John Quinn
MPhill/PhD – Media effects
30th October 2007 D.O.S. John Robertson
The study, commissioned by the BBFC, ITC, and BSC, was intended to provide the three bodies, (who where at the time of publication, responsible for providing guidance to consumers and broadcasters as to the rules in respect of the showing of violence[1]) with an insight into how viewers perceive TV and video wrestling. The viewers’ perception of the product was deemed highly important to the regulatory bodies, as the nature of the broadcasts lay, in some ambiguity, between that of sport and entertainment, and as a result, the bodies were uncertain of how the violent content of the programming would be understood by the viewer. As such, a need had been identified to understand if wrestling viewers perceived the violent and anti-social exchanges shown by the programming as real, and if this perception of reality affected the appeal of the product.[2]
The data from the study was to be used to inform thinking on how the bodies could regulate this particular form of broadcasting and video distribution. The study intended to investigate:[3]
o Whether the viewer considered the violence real.
o What pleasure arose form watching wrestling.
o The demographic differences of understanding.
o The differences relating to product provider and broadcast platform
The methodology was entirely qualitative and utilised; group discussion, extended group discussion with observation, individual interviews, and paired interviews. The sample was divided into six age brackets to represent the wide diversity of audience, and biased towards the male and social groups BC1C2. The sample was controlled for levels of interest in viewing wrestling, and delivery platform.[4]
Review
The report concluded that on the basis of the study’s data, most of the wrestling consumption utilised broadcast television, and suggested that this was due to the open ended and episodic nature of TV wrestling’s narrative form, relegating video consumption to that of the ‘keep sake’.[5] The study found that dedicated fans routinely time shifted late night broadcasts of wrestling, circumventing the watershed, while casual viewers only consumed the pre-watershed broadcasts. The report seemed to suggest that as parents can often be casual viewers, they seen no need to police the time shifting of post-watershed productions.[6]
The data indicated that the WWF (now WWE) was the most popular brand of wrestling, and that due to the episodic/open ended narrative form, dedicated viewers (regardless of age) are highly motivated to consume post-watershed productions via time shifting. The report highlighted a propensity toward group consumption, resulting the generation of a robustly energetic atmosphere, with females viewing to facilitate socially inclusive conversation. (So they know what the boys were talking about)[7]
On the notion of perception of the wrestling product, the report concluded that the viewer considered wrestling to be entertainment rather than sport, and that as of 2000, wrestling was the one of the vogue forms of televised entertainment. This conclusion was derived form the viewers’ interpretation of the physical actions of the wrestlers, who seemed unconstrained by the rules and normal physical limitations associated with such actions. The report suggested that this observation lead many viewers to postulate, through comparing wrestling to other forms of sport, that some form of scripting is involved in the outcome of the matches.[8]
The data indicated that the appeal of wrestling and the associated pleasures vary according to demographic group, and identified the main attractions as; amusement related to ‘over the top antics’, appreciation of the athletic skill of the performers, excitement derived form the energetic narrative, tension derived from the narrative, sexual attraction, and the episodic structure.[9] The data indicated that males of 12 and under, along with dedicated adult male fans, were most attracted to the actual physical action of the wrestling moves, with the casual viewer preferring the storyline/atmosphere.[10] Sexual attraction was assumed to be a minor but contributory factor to the female participants viewing, while sexual titillation was identified as a growing source of appeal for all the male demographics.[11]
The report suggested that the physical action between the wrestlers (violence) is more central to the appeal of wrestling than most fans know themselves, and proposes that adults are less inclined to discuss the possibility that they are attracted to the violence.[12] From the observational data, a correlation was made between the severity of violence shown and the acuteness of the participant’s attention, were the greater the former the greater later.[13] However the study, suggested that the participants felt it was more respectable to appreciate the showmanship, and skills of the performer rather than the violence.
On the matter of whether or not the viewer perceived TV wrestling as ‘real’, the report concluded that the vast majority of consumers can rationally identify the action as ‘not real’, with the exceptions being some young children and some casual viewers, who nonetheless still question themselves as to the reality of the action. [14] The findings detail some of the perceptions that allude to the ‘staging’ of TV wrestling, namely; the occasional non-connecting punches, the implausibility of the wrestlers’ recuperative powers, the non-sporting nature of many of the bouts, and an underlying confidence that many of the occurrences in TV wrestling would not be sanctioned if it were a real sport.[15] The discussion further suggested that viewers may feel comfortable enjoying the violence due to them perceiving the action as ‘pretend’.[16]
However the report concluded that whilst viewing the texts, consumers often suspend their disbelief, momentarily treating the action as real, during TV wrestling’s most extreme moments, and stresses the perceived importance of novelty on maintaining this heightened enjoyment. [17] The study suggested that connected to this is the utilisation of the TV soap narrative form, making grudges more plausible and building up anticipation for bouts.[18]
The report could not determine how consumer’s reactions to wrestling are mediated by their level of appreciation, suggesting that this is due to the individual consumers not knowing to what extent the action is controlled themselves,[19] and furthermore, alluded to an uncertainty over how TV wrestling should be viewed in relation to other forms of mediated violence. This was attributed to the centrality of violence to the narrative in wrestling, whereas, in other forms, the violence is subservient to the plot. [20]
Nonetheless, the study highlighted a number of concerns over TV wrestling, while conceding that the majority of TV wrestling consumers perceived TV wrestling as harmless entertainment, a small minority of casual viewers were concerned about the effect more graphic depictions of physical harm may have on younger viewers[21] Furthermore the study found that the vast majority of the boys included in the sample engaged in imitation of TV wrestling – which included the re-enactment of weapons use resulting in physical harm.[22] However analysis of the data found that the majority of parents attributed this to the inevitability of children to copy what they see on television, with only a few concerned about the depictions of weapons use, with the general belief of the parents being that the children who imitate wrestling were involved in tame or innocuous play.[23] A minority of parents did however raise concerns, when prompted that the unrealistic portrayal of the consequences of violence would lead children to misunderstand the results of violent behaviour.[24]
In conclusion, the study suggested that from a regulatory standpoint, TV wrestling should be monitored on its continuing development of innovation of portrayals of violence, as this area is the one that intends on shocking the viewer into suspending their disbelief through increasingly extreme (looking) content.[25]
Discussion
From analysis of the commissioning bodies’ guidelines, what seems to have been their main concern was whether or not TV wrestling can be attributed to the normalising of violence as an easily imitated means of solving social problems, and to explore this, the study concentrated on how the audience perceives the product, and how that perception affects its appeal. What emerged form the data was that the majority of young male viewers imitated, in some form or another, the violent action shown by TV wrestling broadcasts. However interestingly, the data also suggested that the level of showmanship affects how the viewer will perceive the violence.[26] The greater the showmanship, the greater the perception of illusion, in essence, if there is a high degree of showmanship, consumers would perceive the violence of wrestling to be sufficiently ‘staged’ to allow them to enjoy its consumption. Therefore any wrestling that has suitably low levels of showmanship would appear to be ‘real’.
From the participants’ data in section D 1.2.1, it is clear that Backyard wrestling was used as an example of this lack of showmanship indicating ‘reality’, however the research team were ignorant to the existence of this type of video. Therefore, it is possible to suggest from this data that the consumer of TV wrestling can determine the difference between mainstream professional wrestling, which presents tightly controlled simulations of violence, and backyard wrestling which presents much less controlled simulations, by interpreting the level of showmanship. Mainstream wrestling utilises, larger athletes, costume, pyrotechnics, live audiences and live broadcasting, whereas, backyard wrestling utilises non of the above, and generally appears to have little showmanship as one participant notes: ‘It was fights in car parks with glass in their hands and things like that.’[27] As such it is possible to postulate that TV wrestling is differentiated from reality through its aesthetics, and that these aesthetics help the consumer to understand that the violence is illusory.
What became clear from the data is that most of the audience, even dedicated fans, were not sure as to the extent of the control of violence in TV wrestling. Many in the study believed that in-ring bloodshed was achieved by way of special effects capsule, when in reality bloodletting in TV wrestling happens accidentally (via a mistake on the part of one of the wrestlers), or is pre-planned and achieved by a competitor ‘bladeing’ themselves, that is to cut themselves along the frown lines with a small razor blade. It is possible to suggest therefore, that the misconception here encourages a less barbaric reading of TV wrestling than is actually the case, where the assumption of special effects makes more palatable the self mutilation inflicted by the wrestler. This aspect of wrestling perception appears to become cyclical, where in order to better the illusion of actual violence, TV wrestling promotes actual self harm, which is in turn, through the audiences’ perception of wrestling as ‘fake’, is seen as illusory.
The report raised the concern that such perceptions could result in the misconception in some that bleeding, along with the remarkable recuperative powers of the wrestlers, does not indicate serious injury, and that this would damage an individuals understanding of the consequences of violent action. However it is possible to suggest, from the study’s own conclusion that the majority of fans understand that wrestling is not ‘real’, that such representations are in fact key indicators of wrestling’s pretence, and serve to detach wrestling from reality.
Another point of interest, directly related to the above, was that fans appeared to become more focused on the product when the violence took a more extreme approach to the simulation of violence, but however the study did not attempt to understand why this might be the case, only noting that often innovation based on this type of action was a major contributory factor to the appeal of TV wrestling. In section D 2.2.7, the report details the results of collages made by the participants to reflect the nature of TV wrestling. Form the data collected form these collages it is possible to suggest that children constructed collages that reflected the agonic mode of group behaviour, choosing aggressive and assertive imagery, that suggests the struggle for dominance. Whereas the adults constructed collages more reflective of the hedonic mode of group behaviour with representation of slick and attractive images suggesting an appreciation of the Social Attention Holding Power of the wrestlers. [28]
Overall the study seemed to be successful in qualifying how audiences perceive TV wrestling, suggesting that the vast majority of consumers perceive TV wrestling as staged, un-damaging in terms of it normalising of violence, and that the imitation of wrestling is seen as an inevitable part of childhood, the study did however struggle to understand fully the appeal of TV wrestling. Nonetheless the study opened up through its analysis of data, some interesting areas for future research:
Research questions arising
o What is the appeal of TV wrestling?
o Why do viewers like wrestling more when it appears to become more extreme?
o Does exposure to the unrealistic representation of the effects of violence encourage the viewer to underestimate the consequences of violence?
o What drives young males to imitate the violent behaviour seen on TV?
[1] The Broadcasting Act (1996) required the ITC to provide guidance codes as relates to the rules of showing violence.
[2] Independent Television Commission, (2001)Wrestling: How do audiences perceive TV and Video wrestling , p:2 (A1)
[3] Ibid, p:3 (A2)
[4] Ibid, Appendix 1-3
[5] Ibid p:8 (C1)
[6] Ibid p:8 (C3)
[7] Ibid p:9 (C5)
[8] Ibid p:9 (C8)
[9] Ibid p:10 (C9)
[10] Ibid p:10 (C10)
[11] Ibid p:11 (C11)
[12] Ibid p:11 (C13)
[13] Ibid p:11 (C13)
[14] Ibid p:12 (C14)
[15] Ibid p:12 (C15 &C16)
[16] Ibid p:13 (C17)
[17] Ibid p:13 (C18 & c20)
[18] Ibid p:13(C19 & C21
[19] Ibid p:13 (C22)
[20] Ibid p:13 (C23)
[21] Ibid p:70 (D5)
[22] Ibid p:71-72 (D5.1)
[23] Ibid p:73-75 (D5.1)
[24] Ibid p:86 (D5.5)
[25] Ibid p:13 (C23)
[26] Ibid p:18 (D1.2.1)
[27] Ibid p:19 (D1.2.1)
[28] Ibid p:37
No comments:
Post a Comment