Broadcasters justify violent programming by blaming viewers’ supposed cravings

Evidence

The widely shared belief among broadcasters is that violence is an expression of the meanness of human nature. Broadcasters claim that in a highly competitive entertainment market, viewers’ craving for violence compels them to include violence in their plotlines. Television is simply responding to the desires of viewers. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 929

The widely shared belief among broadcasters is that violence is an expression of the meanness of human nature. Broadcasters claim that in a highly competitive entertainment market, viewers’ craving for violence compels them to include violence in their plotlines. Television is simply responding to the desires of viewers. This jaundiced conception of human nature also justifies the necessity for violent conflict resolution: “There must ultimately be some kind of physical settlement. The audience doesn’t see a jail sentence. It will feel emotionally cheated and complain, Christ, what a dead ending that was” (Baldwin & Lewis, 1972). Seeing the villains get killed supposedly gives viewers a feeling of fulfillment: “Make the villain bad and have the hero kill him to give the audience a sense of fulfillment.” Failure to do so also violates the dictates of the “action and adventure” genre: “As an end to certain dramatic situations, if the good guy simply puts handcuffs on the bad guy and says, ‘I’ll see you in court,’ the audience will feel dramatically cheated” (Baldwin & Lewis, 1972). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 929

Categorization

• SHARE: A useful finding for anyone doing media criticism work.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 929