Sex and Indecent Language on
Prime Time Television Barry S. Sapolsky Florida State University and Barbara K. Kaye Southern Illinois UniversityPublished in: Mass Media and Society. A. Wells and E.A. Hakanen, Eds. 1997. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Television is the predominant medium of mass entertainment in the second half of the twentieth century. The major networks’ "prime time" programs are largely responsible for television’s central role in defining American culture. Television is a highly competitive industry driven by ratings, advertising sales and the pursuit of ever higher profits. Drawing and maintaining a large prime time audience is of paramount importance. Programmers realized early on that shows featuring violence were successful in attracting viewers. However, in time, violence on television drew fire from social scientists, lawmakers and the public. Concern over the possible linkage of television violence and aggression spawned more than a thousand research studies and demands that action be taken to curb violent themes and portrayals. The demands that television act to reduce violence continue to this day.
In the mid-1970s communication researchers turned their attention to another program element thought to lure audiences to prime time entertainment: sex. In the succeeding twenty years much has changed within the television industry. In the 1970s there were three major television networks with a combined share of over 90% of the prime time viewing audience. In 1995 the big three networks’ share of the prime time audience reached a record low of 57%. What happened? In a word: Competition. Cable television expanded its offerings to include specialized channels, superstations and premium services such as HBO. In addition, audience erosion resulted from the rise of the Fox Network and the explosive growth of VCRs. The big three networks were thus forced to compete with media that could offer more risqué programming. Also, in the 1980s, supposedly as a cost-saving measure, the networks cut back on their "standards and practices" staffs, the so-called "censors." Did these changes encourage producers to push the boundaries of permissible behavior and language? In the face of growing competition have the major networks become bolder in their portrayal of sexuality?
Significant developments in the realm of human sexuality have likewise occurred in the past two decades. Possibly the single most frightening and dominant issue regarding sex has been that of AIDS. Discussions of AIDS have focused on sexual responsibility ("safe sex"), monogamy and abstinence prior to marriage. Another social issue of great concern is teen pregnancy. In growing numbers teenagers engage in sex at an earlier age, with more partners, and often without contraception or protection. In the face of serious health and social issues tied to casual sex, has television toned down sexual titillation and portrayals of sexual intimacy without regard to its consequences?
Television is an important sex educator that offers consistent and realistic portrayals of sexual behavior. Young viewers are provided with lessons on how to look and act sexy. Adolescent females may see themselves pictured as sex objects whose intelligence is inversely related to bust size. TV’s effects are amplified by the paucity of alternative sources for learning about sex. Thus, television has the potential to foster an inaccurate image of sex and create unrealistic expectations and frustrations. Alternatively, it has the capacity to present positive models of sexual responsibility.
The study of prime time program content can reveal the manner in which television has treated sexual intimacy. On the one hand, it could be argued that in recent years network producers increased the frequency and explicitness of sexual words and actions in an attempt to keep pace with alternative -- and by-and-large less regulated -- sources of televised entertainment. On the other hand, the networks may have responded to issues such as sexually-transmitted diseases and teenage sexual activity by toning down intimate portrayals. The networks possess less altruistic motives for reducing sexual imagery. Faced with pressure from citizens’ groups and Christian fundamentalists and threats of boycotts (opponents were poised to target advertisers on shows deemed objectionable), the networks may have urged producers to excise steamy scenes from prime time movies and adult dramas.
The following pages contain a review of published studies that have looked at the sexual content of prime time network television. We begin by examining the major findings of the first wave of content analyses conducted in the late 1970s, prior to the emergence of AIDS on the American sexual landscape. Thereafter we explore the second wave of content analyses that cover the period of 1987 through 1993. In comparing these two sets of content studies we will attempt to discern how network television has responded to the demands of competition in the era of AIDS and prevalent teen sex. Finally, recent content analyses that have focused exclusively on the language of prime time television are considered. The study of offensive and obscene words is inexorably related to matters of sexual functioning and sexual anatomy.
Three groups of researchers contributed content analyses of sex on television in the late 1970’s. These studies examined one week of prime time programs on the three major networks (ABC, CBS and NBC). Each group of researchers developed its own content analytic scheme -- a set of definitions for various categories of sexual behavior -- to guide its observations. Two or more coders then independently viewed the programs and noted how often various instances of sex occurred. Because each group’s coding scheme is unique it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the portrayal of sexuality in 1970’s television.
For example, one set of studies included "touching" in its broad categorization of sex (Franzblau et al, 1977; Silverman et al., 1979; Sprafkin and Silverman, 1981). That is, the authors’ definition of sexual behavior incorporates "physical contact": formal handshakes, a doctor placing his hand on a patient, punches and kicks, a couple holding hands, etc. Obviously this definition of sexuality is rather all-encompassing. Thus, not surprisingly, these researchers found that the most commonly occurring incidents appearing in prime time were nonaggressive and aggressive touching, which accounted for between 70% and 87% of the sexual acts in a typical hour. Moreover, inclusion of touch in their scheme led to the identification of thousands of instances of "sex" in each of the three prime time weeks they examined. One might conclude from this research that there was abundant sex on television.
Another group’s conception of sex focused exclusively on "intimate" behaviors: intercourse, prostitution, rape, homosexuality, and other intimate sexual acts (petting, pornography, etc.)(Fernandez-Collado et al, 1978); Greenberg et al., 1980). This scheme led to very different findings: 100 or fewer sexual incidents in a prime time week. Hence, one might reason that sex was very rarely depicted on television. What these two sets of studies point to is the important distinction to be made between milder (touching, kissing, hugging) and stronger actions (implied intercourse, rape, prostitution). A comprehensive analysis of entertainment television should account for both levels of behavior.
Compounding the confusion is the failure to differentiate words and actions. Are we to assume that hearing the word "rape" spoken by a character is equivalent to seeing a rape depicted on television? Obviously, depending upon which studies one considers, very different conclusions could be drawn about television’s portrayal of sex. With this caution in mind, let us try to summarize what the first wave of content analyses tells us about sex on prime time network television in the 1970’s.
The networks’ treatment of sexual behavior was largely confined to milder acts: kissing and hugging. As expected, explicit intercourse was never shown. Contextually-implied intercourse was in evidence, albeit rarely. In such depictions the behavior of one or both partners can indicate that intercourse has already occurred or is about to occur off-camera. Implied intercourse was found as many as 24 and as few as 4 times within various prime time weeks (Sprafkin and Silverman, 1981 and Sapolsky, 1982, respectively). Criminal sex acts (for example, rape) and "discouraged" sex practices (for example, homosexuality) were also very infrequent. It is noteworthy that males and females were shown to equally initiate both milder and stronger sexual behaviors (Sapolsky, 1982).
Sexual suggestiveness was far more commonplace. Suggestiveness includes flirtatious and seductive behaviors as well as revealing displays of the body. Innuendo is a major component of suggestiveness. Innuendo, such as the double entendre, is composed of veiled references to sexual behavior or sexual organs. Female characters were more often depicted as the object of verbal innuendoes (Sapolsky, 1982). Sexual language, explicit references to sexual behavior or sexual anatomy, was also heard frequently. Males initiated sex talk more often than females. One research group’s analyses revealed that direct verbal references to intercourse increased from 2 in 1975 to 6 in 1977 and 53 in 1978 (Sprafkin and Silverman, 1981). --------------------------------- Insert Table 1 About Here ----------------------------------
Little is known about the context of sexuality as it is portrayed in entertainment television. One contextual variable, marital status, was incorporated into three of the early content analyses. These studies consistently found that television overwhelming featured unmarried characters engaged in affectionate and intimate behavior. For instance, in 1976 intercourse (visually implied or spoken of) was seven times more likely to involve unmarried characters than married partners (Fernandez-Collado, et al, 1978). Only one in four sexual behaviors (such as kissing, hugging and implied intercourse) occurred in 1979 within the context of marriage (Sapolsky, 1982). What is unclear is whether television downplays intimacy and affection in marriage or exaggerates its prominence in other relationships.
In the 1970’s the family viewing code was voluntarily observed by many broadcast stations. The code stipulated that the first hour of prime time programming (8-9 p.m. EST) should not contain material inappropriate for viewing by a general family audience. Many children and adolescents are in the viewing audience during the so-called family viewing time (FVT). Producers and networks were expected to be attentive to this fact. This suggests that there should have been fewer sexual acts and words during the FVT. Overall, there appears to have been as many sexual incidents during the FVT as in the later hours of prime time. The FVT actually contained more sexual innuendoes in 1975; in 1978 implied intercourse and discouraged sexual practices appeared more after 9 p.m (Franzblau et al, 1977; Sprafkin and Silverman, 1981). In contrast, a later study found fewer sexual acts in the 10-11 p.m. period along with a quadrupling of such acts in the FVT from 1978 to 1979 (Sapolsky, 1982).
We discussed earlier the importance of the theme of sexual responsibility. Only one content analysis in the late 1970’s touched upon this issue (Sprafkin and Silverman, 1981). This study found 15 verbal references to contraception, pregnancy and going steady. These references represented just 0.7% of all words and acts coded during the week of prime time programs (excluding all instances of touching). Obviously, in 1978 sex education was an extremely rare element in the entertainment mix.
Lastly, it has been observed that much of the sexuality present in 1970’s prime time was centered in comedy shows and humorous situations. Certainly, many of the innuendoes were intended for comic effect. This has led researchers to suggest that television producers regarded sex as a taboo topic that is less offensive if conveyed in a humorous format. However, there was a tendency toward the end of the decade to present stronger acts in serious dramas and movies. Was this an early sign that television was preparing to intensify its treatment of sexuality?
It was not until 1987 that communication scholars returned to the matter of sexual portrayals on prime time television. Two 1970’s content analysis schemes were applied to the newer material. One set of studies adapted the earlier scheme of Sprafkin and others. Lowry and his fellow researchers constructed a week of prime time television (Lowry and Towles, 1988; Lowry and Shidler, 1993). That is, they randomly sampled network programs over a period of weeks to build one week of prime time offerings. Earlier studies had restricted their analyses to one week. However, the traditional prime time week had largely disappeared by 1987. In its place came a more volatile schedule with preemptions, cancellations and early season replacements. This new approach reflects the fluid situation of prime time network programming. Lowry’s followup analysis of Fall, 1991 prime time added programs from Fox, the so-called fourth network.
Lowry improved the coding scheme by limiting touching behaviors to "heavy" kissing, sexually-romantic embraces, and other behaviors exhibiting clear sexual overtones or desires. Intercourse was differentially classified as verbal, implied or physically depicted (actual physical portrayal without actors appearing totally nude). Another addition was the important categories of pregnancy prevention, sexually-transmitted disease (STD) prevention, and STDs contracted.
In 1987 the most common forms of sexuality included physical suggestiveness (sexually-suggestive actions or displays of the body) and erotic touching. In 1991 the most common form of sexuality was intercourse, much of which occurred as verbal reference. Verbal innuendo and erotic touching occurred frequently, although less than intercourse. Prostitution, rape and discouraged sex practices appeared infrequently.
There were 20 instances of contextually-implied intercourse in 1987. For the first time, researchers detected a more explicit, physical depiction of intercourse. There were two such instances in which it was obvious that the couple was engaged in lovemaking, but the camera only revealed their heads and shoulders. Four years later there were 37.5 instances of contextually-implied intercourse and four explicit, physical depictions. As in previous studies, intercourse, in words or images, was overwhelmingly depicted outside of marriage.
Based on these two analyses it appears that commercial television’s depiction of intimacy reached a new level of explicitness. Did producers temper this intimacy with attention to sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy avoidance? In 1987 there were only 18 instances of STD prevention and 13.5 instances of pregnancy prevention in 66 hours of prime time programming. Thus, STDs and pregnancy prevention were spoken of nearly once every two hours in prime time. In contrast, references to or images of heterosexual intercourse appeared almost once every 30 minutes. The discrepancy between messages of sexual responsibility and messages of intimacy was even greater in 1991. There were only 22 occurrences of STDs and pregnancy prevention in 76 hours of programming, or about one incident every four hours. By comparison, there was a reference to or image of intercourse once every 20 minutes. There were also four instances of HIV/AIDS or other STD’s contracted, all being references made in a joking context. Such findings led the authors to conclude that "...the networks present a constant barrage of titillating sexual imagery and innuendo, but seldom portray the possible consequences of sexual behavior" (Lowry and Towles, 1988, p. 352).
The final set of studies followed Sapolsky’s (1982) scheme first used in 1978. The 1989 content analysis added four new categories: atypical sex practices, sexually-transmitted diseases, pregnancy/birth control and sex education (Sapolsky and Tabarlet, 1991). The most plentiful forms of sex included verbal innuendo, mild behaviors (touches, kisses, embraces) and direct references to sex. One in four of the references dealt with intercourse. There were nine instances of contextually-implied intercourse and four explicit, physical simulations of intercourse observed across 64 prime time programs. Lastly, criminal and atypical sex practices were rare.
The theme of sexual responsibility was given minimal attention. Images or words associated with safe sex, pregnancy, birth control and sex education occurred 0.7 times an hour. None of the instances of safe sex/STDs specifically dealt with AIDS. A viewer was more than twice as likely to see or hear about intercourse (1.8 times an hour).
The 1989 analysis provides further insights on the context of prime time sex. Overall, unmarried characters outnumbered marrieds nearly 10 to 1 in depictions of and comments about sex. Essentially all portrayals of and references to intercourse involved unmarried individuals. Male characters initiated almost three quarters of the sexual acts (touching, kissing, hugging, intercourse) and six in ten verbal references to sex. But, in the suggestive realm of innuendoes, males and females were more nearly equal. Sex was most commonly presented in a humorous program format. Comedies’ largest contributions were sexual innuendoes. Finally, the bulk of sexual acts and language occurred during the 9-10 p.m. time period. The Family Viewing Time was no longer officially observed by the late 1980’s. Regardless, this time period, with its larger audience of young viewers, held only one-fifth of all sexual incidents. The 10-11 p.m. time slot, often considered the appropriate time for adult dramas, contained even fewer sexual incidents.
The final content analysis looked at a constructed week of prime time programs. Gorham’s (1994) methodology contained two important differences from Sapolsky (1982): (1) it excluded the important category of movies, and (2) a context variable was defined (e.g., relational sex, recreational sex, manipulative sex, etc.). The study encompassed 62 programs covering 41 hours. One is immediately struck by the low number of sexual incidents observed by Gorham. She tallied a mere 267 incidents. This compares to over 900 for Sapolsky and more than 700 for Lowry’s studies. It is doubtful that the exclusion of movies could alone account for the substantial drop in sexual behavior.
The most common form of sexuality in 1993’s sample was innuendo. There were 49 instances of verbal references to intercourse and two occurrences of explicit intercourse. No mention is made as to whether contextually-implied intercourse did or did not occur. Sexual responsibility was rarely in evidence. The 12 incidents included one reference to AIDS, four references to safe sex or condom use, and seven incidents related to abstention from sex. The study concluded that sex appeared most often in humorous formats and more often outside of marriage. Sexuality was found as often during the so-called Family Viewing Time as the next hour, and was less common in the 10-11 p.m. "adult viewing hour." Finally, Gorham’s analysis reveals that television largely depicts sex in a warm and caring context. That is, sexual words and actions were more often portrayed within marriage or in developing adult relationships ("committed couple" or "building relationship"). To a lesser degree, sex was shown in recreational or manipulative situations.
Drawing conclusions about the frequency and nature of sexuality on prime time television is complicated by substantial differences in the methods employed by communication researchers. Regardless, we can summarize the important changes that have occurred in television’s treatment of sex in prime time entertainment. In the 1970’s, sex on television was overwhelmingly limited to mild behaviors such as kissing and embracing. What passed for intercourse, what we have called contextually-implied intercourse, was rare. There were no instances of a more explicit, physical depiction of intercourse. A decade later erotic touches, kisses and embraces were still the most common form of behavior. But, the incidence of contextually-implied intercourse was higher; and explicit, physical depictions of intercourse were observed. Moreover, verbal references to intercourse were far more commonplace in the 1980’s.
Much of the sexual activity in 1970’s television occurred outside of marriage. This focus on unmarried characters continued and in fact intensified in the 1980’s. Males and females were shown to initiate sexual behaviors equally in the earlier decade; in the 1980’s males initiated three quarters of the activity. Whereas females were more often singled out for innuendoes in the 1970’s, later research found males and females targeted equally for innuendoes. Lastly, producers of 1970’s prime time fare included sexual language and behavior in the once-reserved Family Viewing Time as much or more than in later hours. By comparison, programs in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s generally reduced the incidence of sex during the the first hour of prime time.
We are left with three major conclusions regarding the changing portrayal of sex on prime time television. First, the overall amount of sexual language and action has not changed appreciably. That is, it has neither declined in the face of pressure from the public and religious fundamentalists nor increased as an outgrowth of fierce competition for a dwindling share of the viewing audience. Second, the level of explicitness and the frequency of occurrence of intercourse have increased. Whereas 1970’s television was willing to imply that characters had or were about to have sex, a decade later producers dared to show partially-nude couples in the midst of lovemaking. Finally, while prime time television increased images of and references to intercourse, nearly all of which occurred outside of marriage, there was no upsurge in discussions or depictions of sexually-transmitted diseases or pregnancy prevention.
Our examination of published studies of prime time television leads to six major points concerning the portrayal of sex in entertainment programs:
1. Much of what has been termed sexual behavior involves mild acts such as affectionate or erotic touches, kisses and embraces.
2. The bulk of sexuality derives from spoken language: innuendo or overt references to sex or sexual anatomy.
3. Sexual intercourse in the form of direct, physical depiction has made its way to commercial television. It is a rare event. Contextually-implied intercourse is more frequently shown. Even more common are verbal references to the act.
4. All forms of sexual behavior and language overwhelmingly feature unmarried characters.
5. Television rarely deals with the themes of sexual responsibility or sexually-
transmitted diseases.
6. Sexual activity and words are more prevalent in humorous formats. This is largely due to the most ubiquitous form of sex, direct references and innuendo, being a staple of prime time comedy.
While our focus has been on the content of prime time entertainment programs, a companion area that has been largely overlooked is that of program promotions or "promos." These brief spots appear during program breaks with the intent of informing audiences about upcoming network programs and, ideally, convincing them to tune in. They are an important element in the ratings success of a program. The networks have been criticized for extracting the most suggestive moments from upcoming programs to lure viewers to tune in. Two research studies have specifically looked at the sexual content of program promotions.
One content analysis of Fall, 1990 prime time offerings from ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox found that one in five promos contained some form of sexuality (Sapolsky, Tabarlet and Kaye, in press). Overall, there were 3.08 instances of sex per hour in program promotions. The bulk of sexuality involved kissing (1.12 per hour) and innuendo (0.67 per hour). Contextually-implied intercourse occurred less frequently (0.23 per hour). Verbal references to intercourse occurred at a rate of 0.14 per hour. Thus, a verbal or visual instance of intercourse in a program promotion occurred approximately once every three hours. Language or images related to sexual responsibility were rare (0.16 per hour).
The study compared sex in promos aired during "sweeps" versus other periods. Obtaining strong ratings is most critical during sweeps months when both national and local audience viewing data are obtained. Success in sweeps months can directly affect both local stations’ and the networks’ economic health. It would be expected, therefore, that promos aired during a sweeps month (e.g., November) would contain more sexual behavior, language and suggestiveness as "bait" to draw larger audiences. Counter to expectations, promos aired during sweeps month contained fewer instances of sexuality than those aired during nonsweeps months. The analysis also revealed that sex occurred more frequently in promotions for dramas and movies.
A second analysis of program promotions derives from a previously discussed Fall, 1991 study (Lowry and Shidler, 1993). The study found 5.91 sexual behaviors per hour in promotions. Most prevalent among the various categories of behavior were erotic touching (1.87 per hour), verbal references to intercourse (0.91 per hour) and contextually-implied intercourse (0..80). Again, sexual responsibility was extremely limited (0.02 per hour).
We see, then, that sex pervades prime time television programs as well as the promotional spots for those programs. Numerous published studies have documented the types and amounts of sexual behavior contained in material aired by the major broadcast networks. However, these studies have overlooked the expanding, 100+ channel world of cable television and much of the world of tabloid TV, talk and news and information shows, all of which offer nearly inexhaustible opportunities for explicit sex talk and intimate behavior. Audiences, both young and old, do not restrict their viewing to the "big four" networks. Future analyses of television content must likewise not limit their inquiries to traditional broadcast fare.
The issue of indecent language on television has received less attention than sexuality. The use of offensive language is increasing in everyday discourse, and informal observations suggest it is on the upswing on network television as well. "Swear" words that were once not tolerated on the airwaves are now being uttered with increasing frequency and without much ado from an audience that has perhaps become habituated to such language. The first known usage of "goddamn" was on LA Law in December, 1988. Prior to 1990, the terms "penis envy" and "biker bitch" were aired on Murphy Brown, and the word "slut" was repeated at least 10 times on an episode of Married with Children. More recently, in the opening episode of NYPD Blue, a male detective was shown yelling at a female assistant district attorney. She retorted with "I'd say res ipsa loquitur, if I thought you knew what it meant." The detective grabbed his crotch and barked out: "Hey, ipsa this, you pissy little bitch!" Indecent language on network television has become more prevalent and accepted since the days when Arthur Godfrey was lambasted in 1950 by viewers, affiliate stations and CBS officials for saying "damn" and "hell" on his live program (MacDonald, 1994), and Laraine Newman had to apologize to NBC's broadcast standards department for saying "pissed off" during a performance on Saturday Night Live (Hill & Weingrad, 1986).
In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled on the "seven dirty words" case involving comedian George Carlin and the Pacifica Foundation. This ruling established the "seven dirty words" [shit, piss, f--k, cunt, cocksucker, motherf--ker and tits] as obscene and upheld the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) punitive power over stations airing broadcasts considered indecent or obscene. However, the Court failed to clearly define the difference between indecency and obscenity (Lipshultz, 1992; Spitzer, 1986). While a clear definitional distinction does not exist between the two types of speech, a legal one does: According to the courts, indecency has First Amendment free speech protection, obscenity does not.
The FCC is the ruling body which has the right to ban or penalize broadcasts it deems obscene or indecent (Lipshultz, 1992). The FCC defines indecency as material that contains vivid descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities and is patently offensive when measured against community standards for the broadcast medium. The FCC can assess fines against stations for broadcasting indecent material. Since the Pacifica ruling the FCC is of the view that indecent language encompasses more than just Carlin's seven dirty words, including "talk of the penis and animal sex" (Lipshultz, 1992, p. 26).
Although verbal indecency is constitutionally protected, the FCC requires stations to limit indecent speech to "safe times" when children are less likely to be watching (Lipshultz, 1992). Until agreement is reached as to what constitutes "safe" time periods, the FCC has decided not to penalize stations for verbal infringements occurring in programs aired after 8 p.m., but even then none of the "seven dirty words" can be used (Coe, 1993; Leland, et al., 1993). Advocacy groups and some members of the general public object to any depictions of intimacy or other material they consider as pushing the limits of decency regardless of the programs' broadcast times.
The 1993 ABC hit, NYPD Blue, is an example of a program whose risqué content incurred public opposition even though it is aired in late prime time (10-11 p.m.). The show gained instant notoriety for its depictions of sexuality and nudity and for its use of off-color words which focused the attention of watchdog groups on television's stretching the boundaries of visual and verbal indecency in prime time entertainment. For months before the first episode aired, the media hyped the program as the "raciest show ever to appear on the networks' prime time schedule" (Kolbert, 1993, p. C11). Claims that the program would contain graphic sex and rampant profanity piqued the public's interest while raising outcries of disgust from critics.
The advocacy group, the American Family Association (AFA), strongly opposed NYPD Blue and urged its members to write letters and picket local ABC affiliates to keep the "soft-core pornography, pornographic words and descriptions...off the air (Wildmon, 1993a, p. 2). Though the network (ABC) and the producers of NYPD Blue have a strict agreement as to how much nudity and profanity the show can contain, many viewers and affiliates claim it still goes too far (Flint, 1993; Leland, et al., 1993).
The AFA and other groups such as the Family Defense Council and the Christian Coalition (Fight for..., 1993) opposed to NYPD Blue pressured ABC affiliates to the point that 57 stations did not air the opening episode. Even as the second television season began, affiliates in 22 markets still refused to air the program (Schwed, 1994). The AFA claimed its campaign against the program "could become the turning point in the battle against indecency in the media" (Wildmon, 1993b, p. 2).
NYPD Blue has been a lightning rod for critics of nudity and profanity in broadcast television. To what degree are the claims made against the program justified? One study has compared offensive language in NYPD Blue to that found in a sample of prime time television programs (Kaye, Sapolsky and Fishburne, 1994). A content analysis was conducted on six episodes of NYPD Blue aired during the Fall, 1993 season. For comparison, the two shows judged to contain the most visual and verbal sexuality on each of the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) - a total of three episodes of each program - were recorded during the same period. Offensive words were categorized by frequency of use. Based on dictionary definitions, "swear words" were classified into eight categories; curse, profane, blasphemy, obscene, insult or slur, scatology, taboo and epithet (Jay, 1992, p. 2).
The study found NYPD Blue to contain fewer sexual acts and words than dramas and comedies. NYPD Blue offered 3.8 incidents of sexuality per half-hour; by comparison dramas contained 6.1 and comedies 13.5 incidents per half-hour. Furthermore, NYPD Blue did not include any instances of implied or explicit intercourse. Dramatic programs depicted a total of six occurrences of intercourse and comedy programs included two instances. Verbal references to intercourse were also less prevalent in NYPD Blue. In fact, the only categories of sexuality in which NYPD Blue demonstrated a higher rate of occurrence are prostitution/rape and suggestive displays. Greater frequency of prostitution and rape would be expected for a "cop show" which routinely deals with criminal behaviors of this kind.
A slightly different picture emerges when offensive language is examined. Offensive words were heard more often on NYPD Blue (7.9 instances per half-hour) than in other dramas (2.5 per half-hour). However, such language occurred as frequently in situation comedies (7.9 per half-hour). The most commonly-occurring form of offensive language found in NYPD Blue is the insult. Nearly half of the offending words were in this category. For example, in one episode of NYPD Blue Detective Sipowicz and another driver argued after a collision, each calling the other an "asshole." In contrast, profanities ("God" and "hell") were most prevalent in dramas and comedies. Only two instances of taboo words (e.g., "penis" and "vagina) were in evidence in NYPD Blue. Such words were used more often in dramas and comedies, largely due to one word: "masturbate". Finally, two of the seven dirty words were uttered in prime time: "Tits" and "piss" were heard almost exclusively in NYPD Blue. Again, Detective Sipowicz remarked to a dancer that she was an "A+ in the tit department."
The study of NYPD Blue, while interesting, does not provide a thorough examination of the use of offensive language in prime time television. A recent content analysis has focused exclusively on the use of offensive language in prime time programming (Kaye, Sapolsky and Hayworth, 1995). The study compares one week of prime time offerings in January, 1990 to one week in March, 1994. Almost 150 hours of programs from the four major networks were examined.
The analysis found more than six instances of offensive language per hour. More than half was in the form of profanity which was overwhelmingly represented by the use of "God" and "hell." For instance, in a 1990 episode of Dallas, J.R. Ewing remarked to a worker at an oil rig: "Well, hell I’m not going to quit, you know." And, in a 1990 episode of Falcon Crest, a female character confided to another: "Oh God, it’s always so boring." The other major category of swear words encountered in both years is epithets (e.g., "damn", "sucks" and "son of a bitch") which were dominated by the use of "damn." In 1994 references to the "butt" and "ass" were heard increasingly. A typical example comes from a 1994 airing of Grace Under Fire when Grace yelled at her young son, "Get your butt back here!" In that same week, the female lead in Mad About You hung up the phone after a conversation with a co-worker and muttered, "MBA my ass!"
The "f--- word" found its way into programs in each year of the study. In the 1990 American Music Awards show, a member of the group Guns n’ Roses uttered in his acceptance speech: "I want to thank f---ing..." and followed moments later with thanks to another individual "for f---ing getting us there...". In 1994 "f---" was implied in three different programs. For example, in the news magazine show 20/20 an owner of a security firm worried about what the police might say to one of his guards found carrying a gun without a license: "What the f--- is wrong with you...?" The owner’s words, including "f---", scrolled across the bottom of the screen as he spoke, apparently to help viewers make out what was said.
Other obscenities found in the analysis included "tit", "shit" and "motherf--ker", the latter being implied. For instance, in a 1994 airing of the news magazine show 48 Hours, a convicted murderer told an interviewer: "Victims’ rights isn’t victims’ shit." Both years contained numerous instances of taboo words as well. In 1990 at least one instance of every taboo word was found. A 1990 episode of the "reality" program Cops showed an undercover officer arresting a male prostitute dressed as a female. The officer twice asked the prostitute: "You got a penis?" In 1994, all instances of taboo language referred to "sexual parts." The highly-rated Seinfeld show had Jerry telling his friend Elaine that an IQ test might be gender-biased with lots of questions on "hunting and testicles."
The analysis found a significant increase in the use of objectionable language in prime time between Spring, 1990 and Spring, 1994. In 1990 the viewer could hear an expletive of one sort or another approximately once every eleven and one-half minutes. By 1994 the rate of indecent words and phrases had grown to nearly one every eight minutes. An early study of words uttered in social settings found that "God", "hell" and "damn" were among the 75 words most often verbalized in general discourse (Cameron, 1969). These three words were also the most frequently exclaimed cuss words on prime time television. Not only did the use of profanities increase, but the expression of taboo words doubled from 1990 to 1994. According to the FCC, the "seven dirty words" are considered too obscene for television, yet four of these words ("tit", "shit", "f---" and "motherf--ker") made their way onto the prime time airwaves.
The use of obscenities in prime time television has gone by without criticism and without the FCC imposing penalties. Network censors and the FCC have either not noticed or have taken a looser stance with regard to the use of obscene words. Such language has not met with the level of public outcry that they engendered in the past. With the exception of stirrings from a few activist groups, or when a program such as NYPD Blue captures the public’s attention, the use of verbal obscenity and indecency in prime time television seems to pass largely unnoticed. In coming years we will learn if producers have become emboldened and are ready to spice up television drama and comedy with even greater use of formerly forbidden words. References
Cameron, P. (1969). Frequency and kinds of words in various social settings, or what the hell is going on? Pacific Sociological Review, 12, 101-104.
Coe, S. (1993, November 1). NYPD Blue: Rocky start, on a roll. Broadcasting & Cable, 18-20.
Gorham, J. (1994). Sex in primetime television: An analysis of content trends, context categories, and sampling considerations. Communication Research Reports, 11 (2), 177-188.
Fernandez-Collado, C., Greenberg, B.S., Korzenny, F., & Atkin, C.K. (1978). Sexual intimacy and drug use in TV series. Journal of Communication, 28 (3), 176-207.
Fight for decency attracts diverse group of activists at NYPD Blue pickets (1993, October). American Family Association Journal, 22.
Flint, J. (1993, November 1). NYPD Blue: Here, there and nowhere. Broadcasting and Cable, 20-21.
Franzblau, S., Sprafkin, J.N., & Rubinstein, E.A. (1977). Sex on TV: A content analysis. Journal of Communication, 27 (2), 164-170.
Greenberg, B.S., Graef, D., Fernandez-Collado, C., Korzenny, F., & Atkin, C.K. (1980). Sexual intimacy on commercial TV during primetime. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 211-215.
Hill, D. & Weingrad, J. (1986). The fine art of tasteless television. American Film, 11, 27.
Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Kaye, B.K., Sapolsky, B.S., & Fishburne, L.M. (1994). NYPD Blue and media hype: An analysis of sex and profanity. Paper presented at the national conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta.
Kaye, B.K., Sapolsky, B.S., & Hayworth, K. (1995). The prevalence of offensive language on primetime television: What the "bleep" are they saying now? Paper presented at the national conference of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio.
Kolbert, E. (1993, July 26). Bochco defends his racy new show. New York Times, C11, C14.
Leland, J., Fleming, C., Miller, M., & Smith, V.E. (1993, December 13). Blue in the night. Newsweek, 56-59.
Lipschultz, J.H. (1992). Conceptual problems of broadcast indecency policy and application. Communications and the Law, 14, 3-29.
Lowry, D.T. & Shidler, J.A. (1993). Prime time TV portrayals of sex, "safe sex" and AIDS: A longitudinal analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 70 (3), 628-637.
Lowry, D.T. & Towles, D.E. (1988). Primetime TV portrayals of sex, contraception and venereal diseases. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 347-352.
MacDonald, F.J. (1994). One nation under television. Nelson-Hall: Chicago.
Sapolsky, B.S. (1982). Sexual acts and references on primet-time TV: A two-year look. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 212-226.
Sapolsky, B.S. & Tabarlet, J.O. (1991). Sex in primetime television: 1979 versus 1989. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35 (4), 505-516.
Sapolsky, B.S., Tabarlet, J.O., & Kaye, B.K. (in press). Sexual behavior and references in program promotions aired during sweeps and nonsweeps periods. Journal of Promotion Management.
Schwed, M (1994, September 10). When Caruso copped out. TV Guide, 14-18.
Silverman, L.T., Sprafkin, J.N. & Rubinstein, E.A. (1979). Physical contact and sexual behavior on prime-time TV. Journal of Communication, 29 (1), 33-43.
Spitzer, M.L. (1986). Seven dirty words and six other stories. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sprafkin, J.N. & Silverman, L.t. (1981). Update: Physically intimate and sexual behavior on prime-time TV, 1978-1979. Journal of Communication, 31 (1), 34-40.
Wildmon, D. E. (1993a, August). Have you had enough? American Family Association Journal, p. 2.
Wildmon, D. E. (1993b, October). Look what involvement can accomplish. American Family Association Journal, p. 2.