Relativizing definitions let TV executives deny that machine-gunning counts as violence

Evidence

A committee member asked Oliver Treyz, president of ABC, whether the broadcast excerpts were scenes of violence. To the astonishment of his ques-tioners, Treyz staunchly maintained that they were just scenes of “physical activity” (Senate Hearings, 1962). When pressed further by Senator Dodd on whether “machine gunning of people” is a scene of violence, Treyz explained that he could not “evaluate those particular scenes out of context of the program with which they were shot” (Senate Hearings, 1962). To further preclude judgment of the depicted brutality, “the definition of violence is a subjective one on the part of the person who views the film” (Senate Hearings, 1962). As Treyz described it, given competing versions of reality in which one person’s view is just as good as another’s, violence is essentially unidentifiable. The hearing continued in this vein, with quibbling about the definitions of violence and arbitrary categorization of programs. In the in-terchange, the investigation of the exploitation of violence got submerged in a linguistic quagmire (Senate Hearings, 1962). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 844

Categorization

• XREF: This is euphemistic labeling and diffusion of responsibility in action — a perfect live example of Bandura’s moral disengagement mechanisms at an institutional scale.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how did the 1962 Dodd Senate hearings on televised violence actually conclude, and did Treyz’s semantic defense change policy outcomes?