Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesAt no time in history has more attention been paid to the use of offensive language on television than now. When the singer Bono excitedly blurted out, "This is really, really fucking brilliant," on the 2003 Golden Globes awards show, he inadvertently rekindled a battle over verbal indecency ("Scrubbing the Airwaves," 2005).
The Bono incident was certainly not the first time in television history that objectionable language has made the headlines. In the past, foul language may have elicited viewer attention and complaints but they were largely unheeded and unpunished beyond a public apology issued by the offender. But it was Bono's use of the f-word that riled viewers and was a catalyst for the recent resurgence against verbal indecency on television. Concerned parents and viewers are bombarding the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) with complaints against language they deem unacceptable for television.
Protests against objectionable language have extended beyond broadcast television to cable shows. With approximately 85% of U.S. households now subscribing to cable (Cable TV Advertising Bureau, 2007) viewers are exposed to a wide array of programs many of which are purported to contain coarse dialogue that may not be suitable for younger or easily offended viewers. Although cable programs are commonly considered verbally raunchier than broadcast programs, this perception may be based on casual observation or the singling out of a few particularly egregious incidents rather than on empirical analysis. The purpose of this content analysis is to investigate the frequency and types of offensive language on broadcast and cable television to determine if the perception is well founded.
The present study examines whether programs originally shown on the seven highest-rated cable networks (Lifetime, MTV, Nick-at-Nite, SciFi, Spike, TNT, USA) are more verbally offensive than those shown on broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, UPN, WB, PAX). This study extends previous published work conducted by Kaye and Sapolsky (2001, 2004) by including the cable networks. Further, although several media watchdog organizations have tracked indecent language on cable television, this is the only known academic study that compares cable to broadcast shows. The analysis of foul language includes the amounts and types of crude language. In addition, objectionable words are examined according to the prime-time hours in which they were uttered, and whether they were spoken or implied (bleeped or pixilated out).
Offensive Language on Broadcast and Cable Television
The general public and language scholars loosely describe words that are unacceptable or offensive using broad terms such as "cursing," "dirty," "profane" and "off-color" (Andersson & Trudgill, 1990; Arango, 1989; Jay, 1992, 2000; Montagu, 1967; O'Connor, 2000). In the present study, as in other studies, these terms are used interchangeably to avoid repetition (Kaye & Sapolsky, 2004, 2005; Sapolsky & Kaye, 2005).
Offensive language infrequently has been slipped into programs since the early days of television, but starting in about the late 1980s, coarse language was scripted with increasing frequency (Leland, Fleming, Miller & Smith, 1993; Polskin, 1989). By the 1990s, viewers were hearing "pissy little bitch" and "loud-mouthed douche bag" on NYPD Blue, "you suck" on Uncle Buck, "nice ass" on Union Square, "lousy big shit, thinks he's so big" on The Simpsons, "bastard" and "motherfucking hurt" on Cops, though the sound is cut after "mother," and of course the infamous episode of Comedy Central's South Park in which "shit" was uttered 162 times (Friend, 2001), even though it was a parody of the overuse of cussing.
The popular press often singles out one or two extreme incidents of objectionable language, but such reports typically do not include analysis of such language over time. Several academic studies, however, have tracked the frequency of offensive language on prime-time broadcast television over the years (Kaye & Fishburne, 1997; Kaye & Sapolsky, 2004, 2005; Sapolsky & Kaye, 2005). One such study found that profanities were spoken at the rate of 5.5 times per hour in 1990, 7.3 words per hour in 1994, 4.7 in 1997, and 7.6 in 2001 (Kaye & Sapolsky, 2004).
Several media watchdog groups have also published reports on the frequency of mediated profanity. When examining cable programs, the Parents Television Council found partially bleeped and non-bleeped profanity once every 3 minutes on MTV ("I Want My Foul TV," 2005). The report singles out one cable network, which could lead to the perception that all cable networks are as profane as MTV.
When comparing broadcast to cable programs, The Center for Media and Public Affairs found that during the 1998-99 season, basic cable programs contained 8 incidents of off-color language per hour, broadcast programs averaged 11 incidents per hour, and premium cable programs, including HBO and Showtime, averaged 15 incidents per hour ("The Rude and the Crude," 1999). As this study indicates, basic cable programs aired fewer instances of offensive words than either broadcast or premium cable networks. When examining direct comments about sex and sexual innuendo, "sexual talk" was most prevalent in cable music entertainment networks, followed by commercial broadcast networks, and lastly premium cable movie networks (Fisher, Hill, Grube, & Gruber, 2004).
Parents are especially troubled about objectionable language that airs during the earlier hours of prime-time when children are most likely to be watching. In 2002, foul words aired 5.7 times per hour during the earliest prime-time hour, 6.6 times between 9-10 p.m. and 6.5 times in the later hour ("The Blue Tube," 2003). An academic study that compared the 3 hours of prime-time in 1990, 1994, 1997 and 2001, found that viewers were just as likely to hear profanity in the earlier as in the later hour of prime-time. Moreover, in 1997 and 2001, significantly more profanity was spoken in the first 2 hours of prime-time than in the later hour (Kaye & Sapolsky, 2004). Parents and other concerned viewers are insisting that television executives consider young viewers by restricting indecent content to the later hours of prime-time (Martin, 2003; Pew Research Center, 2005).
Public Concern
From a viewer perspective, the issue is whether coarse language should be allowed on broadcast or cable television. Some viewers are against all forms of offensive language on television, others believe such words should only be used to realistically depict emotionally charged scenes (Achenbach, 2006; Angier, 2005; Jay, 2000; Wajnryb, 2005), and others believe that the use of profanity on television should be allowed in most circumstances and that much is being made of an issue that is fairly innocuous (Kerr, 2004).
Cursing is considered a type of verbal aggression, which involves "attacking the self-concept," or opinion of another person with the intent of "hurting the person psychologically" (Infante & Wigley, 1986). Efforts in recent years to curb verbal indecency on television were largely intended to protect the innocence of children. It is feared that children and adolescents will repeat the words they hear on television and thus learn to express themselves in socially unacceptable ways.
According to Social Learning Theory, young people learn how to behave by observing others (Bandura, 1977), and by watching television (Baxter & Kaplan, 1983; Bryant & Thompson, 2002). Social Cognitive Theory suggests that observing positive reinforcement of negative behavior is an added inducement to imitation (Bandura, 1994), and bad words are easier to mimic than physically aggressive behaviors (Potter, 2003). Further, repeated exposure to foul language may lead to desensitization (Griffiths & Shuckford, 1989; Jay, 2000; Martin, Anderson, & Cos, 1997; Paik & Comstock, 1994), which in turn may lead to more verbally aggressive behavior in real life (Condry, 1989; Griffiths & Shuckford, 1989; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Tan, 1985).
Although there is concern about anti-social consequences from mediated exposure to objectionable language, researchers minimize the effects (Jay, 1992; Primavera, Herron & Jauier, 1996), especially on children under the age of 12, who are unlikely to understand such language (Donnerstein, Wilson, & Linz, 1992; Jay, 1992; Wotring & Greenberg, 1973). Additionally, children whose parents are involved with their television viewing and who teach them to be critical viewers are better able to resist the negative effects of television content (Warren, Gerke, & Kelly, 2002). On the other hand, disapproving comments about television content by parents may actually make inappropriate fare more appealing to children (Fujioka & Austin, 2003).
Pressured by parents and others who fear the negative consequences from exposure to televised profanity, conservative advocacy groups and legislators are fervently campaigning for cleaner, family-friendly language on broadcast and cable television. Conversely, the television industry, television writers and personalities, and many viewers are claiming that the hoopla surrounding television indecency has gone too far and too much is being made of the issue (Kerr, 2004).
Indecent Words and the Public Airwaves
When exposed to offensive words and phrases on television, viewers' primary source of relief is the FCC. The FCC is legally prohibited from censoring broadcasts, and thus it does not preview programs and deem them acceptable for airing (Federal Communications Commission, 2006a). Rather, the FCC responds to viewers' complaints and then determines whether the offending language is "indecent." The FCC defines indecency as: "Language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs" (Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978, p. 733).
FEED