Mass media: regulation and censorship

British Board of Film Classification: research

BBFC examiners are now full-time and are expected not only to examine, but also to be involved in research programmes. In 1993 the BBFC commissioned research by the Policy Studies Institute into screen violence.

Hollywood vs America?

Concern over media violence became a major issue in 1992 to 1993. It was fuelled in part by the best-selling Hollywood vs America by the American critic Michael Medved, but also by pressure from various quarters including Action for Children's Television, the American Family Association and, in particular, Senator Paul Simon, who succeeded in achieving a temporary suspension of the anti-trust laws to allow the major networks to co-operate in drawing up a TV code. This temporary arrangement resulted in three annual studies of TV violence produced by UCLA. They are extensive and very detailed, but, if you have the time to read them, you will find that they give an excellent feel for the problems facing researchers in the field. They also, as the researchers comment, are accessible and do not require an advanced degree in communication. The last of the three can be found here.

The USA had traditionally shown a major commitment to freedom of expression as required by the First Amendment. The original intention behind Senator Simon's initiative was that the broadcasters, working together with UCLA, would be able to develop a voluntary policy, but in fact even in the States President Clinton and his Attorney General, in response to public concern, began to hint strongly that they were prepared to introduce legislation to reduce violence in TV and film and some of these concerns have already found legal expression in the Telecommunications Reform Act 1996.

Throughout 1998 to 1999, with sporadic high school shooting incidents in the USA, culminating in the massacre at Columbine High by the so-called 'Trenchcoat Mafia' students, pressure increased for control of media violence. The campaign reached a significant high point when the Supreme Court ruled in March 1999 in favour of Patsy-Ann Byers's negligence suit against Oliver Stone and Time-Warner Entertainment. Byers had been shot and paralysed in 1995. The perpetrators told police they had embarked on their criminal spree after watching Stone's Natural Born Killers. By June 1999 in a major speech Clinton was calling on the US film industry to consider carefully the possible social consequences of its output. Clinton, who had generally had a comfortable relationship with Hollywood, came close to accusing the production companies of deliberately targeting films at audiences younger than the ratings system implied they were intended for. At the time Congress was debating whether the ratings system should be made legally enforceable and Clinton, who might have been expected to resist such a move, seemed almost to be pre-empting Congress in suggesting that there was too much violence in PG-13 films and that the ratings should be revised. In the wake of the high school violence, the gun lobby is under pressure in the US and it seeks to deflect attention from itself by alleging that the root cause of the violence is not the possession of guns but the social attitudes inculcated by the media. What evidence is there for claiming that the media are responsible for real-world violence?

The Bulger case

In Great Britain major concern was expressed over media violence following press reports that the two child killers of the toddler Jamie Bulger and the killers in two more brutal murders were influenced by the two video tapes Child's Play 3 and Juice.

The two tapes were shown to the Video Consultative Council. No one on the Council could see any relevance to the Bulger killing. Indeed, the teachers on the Council considered that Juice would have considerable educational value for pupils in their last year at school.

The police could find no evidence that the videos were in any way implicated in the killings.

Policy Studies Institute research: overview

The BBFC commissioned the Policy Studies Institute to investigate the viewing habits of young offenders. They found that offenders were watching much the same as non-offenders and neither group showed undue interest in horror films or films about criminals. (The research results are shown on the left)

When asked to choose their favourite films, 45% of those mentioned by offenders and 44% of those mentioned by non-offenders were in the '18' category.

Where the two groups differed significantly was in their lifestyles. Offenders often came from more deprived, unstable and chaotic backgrounds. 'It was the sadness, rather than the badness of their lives that was striking' (Ferman (1994)), a conclusion which had been reached in a number of previous studies, for example:

• Himmelweit, Oppenheim and Vince in their 1958 Television and the Child study noted that heavy television users were of below average intelligence, had emotional difficulties such as fear and insecurity, had fewer friends and (not surprisingly) engaged in fewer activities requiring them to play an active role.
• Maccoby's 1954 Why Do Children Watch Television? suggested that TV fans often foundlittle warmth in their realtionship with their parents, were often severely punished and were allowed little personal freedom.
• Riley and Riley's 1951 A Sociological Approach to Communications Research concluded that such children were often poorly integrated.

The big question is, then, whether, given the differences in the social background and domestic circumstances of the two groups, it might be the case that the meanings of video violence are quite different for the two. The BBFC intends to conduct further research to determine whether this is the case.

Policy Studies Institute Research - details

No evidence that the films which caused concern at the time (Silence of the Lambs, Cape Fear, Reservoir Dogs etc.) were watched by more than a tiny minority of offenders or non-offenders.

Also no reports of viewing of unclassified films.

Conclusion

' .... considerable doubt can be cast upon claims of some direct causal connection or correlation between television and antisocial behaviour.'

source: Newburn & Hagell (1995)

James Ferman, the Director of the BBFC draws attention in his report on the survey to the major differences between the domestic circumstances of the two groups, emphasising that the difference lies not so much in the badness as the sadness of their lives. This would tend to support the conclusions reached by Schramm as long ago as 1961 that:

the roots of delinquency are ... much lower and broader than television

Schramm et al.(1961) p.166 cited in McQuail (1971)

and that whether the child learns delinquency from television or not depends largely on what the child brings to the televisual experience in the first place:

Delinquency is a complex behavior growing usually out of a number of roots, the chief one usually being some great lack in the child's life--often a broken home or a feeling of rejection by parents or peer groups. Television is, at best, a contributing cause

(ibid.)

A very similar view is taken by Avedon Carol of Feminists Against Censorship who argues that there is no evidence of a link between exposure to media violence and the commission of violent crime, whereas the link between crime and social circumstance is well established. She argues that it is government social policy, rather than media violence, which is responsible for the increasing crime rates, since the provision of a decent society for all has been abandoned by Thatcherite policies which extol the virtues of greed and self-enrichment and set out to destroy the general provision of health care, transport, safety, housing and work. As Carol sees it:

This combination of alienation and poverty, joblessness and hopelessness, is what has led to the increases in crime. The only media that encourage this are the continued appearances by government ministers explaining that yet more services "must" be decreased or discontinued. All social science supports the view that creating a sense of hopelessness and loss of future among the populace is virtually guaranteed to increase crime. Censorship in the cause of reducing crime is at best a red-herring being waved by dishonest politicians who wish to distract us from criticizing policies which have hurt our society.

Carol (1994)

Related articles:

More information on research into media violence

Research into pornography

Regulation and censorship contents list

D Taylor's site for detailed and up-to-date information on the BBFC's reports

Chris O'Neill's pages at the University of Strathclyde: The Attic of the BBFC

Melon Farmers' UK Video Hits - loads of current information on censorship in the UK

Bulletin Board on Film Censorship - bulletin boards on a variety of film censorship topics; mailing lists; numerous articles on film and other censorship in the UK