Could you picture a TV movie on the life of Abraham Lincoln leaving out the assassination by John Wilkes Booth? Of course not. Which is why, insists Jeffrey Cole, director of UCLA's Center for Communication Policy, research that indiscriminately adds up the violent acts on the tube has failed to tell the whole story. While the controversy over V-chips and TV censoring rages from the White House to Capitol Hill, Cole's center is quietly at work on a three-year assessment of the violent content on network programming. And while public concern over violent TV is nothing new, nor the plethora of academic studies mustered to point an accusing finger at television, what is new is the way UCLA's center is approaching the problem — and the source of its backing. The study, undertaken in September 1994, was commissioned by ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. "A lot of research has been generated on this issue, and by and large, it's had little effect on the industry," says Cole. "Now, for the first time, when the results are released, the networks can't say, 'Where do these guys come from?' They're signed on."
And Cole has insisted on strong measures to ensure his center remains free of network influence. For one, the contract isn't subject to change. "Technically I wouldn't have to speak to anyone from the networks for the next three years if I didn't want to," says Cole, who nonetheless has chosen to seek input on certain points. Secondly, the networks will have no control over what the reports say or how they are released. And finally, Cole has made it clear that the center has no intention of applying for renewal. "We don't want to be beholden."
By lumping all violent acts together, past efforts cataloguing the number of violent acts on television fail to provide context. "We don't think all violence is bad," says Cole. It's certainly not all the same. Take, for example, Cole's comparison of Schindler's List with the slashfest The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. While the Spielberg Holocaust epic includes countless scenes of torture and killings, only a handful die in the popular horror film. Which has more societal value?
Rather than simply adding up the acts of violence in any given feature, the UCLA study wants to know more qualitative data: Where do they occur? Who's committing them? Are they integrated into the plot? Are they more graphic than they need to be? Do they carry consequences?
Cole's staff of more than two dozen is looking at every entertainment program aired by the four networks. For comparison purposes, it's also sampling the fare offered by independent Los Angeles stations, public television, eight cable networks, the top home video rentals and the most popular video games. For weekly network programs, each show is watched a minimum of four times. If, after four viewings, there is not a hint of violent content, the researchers move on. For the programs that raise concerns, they might watch every episode. Each scene of violence is then documented and evaluated.
The center will publicize its findings after each of the three television seasons; the first was released in mid- September. All will include the usual academic analyses, but the reports' most influential portions will be the more readable 8-12 pages summarizing the findings and the one-page list of recommendations on how the networks, Congress and the country ought to be dealing with the issue.
Cole, a historian who lectures in UCLA's com-munications studies program but whose center is based in the university's new School of Public Policy and Social Research, points out that TV violence has been the research domain of psychologists. But while that work has value, it typically stops shy of offering solutions. "Even if TV isn't the single-most important contributor to the problem, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it," says Cole.
"We don't think our job is simply to identify where the problem is — we have a role in trying to fix it."
— D.G. |