Turn on a television at any point during the night on an average American Tuesday, and one will see some particularly disturbing scenes. American mass media has changed significantly over the last few decades, and the standards for what is appropriate and what is not have changed at the same time. While there still may be a prohibition against raunchy sex scenes in American television, bloody scenes of violence tend to be the new normal. Some today complain that television is becoming too gory, with blood being shown to the detriment of young people and society. Parents argue that when their children see these scenes, there is a cumulative psychological effect that tends to last years on end. Bloody scenes on television are just reality, though, and the television producers who run these sorts of shows should have the ability to put on shows that represent what takes place in the real world, regardless of how this makes the average suburban mother feel.

Before one can truly dive into the intricacies of this discussion, one must understand what television shows actually put on the air. As many of them argue, their scenes are not wanton and gratuitous. Rather, they depict crime, violence, and blood in a manner that is consistent with what takes place in the real world. If one wants to see overly disgusting scenes of blood, then one must go to the movies to take in a slasher film or perhaps something done by Quentin Tarantino. On television, the blood and violence are designed around a different purpose. Those movies that could be described as slasher films are almost always designed to bring about some emotional response from the viewer, as the gore itself is a major part of the draw. On television, though, violence is just used as a medium, and the blood that is brought on by that violence tends to be just another tool.

As many of the television producers argue, their shows are largely based around medical or criminal drama. Crime shows tend to get the most attention from those who do not like these sorts of depictions. Shows like “NYPD Blue” or “Law and Order” tend to show victims who have been shot or stabbed. In some cases, special shows like “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” tend to depict some of the most horrible things that can happen to people. The important thing to know, however, is that these shows are completely up-front about what they are going to show (Ferguson, 2013). Before one watches an episode of SVU, he or she will have to sit through a short disclaimer about the nature of the images that are going to be shown. It is then necessary for television producers to show this kind of blood and gore in order to be true to the reality that they are trying to depict.

Blood on television is not simply there as a show piece. Rather, it is designed to provide the most accurate picture of the actual effect of crime on the victims that have to suffer through it. Many of today’s shows on crime and violence are designed from the victim’s perspective. They follow investigators as those individuals try to get to the bottom of the crime, and they are incredibly sympathetic to the victim, even at the expense of coming across as being overly harsh on crime and the people who commit crimes (Huesmann & Eron, 2013). In order to truly promote a discussion on what crime does to victims and their families – one of the goals of these kinds of films – it is necessary for the shows to provide a real picture. It is true that crime is not pretty, and the blood or violence on television is not designed to promote a “pretty” picture of the world. Instead, the producers argue, they are in the business of discussing reality.

Ultimately what show to watch is a choice, and parents have a responsibility to help their children make the right choices (Villanueva et al, 2013). Certain features exist that can even assist parents in keeping their children from watching various shows. This is one of the primary points consistently made by those who defend the use of violence and blood on television. They argue a simple, yet important point to those who would complain: “If you do not like it, then why would you watch it?” Ultimately the television executives have the freedom to put what they want on television, and more importantly, they have the duty to the public to produce shows that promote a real discussion about the problems faced by the nation. As long as violent crime rates are high in the United States, then one would be foolish to complain that television producers are going too far. In their art and in their craft, they are simply telling a story that plays out on American streets each day. Consumers have the ability to choose whether they will view or accept that content, and they have the resources to insulate themselves from the content if they feel that this is absolutely necessary (Blevins, 2011).

Blood on television might be a problem to some, but as television executives note, they are not going overboard. Movies tend to do just that, but on television, the blood, gore, and violence always serves the purpose of telling the story in a more meaningful and realistic way. This is why television producers must be given the right to continue producing content as they see fit. When consumers have the ability to choose, they should have no legitimate complaint about the ways in which some television producers depict the realities of a dangerous, violent world.