They see that at the same time that our society has become more violent, filmmakers and television producers have been pushing the limits of what they can depict and so may have created more violent images than were allowed in the past. There remain a number of unanswered questions as to the relationship between violence on screen and real violence: 1) What is the relationship between violence on screen and violence in the streets?; 2) What is the best way to limit or filter on-screen violence, assuming that should be done at all?; 3) How much violence is there in the media?; 4) How much is too much?; 5) Which acts of violence can be considered 'gratuitous" and which are essential and appropriate to the telling of a story or to news reporting?; 6) How do we know?; 7) What is a violent act?; 8) Who decides?; 9) What evidence is there to the negative effects of watching violence?
While these questions frame the issue, they are questions that have not been answered. An attempt to answer some of these has been made in various studies, the most prominent of the recent examples being the report by the UCLA Center for Communication Policy. This report should be closely examined for several reasons. First, the report was generated in response to concerns on the part of lawmakers and the public and so suggests the nature of those concerns and the degree to which these concerns will affect network operations into the near future. Indeed, the authors of the report point out that everyone has an opinion about television violence precisely because television is so accessible and important in people's lives (1). Second, the report notes that the issue has been raised in the public forum and that in the year since nothing had occurred to diminish the importance of the issue. President Clinton had identified media violence
...