Universal Studios Equation

Universal Studios Advisory Board Recommendations for the pursuit of the production of programming in partnership with WWE

Recently, we at Universal Studios have been approached by Mattel Toys to begin working on the production of a children’s program with the intent of marketing its World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) action figures to children for their economic gain. While there may also be the opportunity for monetary gain for Universal Studios in such production, there are several legal, ethical, and political factors that must be taken into consideration. In addition, there have been several issues raised by Action for Children’s Television (ACT) in the past. Actions taken by this group have been successful in halting such productions, with substantial resources being lost in such proceedings. It is the general consensus of the advisory
board for the cartoon division that production of such a program would not be in the best interest of the company or the station owners that might choose to air such programs.
We will first approach the legal theories of liability that show the potential complications of producing such a program after which point we will include minimum recommendations to promote legal security if productions were to occur. Several legal theories of liability are available that, through apprehensive anticipation, outline the complications that the organization may encounter if production of a WWE cartoon aimed towards children were to go into production. The broadest of theses is mere negligence. Negligence is defined as careless conduct, or actions done, without thinking through the consequences (Jennings, 2011, pg. 287). To prove a negligent infraction, the courts must establish that a “reasonable person” would not have engaged in such actions/behaviors. Given that there is a lack of children’s programming that contains such violent themes, it is our opinion that this would become a major complication for the organization regarding such
programming. Additionally, the cognitive development of children may not be adequate to differentiate between acted physical harm and actual physical harm. By promoting such programming to children we are acting negligently in our assumptions that they will know the difference and will not repeat such acted physical harm in an actual capacity. We do not find that contributory negligence, defined as negligence by the plaintiff that is part of the cause of an accident/occurrence, would be sufficient protection for such productions given the mental capacity of aimed audience (Jennings, 2011, pg. 308). Yet another concern that must be addressed regarding the production of such a program is the legal theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This theory occurs when an actor goes beyond all bounds of decency and results in emotional distress in the harmed individual (Jennings, 2011, pg. 296.) Given the fragile state of a child’s mental and behavioral development, it is our concern that suits could be pursued on this basis. As the producers of children’s programming, it is our duty to consider the impact that the programs we pursue in production not have such content that could cause emotional/behavioral consequences that we would not promote as “reasonable actors”. In addition to our legal responsibilities, it is also our ethical responsibility to, at a minimum, not promote or inflict any harm to our viewers. It is our earnest opinion that the production of such a program does not promote that we have our followers’ best interests at hand. It is highly likely that ACT will quickly spring into action in its attempts to halt production, and our ethical character will become under scrutiny. It is their concern that children do not have the comprehensive ability to truly understand that some actions or moves completed by the WWE can substantially harm another temporarily or permanently. Children do not understand acting versus intentional display of entertainment, and are influenced by their visual interpretation of the actions of others. It is thus our responsibility in producing programming aimed at children that we behave as responsible actors by selectively choosing programming that promotes commonly encouraged values and behaviors. It is not a fact that we will be prosecuted based on the legal theories presented, but the reputation of the studio would be in serious jeopardy if such suits were to be pursued. While there may be an economic gain to be achieved through producing such a program, the overall negative effects will most likely not prove this to be a financially sound trade-off.
These are concerns for not only Universal Studios, but the station owners that would choose to air such programming as well. Some station owners may choose to air the program, but others may not have a choice as they may be under contract with the network to air the program. Because it is their ultimate decision in which programs they choose to air, they carry the same responsibilities to the given theories of legal liability as we, the producers, would. Support for such programming may also be difficult to establish given such factors of legal and ethical liability and responsibility.
Though we feel that we have presented enough evidence to prove that producing such a program would have an overall negative impact, we have also compiled a minimum requirement of legal and ethical responsibility that we feel must be met if the studio were to pursue production of such programming. First and foremost is the development of an all-encompassing disclaimer that would warn of the graphic and violent nature of the show, and requesting parental discretion. This serves to cover our limits of legal liability according to the theory of assumed risk. This theory holds that as the defendants of possible cases, we at a minimum be able to prove that the plaintiff knew of the potential risk of injury in the conduct that he/she undertook but decided to proceed in acting despite this (Jennings, 2011, pg. 309.) By placing the final responsibility on the parents for their children’s viewing of the program, we at least minimize the responsibility that we carry in producing such a program. Below we have proposed such a disclaimer:
“Warning: Be advised that this program contains adult situations and violence. No one was actually injured in the production of this program.Do not try this at home- all sequences enacted were under the supervision of professionally trained actors. Scenes depicted in the program are not necessarily real. Performing acts from this program may result in serious bodily injury to both yourself and others. Parental discretion is advised. Some children may express violent tendencies while watching this program or for periods after the program, parental discretion is advised. Opinions and content of program do not necessarily reflect those of this station.”
This is a minimum disclaimer, and may need to be adjusted upon evaluating the actual content of the program. Additionally, we find it necessary to include a rating such as TV 14 or TV Y7, again depending on actual content, to give parents a better understanding of the appropriateness of the content for their children. At this time, through much research, discussion, and consideration, the advisory board recommends not to proceed with such programming. When weighing the strengths and weaknesses of this proposal, we identify multiple potential negative implications of producing such programming. Regardless of legal disclaimers incorporated into the show, the programming content will pose an ongoing legal liability. Creation of such a show can be legally interpreted as condoning unethical actions. We desire to maintain a positively optimal business image in our selection of program production, particularly when the target demographic includes children, the minds of our future. Thank you for your time and consideration.

.