From crime on the streets to crime on the screen, violence is attacking the American social fabric. And as our society searches for answers, TV programming is coming under fire.

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno recently launched a personal crusade to curb -- if not destroy -- violence on television.

"As attorney general, I am dedicated to fighting violence wherever it is found: in the streets, in our neighborhoods, in our schools and in our homes," Reno said in an Oct. 20 speech to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Reno cited a Journal of the American Medical Association study on TV violence, noting that by the time a child reaches age 18, he or she has watched 200,000 acts of violence and 40,000 murders on television.

"Any parent will tell you how their children will mimic what they see everywhere -- including what they see on television," Reno said. "Studies show children literally acting out and imitating what they watch."

But Marty Ostrow, vice president and general manager of local affiliates WWCP-TV (TCI channel 8) and WATM-TV 23 (TCI channel 5), questioned why television has become a target for criticism.

"Why do we always, as a society, look outside ourselves for problems?" Ostrow asked. "We blame drugs, but does the coke fly into the guy's nose? Recently a guy was killed by a falling branch. What are we supposed to do, outlaw trees?"

Sandra Ellis, assistant professor of journalism, also believes television is singled out for undue criticism. Television should not be the only thing to blame, she said.

"There are a lot of problems we are not addressing," Ellis said. "People blame TV first . . . but there are no easy answers."

She later added that public outrage has typically centered on obscene language and sexual situations -- not about people being killed.

"My personal opinion is that there is entirely too much violence on television," Ellis said. "The public is appalled when people show an actor's bare butt. This just shows they're more concerned with language and sexual content."

In an attempt to tune out, turn off and unplug television violence, Reno proposed parental supervision as "the front line of defense," but said that is only a "naive solution." Network self-regulation is the next step, she added.

Television networks should re-examine what programs they buy and when they air them, Reno said. If self-regulation does not occur, Reno said government intervention is the next step.

And that may be plausible because broadcast television traditionally receives the least degree of First Amendment protection in U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding censorship, Reno said. But she added that she is a strong defender of the First Amendment.

"Despite popular support for action to curb television violence, I believe that government intervention is neither the best option nor the first we should try," she said.

Although Reno's call for self-regulation has certain advantages, Ellis said she is not in favor of active government regulation. Parents -- not the government -- should use the remote control if they are concerned about violence, she said.

The responsibility of controlling violence on television should have little to do with the government, agreed Lowell Sollenberger, WTAJ-TV (TCI channel 10) program director.

"Broadcasters have a responsibility to present programming that is both educational and responsible for children," Sollenberger said. "Parents are responsible to seek out programming that is suitable. The (Federal Communications Commission) does a reasonable job in monitoring what broadcasters are providing. If the FCC, broadcasters and parents do their job, further government intervention is probably overkill."

When dealing with government regulation of television, the question of how much violence is too much often arises.

One show currently under attack is ABC-TV's prime-time drama "NYPD Blue." The show has been under attack for its explicit displays of violence and sexual content. Ostrow confessed to receiving more than 3,000 letters condemning the show, but added that he does not see the show as particularly violent.

"(The complaints were received) before it even aired," he said. "After the show's debut, we got maybe two phone calls."

Ostrow also questioned the definition of violence.

"We really don't have anything violent on the air," he said. "On the weekend we show 'Kung-Fu,' but that's not really violent. The guys are kicking nothing."

And television reflects its times, he added.

" 'The Mod Squad' or 'The Brady Bunch' would not survive today -- they are not conducive to our time," he said. "We live in a violent time and TV reflects that."

Sollenberger suggested that public reaction to violence has been less than Reno would like people to believe.

"There hasn't been a large outcry regarding violence," he said. "You'll always receive calls and letters about most programs which are mostly complaints, but that can't give you a good idea on how the rest of the audience feels."

But a definite fascination with violence in society does exist, Ellis said.

"It's called 'morbid curiosity,' " she said. "People just find violence irresistible to watch."