Violence and smut are of course everywhere on the airwaves. You cannot turn on your television without seeing them, although sometimes you have to hunt around.
The number of old ladies who've beaten me up on TV is absolutely ridiculous.
We journalists in America take it for granted that we are not going to be killed for our work. Unfortunately, this is not true elsewhere in the world.
How a society channels male aggression is one of the greatest questions as to whether that society will survive. That's why I am not against violence in the media, I am against the glorification of immoral violence.
When people see the terrible scenes of violence on television, when we mourn the death of each and every American man and woman in uniform or a civilian that's killed in Iraq, that it's hard to see the progress that's being made and it's hard to believe that this is all going to come out for the better.
We don't have any rules about how we depict violence, or how much violence is in a movie. It's a calibration on a case-by-case basis.
So, if falling crime rates coincide with the rise of violent video games and increasing violence on TV and at the cinema, should we conclude that media violence is causing the drop in crime rates?
In many ways, I think that, while we've been remarkably violent in our media, there's been a real schizophrenia. In private, on the Internet, and on public-affairs shows or talk radio, we're way more explicit than we've ever been.
I have never seen a connection between cinematic violence towards women and actual violence towards women in society.
Personally, I can't stand violence. In any standard American mainstream movie, there's 20 times more violence than in any one of my films, so I don't know why those directors aren't asked why they're such specialists for violence.
Violent content on television is more dangerous to children than indecency.
I'm very careful about how I portray violence in my films. I do believe that violence, especially violent video games, are not a good thing for young kids.
I'm not keen on films which depict a lot of violence.
The use of violence in movies is a subject that's worth addressing. I'm not standing on a soapbox or wagging a finger, but I'm interested in those subjects for sure.
Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society are superior to those linking cancer and tobacco.
I have to admit that when I watch a movie in which there is no moral context for the violence - I find that offensive. I think that's potentially damaging to society.
Violence is a form of cinematic entertainment.
I worked on movies with a lot of violence when I was a cinematographer, and it always bothered me. It's a personal thing. I wouldn't want my kids to see it. I certainly believe that freedom of expression shouldn't be taken away, but I also believe you can make movies that are thrilling and exciting without too much violence.
I don't see on television the kind of blood and guts and body parts blown apart that maybe you're referring to, but it certainly is in that BATMAN feature and I found it very offensive.
It's not that the film is violent, it's that people have an issue with violence right now.
I've made plenty of violent games in my life. I play violent games. They don't affect people in the way that a lot of people think they do. They just don't. It's demonstrably true that they don't, and anybody who thinks they do is just not thinking.
But, I don't know, the violence, I can't even talk about. We don't do a lot of violent shows. When I started in television, breaking a pencil was a violent act.
A little bit of gratuitous violence in a well-thought-out story is fine.
You just have to open the newspapers in most Western news to see real violence.
If you see anything scary on television, you can turn it off.
Rogers told this to children as well as adults.