This paper examines the values, beliefs, and assumptions about the way the world works which are reflected in the debate about television violence and what, if anything, should be done about it. The author posits that television violence will play a central role in the reorganization of post-Cold War political beliefs because it: is a public debate; dovetails with public concerns about crime; pits freedom of speech, privacy, and property rights against one another; and is a debate which is both simple and sophisticated. The author reminds the reader that concerns about the interest in television violence was preceded by interest in violence in movies, radio, newspapers, comic books, pulp fiction, and novels, indicating that this chronic concern with the perceived destructive qualities of popular culture is somewhat independent of actual social conditions. The author cites and discusses two books about television titled Remote Control, one by Mankiewicz and Swerdlow published in 1978, and the other, edited by Seiter, Borchers, Kreutzner, and Warth, published in 1989, to illustrate the divergence in the frameworks which can be used to analyze television content. The frameworks presented are, respectively, the "hypodermic needle" model and the active audience approach. Also included in his discussion are a summary of the three stages of post-World War Two study of the media and the ideological response to television violence. The author concludes by asking if sex and violence are controlled on television, what will replace them? Can narrative be substituted successfully for nastiness on television? The answers to these as well as other questions regarding sex and violence as depicted on television depend largely on one's ideological viewpoint. 16 references, 37 footnotes