cted leaders in Washington, D.C., is the "evil" coming out of Hollywood and into our homes. It is blamed for everything from the tragedy at Littleton to road rage on our highways. (McMasters)No one can be the perfect impartial judge of media violence. Is violence limited to explosions and murder, or does it include punches and other physically inflicted pain? According to Jonathan Cutler, a study being held by UCLA, "aims to focus on qualitative issues and improve on past studies of bullet rounds, punches thrown and incidents of bloodletting"(Cutler). There is a small chance of a rating system being formed that will please both the upset viewers along with the producers, and advertisers. The actual definition of violence is a rough force in action, or causing harm or injury. By its true definition, this means that there is violence in almost every show/cartoon on television, and eliminating it altogether would be nearly impossible. If censorship were to become stricter, where would the cut off point on violence be? Would the government, viewers, producers, or a collection of all three make this judgment? Would an explosion need to be under a certain size, and should there be a limit to the number of people killed or injured in an episode on television? Under a new rating system, producers would be wary to express themselves in the possibly severe way they want to, in fear of an unwanted rating. Having an unpopular rating would not only keep viewers from seeing a show, but ward off advertisers that help keep shows on the air. This could lead to a string of shows under one popular rating, and producers would be afraid to break this more promising rating. This is a statement by Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum Online:The ratings are creatures of the cultural whims of the moment - for example,Violence gets a pass but sex doesn't - which in turn requires untenable judgments about the good or the harm of specific characters, s...
