained that crimes against the law must not: 1. Teach methods of crime. 2. Inspire potential criminals with a desire for imitation. 3. Make criminals seem heroic and justified. The concerns embodied in the Hays Codes regarding the effects of film images, particularly on the young, led to the landmark Payne Fund studies (1933-1935).