Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Violence on TV is `fun not horrific'

Paul McCann Media News Editor
Tuesday 11 May 1999 00:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

TELEVISION REGULATORS are to update their definition of screen violence after research showed that people of all ages find certain gory scenes funny rather than horrific.

The research, by Leeds University, found viewers reject crude "counting blows" definitions of violence that purport to show a tidal wave of violence on the screen. In contrast, the National Viewers and Listeners Association claimed yesterday that Britain is being swamped by television images of a "hate-filled fantasy world".

But "Defining Violence", a report sponsored by the main broadcasters, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, has found viewers are much more sophisticated in their attitudes to television violence than previously believed.

The researchers showed 96 people from different age groups and social backgrounds clips from Tom and Jerry, the sitcom Bottom, Brookside and movies such as Pulp Fiction Schindler's List and Ladybird Ladybird. They found viewers are able to judge whether they think physical assaults on screen are "fair" rather than just reacting to the strength of the violence portrayed. They are most concerned when the balance of power between protagonists is unequal.

The scenes that most disturbed the group were acts of domestic violence in the Ken Loach film Ladybird Ladybird. The real-life setting and nature of the violence made the scene more real than anything in less life- like programmes.

Despite finding Ladybird Ladybird very violent, the respondents thought the violence was acceptable because of its purpose in the context of the overall film. Ironically, when the film was shown in 1997, the Broadcasting Standards Commission upheld complaints about the violence. The BSC said it would now reconsider that ruling.

The study found that the use of humour undermines the power of violence, so much so that a group of women aged 60-plus from Bristol were undisturbed by the scene in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction when the character played by John Travolta inadvertently shoots someone in the head. One woman told the researchers: "I wouldn't say it was violent. It was quite comical actually - he was so casual about it." The pensioners were much more worried about the characters' bad language than their violence and younger groups found the scene very funny.

"The report this week from the National Viewers and Listeners is not worth the paper it is written on," said David Morrison, research director of Leeds University's Institute of Communications Studies and author of "Defining Violence".

"It fails to ask what is meant by violence."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in